Analysis of Factors Influencing the Choice between Ownership and Sharing: Qualitative and Quantitative Survey Results on Car Sharing Service Users Conducted in Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Abstract has inappropriate structure. I suggest to answer the following aspects: - general context - novelty of the work - methodology used (describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied) - main results and related interpretations. 2. The authors should explain more clearly the importance and relevance of his research and anticipate the potential benefits of this research. 3. There is a lack of deeper theoretical substantiation. 4. It is not clear what the purpose of this study is and what methods were used to perform the scientific analysis. 5. The discussion section is weak. No real contribution emerges from this section that reads mostly as a summary of things already discussed in previous sections or elements from the literature. 6. The article lacks deeper discussions and insights in analyzing the problems. 7. The list of literature should be supplemented with new sources.
Good luck withe the improvements
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I read your paper with great interest. I liked the methodological structure with the mixed methods approach. I also think that the topic is very relevant and appropriate for the journal. However, regarding the methodological implementation, I see some problems, especially in Study II. You should address these before publication.
In my opinion, the introductory section could have been shorter focusing more on the research question. However, the more detailed introduction is also fine, especially since a good research overview is given. I also noticed that current literature was included and the reference to the research debate was clearly elaborated.
Study I: The qualitative study is based on group interviews with 16 participants. The selection of participants was made transparent and justified in a way that is comprehensible to the reader. The condensation of the information and the coding are also plausible. I also liked Figure 1.
Study II: The methodological structure of the study is not transparent. The description is very short and does not contain enough information about the design and purpose of the study. Please either attach the questionnaire or briefly explain how the questionnaire was designed. In addition, the results section does not make clear how the hypotheses were empirically tested. What specific testing procedure was used? Simply stating the p-value is not sufficient to understand your results. When testing hypothesis 3, I have the impression that it was accepted based on descriptive evidence alone. Here, the authors need to improve the methodological approach and either use statistical testing procedures or clearly communicate that it is only descriptive evidence. This could also be discussed in the limitations section.
Moderation analysis: The regression model is very simple. No control variables are included in the model. Certainly, the survey asked about demographic variables that could have been usefully included as control variables. I also miss the usual descriptive statistics and correlations for a regression. A few words about the goodness of fit of the regression models would also be useful. I would also be interested in the diagnostic statistics of the regression.
I liked the discussion of the results and the visualization of the moderation effect. I have no critical comments on this. Only the empirical limitations should be explained in more detail.
I was not able to download the supplementary materials provided (the link does not work). It is possible that some of the information I missed in the review has been summarized here. If so, my comments above are meaningless.
Thank you again for your work. I look forward to the revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
· The article respects the rigors a scientific paper must do it .
· This is a topical issue.
· A professional analysis, correlated with the results of the calculation and with the representations from well done tables and graphs,.
· The bibliographical list is a bit too short. Adding new titles would imply changing the structure of the article and I do not have this claim, because in the current format the topic is presented with relevant terms.
According with the authors, the findings in this paper are the result of analyzing only survey data on CSS users or those who have used the service, but the subject is topical issue regarding consumer behavior perspective on the conditions classifying new consumption modes other than ownership that influence .
- Evidence of originality 96,92% unique: (p 01 89% unique; p 02 90% unique; p 03 100% unique; p 04 100% unique; p 05 100% unique; p 06 100% unique; p 07 100% unique; p 08 100% unique; p 09 100% unique; p 10 100 % unique; p 11 95% unique; p 12 100% unique; p 13 100% unique; p 14 83% unique; References p15n/a .This is according with Plagiarism checker: (https://searchenginereports.net/ro/plagiarism-checker)
Connectedness of thinking and coherence of ideas
This is a welcome research paper regarding consumer behavior perspective on the conditions classifying new consumption modes other than ownership that influence the growth of the sharing economy. The authors formulated hypotheses and these hypotheses were verified by analyzing the results of a quantitative&qualitative surveys regarding the dimensions that classify the characteristics of consumers who choose to use CSS .
The Strengths and Opportunities (S&O )points of the article
The article respects the rigors that a scientific paper must do it.
This is topical issue.
A professional analysis, correlated with the results of the calculation and with the representations from well done tables, is made by the authors.
The authors structured the article as follows:
Abstract - it is a self-contained unit capable of being understood without the benefit of the others chapters.
Introduction - Section 1 well provides the background information necessary to understand the topic.
Materials and Methods - Section 2 Study 1 was a qualitative one based on group interviews with CSS users or those who had used CSS. They used the theories-in-use (TIU) as their research method, which has been proposed as one way to build marketing theories for new phenomena.
Study 2 was a survey-based quantitative study of those who were registered or had used CSS. Since the questions in this survey included questions related to dimensions of the factors that determine the selection or continued use of CSS, as hypothesized in Study 1, the authors used existing survey data for analysis as Study 2 to make effective use of the limited research budget.
The studies are systematic and well done.
Results - Section 3
3.1. Study 1 3.1.1. Qualitative Interviews Analysis 3.1.2. Interpretation
The authors used KH Coder (3.Beta.04b) to perform an exploratory analysis of the transcripts of the aforementioned group interviews (First Cycle coding). Well done and represented in the Table 3 and the Figure 1. These interpretations are hypotheses derived from the interview transcripts in an exploratory manner regarding the factors that govern the choice of CSS.
3.2. Study 2 3.2.1. Quantitative Survey Analysis 3.2.2. Findings
In the following Study 2, the authors attempted to test and substantiate the hypotheses by analyzing the results of previous survey of CSS users or those who have used CSS.
The results of the cross-analysis of 773 of the 15,913 monitors registered with CSS were statistically significant (p < 0.001).
Four working hypotheses were formulated. To test Hypothesis 4 (”CSS users who own their own cars will increase their intention to continue using CSS when they place a higher value on status.”), a regression analysis was conducted : the presence of a private car as the independent variable (X), intention to continue using CSS as the dependent variable (Y), importance of status as the moderating variable (W), and need matching as the covariate (C). Model 1 of SPSS PROCESS version 4.1 (Hayes 2022) was used for the analysis. This model contains the OLS regression coefficients along with their standard errors, t- and p-values, and 95% confidence intervals .
Discussion - Section 4
The findings in this paper are the result of analyzing only survey data on CSS users or those who have used the service and is not necessarily applicable to other sharing services in the same way.
Therefore, the authors cannot overlook these factors, which have been proposed as regulating the choice and continued use of CSS.
Conclusions - Section 5 summarizes the study.
According the authors and I fully agree, consumers must first be motivated by convenience to participate in the sharing economy. Thus, consumers are not using CSS with the intention of contributing to environmental issues. However, categorizing and understanding the factors that influence the decision to choose or continue to use CSS can lead to more resource sharing and, consequently, to the promotion of “Use-oriented” and “Results-oriented” PSS.
The findings in this paper are the result of analyzing only survey data on CSS users or those who have used the service, but the subject is topical issue regarding consumer behavior perspective on the conditions classifying new consumption modes other than ownership that influence.
Weaknesses and Threats (W&T) points of the article
- W&T
Even if the list of bibliographic material is undersized (29 works) I will not complain about this.
According with the authors, the findings in this paper are the result of analyzing only survey data on CSS users or those who have used the service, but the subject is topical issue regarding consumer behavior perspective on the conditions classifying new consumption modes other than ownership that influence .
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I evaluate this manuscript quite highly. It has a good structure and is well argued. The topic is worthwhile, actual, and interesting. The research is clear and correctly presented. The theses have been proven.
I feel a little unsatisfied with the lack of a broader context of research. These were conducted in Japan and this is enough for a single paper, but should be a little more explained in the specific parts of the paper (including the title). I call for some addition in the introduction, discussion, and conclusions, as well as in the abstract. I propose to add in the title the location. The new, developed version of the title will be:
“Analysis of Factors Influencing the Choice between Ownership and Sharing: Qualitative and Quantitative Survey Results on Car Sharing Service Users conducted in Japan”.
I also request some comparison with similar studies conducted in other countries (that will enhance the basis of the references too).
At last, a small remark: the supplementary material gives only small additions to table 4. I think it could be presented in the main part of the paper direct by the table.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments in Round 1. I and my co-author Shoji Yamamoto are deeply grateful for your acceptance in Round 2. We will make use of the valuable suggestions you gave us in Round 1 and the items for improvement you reported in Round 2 in future papers. Thank you very much again.
Yours sincerely,
Tamao Miura
University of Marketing and Distribution Sciences
