Consumers’ Continuous Use Intention of O2O E-Commerce Platform on Community: A Value Co-Creation Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article" Research on Consumer Continuance Intention of O2O E-commerce Platform in Chinese Communities- Based on Co-creation Value Perspective". The article presents an interesting insight into consumers' willingness to use community O2O e-commerce. However, I consider it has to be improved in several aspects. Then here are my arguments:
Abstract
It seems to be that the objective of the article is " to build a theoretical model of consumers' willingness to continue using of community O2O e-commerce platform and conducts an empirical test, based on the value co-creation perspective and TAM-TPB theory" (lines 10-13).
Could you please clarify this objective? I understand the first part of this, that is to say, to build a theoretical model, although concerning "... conduct an empirical test..." let me suggest that it should be more concise since in many researchers an empirical test has been carried out as methodological part in order to achieve one or several objectives. In this case, which is the objective of the empirical test you have mentioned? Maybe it refers to the mentioned in lines 67-70.
Methodology
It is mentioned in lines 243-244 that the questionnaire was designed mainly based on conducting in-depth community interviews (among other resources). Did you do the interviews? If so, please explain how you carried out those interviews and their results.
In the data collection section, could you please provide the technical specifications of the sample: the period of analysis, is it a probability sampling? in this case which is the sampling error and sampling techniques. What resource have you used for the questionnaire online? Moreover, indicate more precisely the geographical area selected for the research.
Conclusion and discussion section
In the conclusion and discussion section, it is convenient to acknowledge the limitations of your research and address alternative explanations for the results. Discuss the generalizability, or external validity, of the findings. This critical analysis must consider the differences between the target population and the accessed sample. Likewise, it is convenient to compare and discuss the results with other investigations. You can consult the following study:
Ebrahimi, P., Hamza, K. A., Gorgenyi-Hegyes, E., Zarea, H., & Fekete-Farkas, M. (2021). Consumer knowledge sharing behavior and consumer purchase behavior: Evidence from E-commerce and online retail in hungary. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(18), 10375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810375
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studies comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as followings:
Abstract
It seems to be that the objective of the article is " to build a theoretical model of consumers' willingness to continue using of community O2O e-commerce platform and conducts an empirical test, based on the 10 value co-creation perspective and TAM-TPB theory" (lines 10-13). Could you please clarify this objective? I understand the first part of this, that is to say, to build a theoretical model, although concerning "... conduct an empirical test..." let me suggest that it should be more concise since in many researchers an empirical test has been carried out as methodological part in order to achieve one or several objectives. In this case, which is the objective of the empirical test you have mentioned? Maybe it refers to the mentioned in lines 67-70.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the abstract and introduction part.
Methodology
It is mentioned in lines 243-244 that the questionnaire was designed mainly based on conducting in-depth community interviews (among other resources). Did you do the interviews? If so, please explain how you carried out those interviews and their results. In the data collection section, could you please provide the technical specifications of the sample: the period of analysis, is it a probability sampling? in this case which is the sampling error and sampling techniques. What resource have you used for the questionnaire online? Moreover, indicate more precisely the geographical area selected for the research.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Materials and Methods part. We add the questionnaire statistics in the appendix.
Conclusion and discussion section
In the conclusion and discussion section, it is convenient to acknowledge the limitations of your research and address alternative explanations for the results. Discuss the generalizability, or external validity, of the findings. This critical analysis must consider the differences between the target population and the accessed sample. Likewise, it is convenient to compare and discuss the results with other investigations. You can consult the following study.
Ebrahimi, P., Hamza, K. A., Gorgenyi-Hegyes, E., Zarea, H., & Fekete-Farkas, M. (2021).
