Implementing Online Product Reviews and Muslim Fashion Innovation for Resilience during the New Normal in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a very important topic and discusses interesting results. The main limitations are in the structure:

• The research questions are too "ambitious": the paper does not exhaustively answer the questions "How do OPRs affect the development of ...? and How do designers innovate using OPRs to ...?". The paper rather shows “a way” so I suggest using "could" rather than "do".
• Section 2 is not a “true” literature review but it is an extension of the introduction. It could be called “Background”. Moreover, the purpose of this section should be made clearer in the text. There are some concepts that perhaps would fit better in the method.
• In the proposed approach, only keywords are considered and not their semantics or connotation (positive or negative). For example, in Figure 2, if each OPR carried the phrase "I don't care if it's Original", originality would seem to be an important thing (while it is not)! Can you discuss this limitation and how to take it into account?

Other minor issues include the following:

• In the abstract, you assert: "OPRs are a significant resource that companies are currently underutilizing" this is true only for some companies; others invest a lot of resources to make the best use of them.
• Still in the abstract, “step six, seven and eight” is not clear since you did not define that the first phase is composed by 5 steps.
• In the introduction, you define the acronym “online product review (OPR)”. However, you still use the complete formulation in the following of the text e.g. line 37, line 39 etc.
• Line 52, there is a paragraph of a single sentence that is not supported by any reference: please add some references as well as in the sentence of line 53.
• Since sustainable design and sustainable product development (and their relationship to success in the marketplace) cover a central role in this paper I think the following references can be inspiring to you to justify the relationship between sustainability, success, acceptance, and user behavior (although they are not centered in the fashion world but in product development in general): https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0494, https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.24, https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011394, https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2021.1965033
• In Table 3, the last column, the word Researcher should be changed e.g. Reference and in the last lines of Table 3, the references are indicated in an incorrect way.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we have submitted our responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study. Here are some of my comments or suggestions for improvements:

 

1. What is the research question or main aim addressed by the research? Any other issues in the abstract or introduction?

The authors present 2 research questions, namely:

 

RQ 1: How do OPRs affect the development of Muslim fashion products?

RQ 2: How do designers innovate using OPRs to develop fashion products to stay resilient during the new normal of the COVID-19 pandemic?

 

However, I believe the problem statement in the abstract is not explicitly clear. Perhaps the authors could try summarising the research questions within the abstract as a single problem statement, or try rephrasing it so that it is explicitly stated in the abstract.

 

In the introduction, the authors mention “Since the fashion industry was very dependent on the physical stores, the industry has suffered significant losses, especially Muslim fashion [2]”. Apart from the citation, it is prudent to provide some statistics to support the “significant losses” mentioned.

 

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why?
   The topic is not highly original as there have been studies on Muslim fashion products before COVID-19. However, it is interesting to observe the difference in the dynamicity of the sales peri- and post-COVID-19, even more so with an emphasis on OPR use. Hence, the relevance of the study is still important.

 

3. What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology?
   Why exactly was there an emphasis on Muslim fashion in the first place? I believe it is prudent for the authors to discuss this part in the methodology to mine the need in focussing on Muslim fashion.

 

However, if it is due to the focus of the demographic or population, then perhaps the title should include “Indonesia” or “Muslim Fashion” so that it is not misconstrued by readers that the implementation is generalisable in various contexts. But if this situation is not the case, then the authors should consider the first comment.

 

4. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the problem statement or main aim posed?
   The conclusions are fine. I believe the authors can expand the directions for future research, as it is rather brief.

 

5. Are the references appropriate?
   The authors could include more updated peer reviewed journal references from the years 2021 to 2022. Currently, there are only 7 most recent references from 2021.

 

6. Please include any additional comments on the tables, figures, and English.

The figures and tables are fine. But the article could use some basic English proofreading.

 

Thank you. All the best.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we have responded to all comments on the attachment below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the concerns that the reviewer has raised. Thank you very much.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please check with the

1. How was product feedback taken into consideration prior to COVID19 when it was primarily offline (in-store)? Did they do consumer surveys? It is not clear
2. The term offline might be relevant in Indonesia but in global fashion industry, that is not the common term used for brick and mortar stores.
3. Line 55 first sentence is incomplete
4. Overall language needs a second review
5. Line 68-71- that is a standard for any product, and is it relevant to the research?
6. RQ1 and RQ2 are focused on product but in the line 92, the author mentions service as well and later in line 116 as well.. should there be a research question on service?
7. Line 95-106 focuses on one item-masks which seems irrelevant to the study
8. Line 143-147- researchers selected from the existing indicators, how would they claim to contribute to indicators. Need to rephrase and accurately represent the outcome of the research
9. Lines 162-174- what method was used to convert non-standard words and phrases to standard? How was it objective?
10. Line 198 -propose a proposed framework, need copy editing
11. Line 228-230- d. is it quality of design style influenced by covid or by online sales and OPR data
12. Line 285- spelling check- 3.3 Fase 2 or Phase 2
13. Table 2 , line 301. The term feature is not appropriate for demographic data
14. Copy editing for language and sentence structure is very important.

Reviewer 2 Report

Great paper with innovative methodology. I suggest publishing as it is.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper has serious deficiencies in structure. Some concepts that are part of the method are included in the introduction and others in the results. For example, page 1 lines 44, 45 and page 2 lines 46-54 is part of the method otherwise the English used is misleading. Logical connection between paragraphs, in some cases, are missing. The use of “;” should be revised. Page 2, line 58 a “]” is missing. In addition, also the Abstract presents some limitations. First, the acronym OPRs is mentioned (line 12) before being defined (line 15). Second, the terms “changing/disruptive marketplaces” are abused since the concept behind these words are not discussed in the paper text. Third, the last sentence i.e. “The first use of OPRs in the Muslim fashion sector” is unclear.

In the literature review chapter, relevant papers are not presented but merely used to support the authors' ideas (as should be done in the introduction and not in the literature review).

In Table 1 and 3, the last column should be “reference” and not “researcher”. In addition, in the last column and lines 12 and 13 of Table 3 the references are not mentioned correctly.

Lines 189-191 should not be there since Materials and Method is not a sub-chapter.

Table 4 have to be shown in a more compact way.

Eventually, the paper expresses too many concepts in a disorganized and confusing way. Moreover, the topic of sustainability is never mentioned in the paper and therefore I do not find a relevance of the topics discussed in this paper to those in the Journal.