Building Health and Wellness Service Experience Extension: A Case Study of Bangkok, Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors this is a good piece of work. I appreciated the use of statistical analysis and correct definition of testing approaches. However, the redundancy of words in the sentences description is sometimes burnensome and it makes reading not very easy. the overall publication is an interesting view on the argument. Please, consider to revise the paper as suggested in the attached doc file including minor revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

First of all, we truly appreciate your time and effort to review our study and provide noteworthy feedback. We have learned a lot from all your guidance and truly appreciate them. In addition, we have corrected and revised additional points indicated by the reviewers. We truly hope that our corrections will meet your required standard. Please see the summary of our responses below.

Response to reviewers

We highlighted the changes in the manuscript by red coloured text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors should attend to the following comments

1. The topic ought to be reworked so that it is consistent with the case study in which the investigation is taking place.

2. There are no recommendations included in the abstract.

3. The other significant problem is the lack of serious explanation of ethical clearance; you should clarify whether or not the study was granted ethical clearance, and the questions regarding consent of participants require clarification.

4. Some of your statements needs to be revised like :The industry is also becoming increasingly competitive, and customers are becoming more demanding and discerning when selecting wellness services and assessing their experience. Does this apply across the globe or in Thailand?

5. The other problem is with your conclusion; in my opinion, it could be more specific. Objective, methodology, results , conclusion and recommendation. Some of the information you provided ought to be up for debate in the discussion section.

6. In your results you should also try to do a comparison with previous research that was done.A detailed comparison of the results of your research with the existing body of literature may also provide you with new insights into the research issue. These new insights may provide prospective direction for any future investigations on the subject matter. 

7. An explanation of the Health and Wellness Service that Thailand offers in a brief can be beneficial for readers.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

First of all, we truly appreciate your time and effort to review our study and provide noteworthy feedback. We have learned a lot from all your guidance and truly appreciate them. In addition, we have corrected and revised additional points indicated by the reviewers. We truly hope that our corrections will meet your required standard. Please see the summary of our responses below.

Response to reviewers

We highlighted the changes in the manuscript by red coloured text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for the work. The point of view is original and its reading has been interesting.

Having said that, I would also like to make a few comments.

The introduction, although it is explanatory of the work that follows, in my opinion is difficult to follow and does not finish defining the necessary concepts. The entire document revolves around "health and welfare services" but at no time are they defined in any way. The heterogeneity of this type of services means that, from my point of view, grouping them in a generalized way makes their study complicated.

The different hypotheses raised may be adequate, but when we talk about different grouped services (especially without knowing what they are) they may not be the most appropriate for the study.

Regarding the methodology section, the approach is interesting, but I miss what kind of survey, with what kind of questions and what kind of adaptation has been made. The authors comment in the study that the questions have been obtained from the literature and have been adapted, but do not appear anywhere.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

First of all, we truly appreciate your time and effort to review our study and provide noteworthy feedback. We have learned a lot from all your guidance and truly appreciate them. In addition, we have corrected and revised additional points indicated by the reviewers. We truly hope that our corrections will meet your required standard. Please see the summary of our responses below.

Response to reviewers

We highlighted the changes in the manuscript by red coloured text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The research has merit, but there is a need to improve some issues

1. There are two items, which FL is lower than 0.7. In the paper, you cited Hair et al., 2017,  however, in references you cite it, Hair et al., 2010.

2. Please, review the literature citations, there are huge mistakes such as in line 170 or line 486.

3. Introduction, better support that research academy needs your research. As e.g. "very little is known about the role customer engagement plays in experience extension and how it interacts with created experience extension determinants". The paper of Dong et al,. (2013) does not state so exactly.

4. Indirect effect, please better explanation about. The reader is lost when understanding all the indirect. As e.g. lines 454 to 469.  Indirect effect: CE - SE- TRUST, then CE-SE-EX or CE-SE-QL- EX?. Please, provide clear information about this issue.

5. Please review the English way of written, whether is UK spelling or US spelling but not both as e.g. Analysed and then you use behavioral. One UK the other one USA.

6. Second-order: Cronbach's alpha is 0.55, however,the minimum requirement of Cronbach’s a coefficient is 0.7 (Hair et al., 1998). Could you explain this issue? CR is 0.60, however, the value should be 0.70  (Hair et al., 2019). Could you explain this issue?

 

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

First of all, we truly appreciate your time and effort to review our study and provide noteworthy feedback. We have learned a lot from all your guidance and truly appreciate them. In addition, we have corrected and revised additional points indicated by the reviewers. We truly hope that our corrections will meet your required standard. Please see the summary of our responses below.

Response to reviewers

We highlighted the changes in the manuscript by red coloured text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the Comments were addressed

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

First of all, we truly appreciate your time and effort to review our study and provide noteworthy feedback. We have learned a lot from all your guidance and truly appreciate them. 

Best Regards, 

Supawat

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear colleagues, I appreciate your effort to make the suggested changes and I would like to tell you about a couple of small things:

Point two and point three of my previous comments have not been completely answered.

Point two, I would have liked the hypotheses to be more related to the type of service provided. Although considering the first comment I made to you, you have defined the type of experiences you refer to as "health and wellness services", I still think that with such different experiences it may be difficult to study them.

Regarding point three, although they have put in more detail the sources from which they have been taken, I miss, perhaps as complementary material, the surveys used.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

First of all, we truly appreciate your time and effort to review our study and provide noteworthy feedback. We have learned a lot from all your guidance and truly appreciate them. We truly hope that our corrections will meet your required standard. All responses are highlighted in the red colour.

Response to reviewer:

We have provided more information which was addressed point two. In this study, we focused on wellness spa and massage services that represent  health and wellness services. (Please see the hypothesis section and the red colour).

In term of point three, the questionnaire used in collecting the data for the present research are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. 

Best Regards,

Supawat

Reviewer 4 Report

The article has improved in quality and readiness.

However, there are some issues still to be addressed: citations are not reviewed, and there are some missing data. Even if you stated in the letter of reviewers response: "We have carefully checked all reference and adjusted the reference which match the journal style through the document."

1.  e.g. 62, line 798, missing volume and missing pages.

2. Citation 37 in line 747, meaning inside of 271?

3. Be consistent, if you include DOI which is highly recommended in this journal, included in all of them. Missing DOI throughout.

4. Bad citation of DOI, line 683 compared to line 674 or 676 or 807

5. 801 line, why bigger that the rest?

 

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

First of all, we truly appreciate your time and effort to review our study and provide noteworthy feedback. We have learned a lot from all your guidance and truly appreciate them. We truly hope that our corrections will meet your required standard. All responses are highlighted in the red colour. 

Response to reviewer:

we have adjusted all reference which were consistent with the format of the journal (Please see the red colour). 

Consistent with the previous paper's publication in sustainability. We considered to remove DOI in all references' lists.

According to Citation 37 in line 747, meaning inside of line 128-131. 

 

Best Regards, 

Supawat