Consumer knowledge sharing behavior and consumer purchase behavior: Evidence from E-commerce and online retail in hungary. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(18), 10375.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810375.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Conclusion and Implications part, and we add the Limitations and Future Research part.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript, "Research on Consumer Continuance Intention of O2O E-commerce Platform in Chinese Communities-Based on Co-creation Value Perspective," attempts to investigate an emerging phenomenon that has recently attracted a large number of customers. It has the potential to contribute significantly to the body of literature in this field. However, there are a few major points that the authors must consider before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. My comments and suggestions are as follows:
General Comment
The authors must explain the history, context, and significance of community e-commerce platforms, as well as provide examples such as PinDuoDuo. Please explain this new purchasing model in detail so that the readers understand it. Second, the article is poorly written, with only the literal translation from Chinese provided. There are far too many examples of incorrect terminology, grammatical and structural errors. Please revise your paper thoroughly and use standard terminology. You can read similar papers in the field while using only standard theoretical terms. Also, the title of the manuscript needs to be revised. My comments on the various sections of the manuscript are as follows:
Introduction
Define O2O e-commerce first, and define the abbreviation as well, as some readers may not be familiar with this term.
What does 'local living consumption' mean in lines 31-32?
Lines 34-36: Some O2O e-commerce categories are mentioned, such as group selection, flourishing selection, and orange heart selection, neighborhood pro, campus perfect, and so on. Have you translated these Chinese terms? You can use theoretical concepts found in literature or write the Chinese pinyin. You must explain it in any case.
Line 37: ‘can place order on the same line…’. I believe you translated directly from Chinese. Please use standard terminology.
Line 54: Is it Elaboration Likelihood Model? Please double check.
Line 55: It is the Theory of Planned Behavior, not the Theory of Planning Behavior.
Line 62-67: Because you are discussing the shortcomings of previous studies, some literature support is required. What studies are you referring to?
At the moment, the identification of research gaps at the end of this section is not very strong. Please cite additional previous studies in these domains before identifying research gaps and stating your objectives.
Theory and Hypothesis
Line 73-75: Please provide citations.
Line 78-79: Because you are discussing mobile apps, services, and consumer willingness to use them, please expand on this theme and cite recent literature. Consider the following recent research:
Gong, Xuan, Amar Razzaq, and Wei Wang. 2021. "More Haste, Less Speed: How Update Frequency of Mobile Apps Influences Consumer Interest" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 16, no. 7: 2922-2942. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070160
Line 79: “Fresh O2 provides consumers…” What is Fresh O2? Please revise this line.
Line 83: “…security indicators.” Are you talking about ‘trust’? This is yet another reason why you should revise your paper and use standard theoretical terms rather than literal translation.
Line 88: “Planned Behavior Theory (TPB)..” Please change it to Theory of Planned Behavior, i.e., the correct theoretical term.
Line 96: ‘….structural assurance from the society..’. What does it mean? Is it a standard terminology?
Line 98: Does CT stand for co-creation value? It does not look like so.
Different factors in Figure 1 are connected without indicating direction, making it unclear what affects what. Please use arrows to indicate relationship direction.
Section 2.2.5: This hypothesis' logic isn't very strong. Rather than just describing the theory, develop your hypothesis based on some evidence from the literature, such as why these variables are expected to have this kind of relationship (Line 191-201).
Section 2.2.5: Please do not use the term ‘intermediary’ and change it to ‘… plays mediating role’, ‘mediates the relationship between X and Y….’ and ‘mediating variable…’ etc.
Figure 2: It is demonstrated that platform behavior influences and is influenced by co-creation Behaviour, but this is not reflected in the hypotheses or Figure 1. So, either revise the hypothesis or this Figure.
Data Collection
Line 242 what does it mean by pure O2 scenarios?
Please revise this section to use the standard terminology. For example, Likerts’ Level 5 scale should be ‘five-point Likert scale.’
Please create a table in this section that includes the scales used as well as the citations.
What methodology was used to select the respondents, i.e., how were the respondents chosen? What was the procedure for collecting data both offline and online? What platform was used to collect the data from the internet? Which provinces are cities like Luoyang, Zhoukou, Yima, and others located in? Also, which ones are large, medium, and small cities?
Results
Line 261: It should be SPSS version 19, not spss19.
Line 290: Is it composite reliability? Or combination reliability?
Please correct and revise the wording of the scales provided in Table 2.
There is no discussion of the results in this section. Please explain the findings in light of previous research, including justifications and implications.
Conclusions
The title of this sections should Conclusions and Implications, not enlightenment.
The findings are discussed in this section, but they are not compared to other studies.
Section 5.2: Please change the heading title to ‘practical implications.’
Author Response
Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studies comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as followings:
General Comment
The authors must explain the history, context, and significance of community e-commerce platforms, as well as provide examples such as PinDuoDuo. Please explain this new purchasing model in detail so that the readers understand it. Second, the article is poorly written, with only the literal translation from Chinese provided. There are far too many examples of incorrect terminology, grammatical and structural errors. Please revise your paper thoroughly and use standard terminology. You can read similar papers in the field while using only standard theoretical terms. Also, the title of the manuscript needs to be revised.
Response: we agree with your comment. We explain the history, context, and significance of community e-commerce platforms. (Line 22-29). Second, we are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by a native English speaker, so we hope it can meet the journal’s standard.
Introduction
Define O2O e-commerce first, and define the abbreviation as well, as some readers may not be familiar with this term.
What does 'local living consumption' mean in lines 31-32?
Lines 34-36: Some O2O e-commerce categories are mentioned, such as group selection, flourishing selection, and orange heart selection, neighborhood pro, campus perfect, and so on. Have you translated these Chinese terms? You can use theoretical concepts found in literature or write the Chinese pinyin. You must explain it in any case.
Line 37: ‘can place order on the same line…’. I believe you translated directly from Chinese. Please use standard terminology.
Line 54: Is it Elaboration Likelihood Model? Please double check.
Line 55: It is the Theory of Planned Behavior, not the Theory of Planning Behavior.
Line 62-67: Because you are discussing the shortcomings of previous studies, some literature support is required. What studies are you referring to?
At the moment, the identification of research gaps at the end of this section is not very strong. Please cite additional previous studies in these domains before identifying research gaps and stating your objectives.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the introduction part.
Theory and Hypothesis
Line 73-75: Please provide citations.
Line 78-79: Because you are discussing mobile apps, services, and consumer willingness to use them, please expand on this theme and cite recent literature. Consider the following recent research:
Gong, Xuan, Amar Razzaq, and Wei Wang. 2021. "More Haste, Less Speed: How Update Frequency of Mobile Apps Influences Consumer Interest" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 16, no. 7: 2922-2942. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070160
Line 79: “Fresh O2 provides consumers…” What is Fresh O2? Please revise this line.
Line 83: “…security indicators.” Are you talking about ‘trust’? This is yet another reason why you should revise your paper and use standard theoretical terms rather than literal translation.
Line 88: “Planned Behavior Theory (TPB)..” Please change it to Theory of Planned Behavior, i.e., the correct theoretical term.
Line 96: ‘….structural assurance from the society..’. What does it mean? Is it a standard terminology?
Line 98: Does CT stand for co-creation value? It does not look like so.
Different factors in Figure 1 are connected without indicating direction, making it unclear what affects what. Please use arrows to indicate relationship direction.
Section 2.2.5: This hypothesis' logic isn't very strong. Rather than just describing the theory, develop your hypothesis based on some evidence from the literature, such as why these variables are expected to have this kind of relationship (Line 191-201).
Section 2.2.5: Please do not use the term ‘intermediary’ and change it to ‘… plays mediating role’, ‘mediates the relationship between X and Y….’ and ‘mediating variable…’ etc.
Figure 2: It is demonstrated that platform behavior influences and is influenced by co-creation Behaviour, but this is not reflected in the hypotheses or Figure 1. So, either revise the hypothesis or this Figure.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Theory and Hypothesis part.
Data Collection
Line 242 what does it mean by pure O2 scenarios?
Please revise this section to use the standard terminology. For example, Likerts’ Level 5 scale should be ‘five-point Likert scale.’
