Performance Evaluation of Green Furniture Brands in the Marketing 4.0 Period: An Integrated MCDM Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Name of the Paper: Performance Evaluation of Green Furniture Brands in the Marketing 4.0 Period: An Integrated MCDM Approach

The paper develops a framework that enables green marketing practices to regulate the performance evaluation criteria (GFBPC) of consumers and green furniture brands in the marketing 4.0 period and to prioritize green furniture brands. Later on, the authors use AHP-TOPSIS to rank the brand.

General Observation:

1)      Please refer to “As a result, green marketing strategies have an affirmative and positive effect on brand performance (Sohail, 2017; Peiró-Signes et al., 2014; Susskind, 2014; Singal, 2014; Ng et al., 2013; Namkung & Jang, 2013).” Sohail, 2017 and Ng et al., 2013 are not included in the reference. The other references are not exploring green marketing strategies or brand performance.

2)      Please refer to “To reach accurate results, by accepting that our expert decision-making group, consisting of academicians who are experts in the field of brand performance and green marketing,”

 Since Marketing 4.0 is a marketing approach that combines online and offline interaction between companies and customers. The companies dealing with the customer have changed the Marketing 4.0 approach, how this is ensured without involving DM in an expert DM group.

3)      Since all brands go through the 4P process Table 1. 4P processes of green furniture brands in the Marketing 4.0 Period become redundant.

4)      Abbreviations like RFID, and GPS need to be expanded

5)      Please refer to “We discovered that they have not gotten used to green marketing strategies yet, ' and  “Table 1 also uses GPS technology and monitors the location of the products and track their vehicles with satellite systems” contradicting the Marketing 4.0 awareness.

6)      Figure 1. The Traditional Distribution Channel of Brands in the Turkey Furniture Industry. Needs redrawing to avoid boundary overlapping with text.

7)      Authors need to exchange some information about Brand X, Brand Y, and Brand Z to convince readers the obtained result of Brand Y is genuine and top on the list.

8)      How the decision-aggregation of 19 DMs is carried out is unclear.

9)      There is a significant difference between two expert group members 19 and 4 in AHP and TOPSIS respectively, authors may provide some clarification.

10)  Table 3. Pair-wise Comparison Matrix of Nine Dimensions doesn’t show any sign of Pair-wise Comparison Matrix aggregation.

11)  Table 6. Decision matrix for TOPSIS. It shows C1 to C9 whereas Table 7. Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix shows C1 to C8 only.

12)  Graphical representation of sensitivity analysis for TOPSIS Results would be adding value to this research.

13)  How TOPSIS results are synthesized is unclear.

14)  The paper needs careful editing

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission. With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions.  The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very poorly prepared, the drawings are cut off, illegible, as if they were stuck together from various elements. Literature analysis carried out very lacoon with no specific purpose or research gap. There is no valid reason for the adopted methodology. The results are described in a rather intricate way as if the authors themselves did not know what kind of research they were carrying out. No discussion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission. With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions.  The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for your interested paper. But at the first , the style of the paper is not suit for current journal. Secondly, Even their some Big Figures in the manuscript but they need to be revised as Figure3 is just showing part of it. Thirdly, in the section of Data Collection, the Reliability and validity of the questionnaire are not presented in the paper, and how many respondents are participant in this survey? By the way, the reasons that why“Turkey” and the “furniture brands” are selected in this study should be presented. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission. With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions.  The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have carried out modification to some extent, but still lacks the following points:

(6) Figure 1 looks very heavy, however, some information could be transferred to the main text. Further, needs to select a good color combination 

(8)How the decision-aggregation of 19 DMs is carried out is unclear  and

(13)How TOPSIS results are synthesized is unclear.

Authors need to provide an aggregation table for both AHP and TOPSIS to justify they have considered all 19 DMs' opinions in their calculations. At present, it does not look so. Further, the aggregation steps are not represented in the methodological steps of  AHP and TOPSIS, further, they need to provide mathematical equations as well.

(14) Figure 3. A schematic framework of the methods used in the research needs improvement. Some overlap is found in the figure.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission.  With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions.  The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

corrected according to comments

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission.  

Reviewer 3 Report

As authors mentioned in the paper, only a few furniture brands are producing green furniture in Turkey and no brand with any green marketing strategies. Thus I suggest authors should think more Real Managerial Implications of this research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission.  With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions.  The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Name of the Paper: Performance Evaluation of Green Furniture Brands in the Marketing 4.0 Period: An Integrated MCDM Approach

 

Thank you for an improved diagram and an amended version. The paper has been improved, but still has a flaw in its research methodology. The authors provided a descriptive explanation, but could not implement it mathematically in AHP and TOPSIS.

(a)How the decision-aggregation of 19 DMs is carried out is unclear.

(b)How TOPSIS results are synthesized is unclear.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission.  With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions.  The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for your paper but it still need be revised.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we greatly appreciate your review of this submission.  With the aim of improving the manuscript, we have considered all your suggestions and made all suggested revisions.  The revisions can be found in the revised manuscript as we used the track changes option and our response to each of your comments is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx