Research on the Connotation and Dimension of Consumers’ Quantified-Self Consciousness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should have a consistent way of writing quantified self, in some instances it is hyphenated and in others it is not.
In line 48 where the authors talk about what previous studies have done in the field of quantified self, this would have been a good time to include some of these studies. This would enrich the background and introduce the readers to some of the studies where the current study draws its inspirations from.
What criteria were used to select the 18 subjects (participants) for the interview? This need to clearly stated. The authors mentioned students as participants to include masters and doctors; did you mean doctoral students or medical doctors? When you mention masters and doctors, the closest correlation should be doctoral students. If you mean medical doctors, what were the criteria in including medical doctors? Why not engineers, artists or members of other professions? The method of selecting participants needs to be clearly explained to remove bias in participant selection from the study. Using flawed participant selection can invalidate the entire study results. Also, from the 18 participants, 8 were from Nanchang one of the 9 cities of the research, why did Nanchang get such a high percentage of the participants compared to the other cities? What criterion was used in allocating participants for each city selected? What is the justification for selecting the cities? These need to be explained in the methodology.
It was also enrich the study to include references to support the section on step-by-step coding, this would show support for the procedures the authors adopted in extracting responses and the coding process used in the study.
The discussion should also bring in more citations from the literature to support or negate the findings of the research.
After all the corrections have been done, the study will also benefit from an advanced proofreading and editing of the text from a professional English language editing expert to correct some ungrammatical sentences and improve the logical flow of thought in the article.
Author Response
The thesis has been edited. Details are in the file. Revisions are indicated in red text in the paper. thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents very topical issues. After: I explain in detail- interpretation, explaining, explain is Quantified.
In the empirical part, I believe that research triangulation can be performed. Quantitative research based on a questionnaire and qualitative research based on a structured website. Do the analysis of the collected results I suggest such a program as "Maxqda".
Author Response
The thesis has been edited. Details are in the file. Revisions are indicated in red text in the paper. thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe that the study presents an innovative view of a modern and current-day concept; although it is a well researched and studied concept, on which there is a lot of published literature.
The bibliographical citations both within and outside the text should be reviewed. Slight corrections in English are also recommended.
Author Response
The thesis has been edited. Details are in the file. Revisions are indicated in red text in the paper. thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have substantially improved the article based on the recommended suggestions; however, if they still focus a little more to create strong interest and motivation for international readers and citations.