Please create a table in this section that includes the scales used as well as the citations.
What methodology was used to select the respondents, i.e., how were the respondents chosen? What was the procedure for collecting data both offline and online? What platform was used to collect the data from the internet? Which provinces are cities like Luoyang, Zhoukou, Yima, and others located in? Also, which ones are large, medium, and small cities?
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Materials and Methods part. We add the questionnaire statistics in the appendix.
Results
Line 261: It should be SPSS version 19, not spss19.
Line 290: Is it composite reliability? Or combination reliability?
Please correct and revise the wording of the scales provided in Table 2.
There is no discussion of the results in this section. Please explain the findings in light of previous research, including justifications and implications.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Results part. It is composite reliability.
Conclusions
The title of this sections should Conclusions and Implications, not enlightenment.
The findings are discussed in this section, but they are not compared to other studies.
Section 5.2: Please change the heading title to ‘practical implications.’
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Conclusion and Implications part, and we add the Limitations and Future Research part.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors propose a structural equation model of consumer behavior in O2O e-commerce.
My remarks are as follows:
In the abstract and “Introduction” sections, please highlight the motivation and novelty of the study. The research topic (community based O2O e-commerce) is relatively new and should be presented. In the end of “Introduction” section, please add a short description of the article’s structure.
The last part of “2.1. Theoretical Basis” section (l. 11-120) should be moved to the next section (2.2. Hypothesis). Please, add a short section summary.
Please, rewrite “3.1. Questionnaire Design” section explaining questionnaire’s logic instead of listing questions’ sources.
The “Conclusions” part should be extended – study’s limitations and future plans are missing. According to the authors’ analysis, the proposed model is well-fitted. Unfortunatelly, its practical implications are not well clarified. Please, add some practical recommendations to O2O plarforms’ owners and their communities’ users.
Technical remarks
l. 121: “2.2. Hypothesis” -> “2.2. Research Hypotheses”
l. 235, Figure 2: This figure repeates the Figure 1 (l. 120). Please, edit the figure 2 and comments it in detail.
l. 248-249: “Very Not Conformant” -> “Strongly disagree”, “Fully Conformant” -> “Strongly agree”.
l. 265: “2012” -> “2021”.
l. 267: “The sample size was more than 10 times the observed amount”. – Please, clarify.
l. 279: “The reliability test, which is a test of the reliability” – Please, edit this fragment to avoid the repetitions.
l. 281: “spss19 Cronbach's alpha in the 0 α Values” – Please, edit.
l. 282: “Cronbach's a for each latent variable α Coefficient values” – Please, edit the whole sentence.
l. 282, 285: Which are study’s latent variables?
l. 287-288: “General test validity is divided into exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses because this paper is based on the maturity scale and exploratory factor analyses are not presented here.” – Please, edit.
l. 290: “Combination reliability (CR)” -> “Composite reliability (CR)”
l. 291: “mean-variance extraction (AVE)” -> “Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (AVE)”
l. 295-296: “…the ave of each latent variable is larger than its correlation coefficient with other latent variables, indicating that the magnitude The…” – Please, edit.
l. 301, “Table 3. validity test results”: What is the meaning of last value of correlation coefficients in each table row (main diagonal of correlation matrix)? They should all be equal to 1.
l. 340: Table 6. Indirect Effects Path Coefficient and Research Assumptions, last row: “PA->CI…” -> “PC->CS…”.
I recommend including links to the authors’ questionnaire and collected respondents’ answers dataset.
Author Response
Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studies comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as followings:
In the abstract and “Introduction” sections, please highlight the motivation and novelty of the study. The research topic (community based O2O e-commerce) is relatively new and should be presented. In the end of “Introduction” section, please add a short description of the article’s structure.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the introduction part.
The last part of “2.1. Theoretical Basis” section (l. 11-120) should be moved to the next section (2.2. Hypothesis). Please, add a short section summary.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Theory and Hypothesis part.
Please, rewrite “3.1. Questionnaire Design” section explaining questionnaire’s logic instead of listing questions’ sources.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Materials and Methods part. We add the questionnaire statistics in the appendix.
The “Conclusions” part should be extended – study’s limitations and future plans are missing. According to the authors’ analysis, the proposed model is well-fitted. Unfortunatelly, its practical implications are not well clarified. Please, add some practical recommendations to O2O plarforms’ owners and their communities’ users.
Response: Revised portion are marked in red in the Conclusion and Implications part, and we add the Limitations and Future Research part.
Technical remarks
- 121: “2.2. Hypothesis” -> “2.2. Research Hypotheses”
- 235, Figure 2: This figure repeates the Figure 1 (l. 120). Please, edit the figure 2 and comments it in detail.
- 248-249: “Very Not Conformant” -> “Strongly disagree”, “Fully Conformant” -> “Strongly agree”.
- 265: “2012” -> “2021”.
- 267: “The sample size was more than 10 times the observed amount”. – Please, clarify.
- 279: “The reliability test, which is a test of the reliability” – Please, edit this fragment to avoid the repetitions.
- 281: “spss19 Cronbach's alpha in the 0 α Values” – Please, edit.
- 282: “Cronbach's a for each latent variable α Coefficient values” – Please, edit the whole sentence.
- 282, 285: Which are study’s latent variables?
- 287-288: “General test validity is divided into exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses because this paper is based on the maturity scale and exploratory factor analyses are not presented here.” – Please, edit.
- 290: “Combination reliability (CR)” -> “Composite reliability (CR)”
- 291: “mean-variance extraction (AVE)” -> “Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (AVE)”
- 295-296: “…the ave of each latent variable is larger than its correlation coefficient with other latent variables, indicating that the magnitude The…” – Please, edit.
- 301, “Table 3. validity test results”: What is the meaning of last value of correlation coefficients in each table row (main diagonal of correlation matrix)? They should all be equal to 1.
- 340: Table 6. Indirect Effects Path Coefficient and Research Assumptions, last row: “PA->CI…” -> “PC->CS…”.
I recommend including links to the authors’ questionnaire and collected respondents’ answers dataset.
Response: we are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by a native English speaker, so we hope it can meet the journal’s standard.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your revisions that have made the article more comprehensible now. I suggested to the authors that, in the discussion section, make it convenient to compare and discuss the results with other investigations. Maybe the authors could add other research results regarding the second and third paragraphs, where social norms, convenience, and security among platform factors directly impact customer satisfaction.
Author Response
thank you very much for your comments. my revision is marked in blue.
Response: I add the discussion in the 5.1 part and add other research results in the second part.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Revisions are satisfactory.
Author Response
It's a great honor to get your affirmation!
Reviewer 3 Report
The quality of sustainability-1536961-v2 “Consumers' Continuous Use Intention of O2O E-commerce Platform on Community: A Value Co-creation Perspective” has been improved significantly. In my opinion, the manuscript meets the requirements of MDPI Sustainability Journal.
Some technical remarks
l. 16: “co-creation in co-creation factors” – Edit this fragment to avoid the repetition.
l. 31: “Meituan, Pingduoduo” – These community based models for O2O e-commerce should be described in more detail.
l. 101: “2.1.4. Theory Summary” – This subsection title could be omitted.
Author Response
The quality of sustainability-1536961-v2 “Consumers' Continuous Use Intention of O2O E-commerce Platform on Community: A Value Co-creation Perspective” has been improved significantly. In my opinion, the manuscript meets the requirements of MDPI Sustainability Journal.
Some technical remarks
- 16: “co-creation in co-creation factors” – Edit this fragment to avoid the repetition.
Response1: revised in line 16.
- 31: “Meituan, Pingduoduo” – These community-based models for O2O e-commerce should be described in more detail.
Response2: revised in lines 30-32.
- 101: “2.1.4. Theory Summary” – This subsection title could be omitted.
Response3: deleted.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The discussion is now more comprehensible. Thank you for your contributions.
