Determinants of Purchase Behavior of Young E-Consumers of Eco-Friendly Products to Further Sustainable Consumption Based on Evidence from Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While the manuscript does indeed hold some promise, The major shortcomings are in the language, delivery and methodology which will ultimately affect the other components of the research. The biggest language issue is redundancy, there are many instances throughout the text, thus, my first recommendation would be for a total proofreading and editing of the text by a proficient native English speaker. Beginning from the title, “Determinants of purchase behavior of young e-consumers on the market of eco-friendly products in the aspect of sustainable consumption,” this could be rewritten as “Determinants of purchase behavior of young e-consumers of eco-friendly products to further sustainable consumption” to reduce redundancy, “ or improved to make it even shorter while still capturing the essence of the study. “On the market has no significance and is redundant in the title. The authors can still improve on my suggestion and further remove redundant words in the title.
The abstract needs to be rewritten to capture what the study set out to achieve, the objectives, methodology, results, implications, recommendations and limitations. There are many sentences that serve no purpose in the abstract. The first two sentences can be reduced to one or both can be removed. This part of the abstract can be removed “The current business situation has significantly redefined the role of modern consumers. The rapid development of the Internet and IT makes them establish relationships with other consumers and providers. This phenomenon is especially visible in the case of young e-consumers, who are very proficient in the use of digital devices, especially the Internet.” The abstract does not capture the results of the study, its implications, limitations and recommendations. There should be a deliberate infusion of the key words into the abstract where readers understand what the purpose of the study was, the models adopted, methodology, findings, recommendations, and limitations.
The introduction is very short and does not address the motivation for the study sufficiently, this can be improved significantly.
What is the function of prosumer in the manuscript? It was not mentioned in the title, abstract, background, yet somehow, it is central enough to have a figure dedicated to it (Fig.1). If it has no relevance in the study, it better to use concepts and models directly related to the research.
The materials and methods do not adequately discuss the materials and methods. In the materials, what models have you adopted? Where are your research hypotheses? The research questions should come before the demographic information. We need to know the population, the basis of their selection, the reliability and validity of your methods. The scales adopted for your questionnaire, so much information is missing. The results are unacceptable without scales or hypotheses to guide the study.
The tables and figures in your discussion section should all be moved to the results section. The discussion section should only have text that analyzes the implication of your findings not presenting new information. Here, the authors need to talk about your findings and juxtapose with references that support or negate the results.
References 9 and 11 need to be corrected to align with other references in the manuscript. Also, because of the poor literature review of the paper, the manuscript has not cited an adequate number of references. Please also consider citing the following articles.
Kot, S., Haque, A., & Baloch, A. (2020). Supply Chain Management in Smes: Global Perspective. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 16(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2020.16-1.6
Skačkauskienė, I., ŚLusarczyk, B., Baryń, M., Kot, S., & Navickas, V. (2019). ASESMENT OF SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FACETS: PECULIARITIES OF FAMILY BUSINESSES SIZE IN SELECTED ECONOMIES. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 9(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2019.9.1(5)
Smirnova, E., Kot, S., Kolpak, E., & Shestak, V. (2021). Governmental support and renewable energy production: A cross-country review. Energy, 230, 120903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120903
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your valuable comments. The process of making revisions after reviews is not easy, but we did our best to meet expectations.
First of all the title was changed according to Your suggestion and the language layer has been checked by a professional.
Abstract was completely rewritten to focus on the objectives, methodology, results, implications, recommendations and limitations and the Introduction section was remodeled.
The section with the prosumer was removed from the article as it was redundant.
The research questions were moved before the demographic information, scales were explained. The whole Materials and Methods section was reorganized and enriched.
We added description of the SEM method and Pearson correlation matrix.
According to the suggestions bibliography has been enriched by the items listed and some more references have been added.
We sincerely hope that our explanations meet with your approval and allow us to share the results of our research.
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled Determinants of purchase behavior of young e-consumers on the market of eco-friendly products in the aspect of sustainable consumption is quite interesting and the research very well conducted. Congratulations for your effort and good research made.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your kind words and good feedback about our work. We are very pleased that our efforts have been noticed.
Authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In the Materials and Methods section, you write that the questionnaire was sent to adult Poles selected through purposeful sampling (non-random sampling). In my opinion, it is necessary to describe on what basis the respondents were selected.
2. Are you sure you're only surveying e-consumers? It is necessary to clarify whether we are talking only about electronic consumers or about consumers too. So, for example, in the section "Limitations of the study and further research" you write "behavior of young consumers in the organic market." Can we say that their behavior is the same? You have to clarify this in your text.
Author Response
REWIEV 3
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your valuable comments. The process of making revisions after reviews is not easy, but we did our best to meet expectations.
Abstract was completely rewritten to focus on the objectives, methodology, results, implications, recommendations and limitations and the Introduction section was remodeled. The section with the prosumer was removed from the article as it was redundant. The research questions were moved before the demographic information, scales were explained. The whole Materials and Methods section was reorganized and enriched. It was explained that respondents were asked a filter question if they purchase organic products online. An affirmative answer directed the respondent to the next part of the survey. In limitations of the study it was clarified that e-consumers were studied, which is a definite limitation. In further steps, research is planned to examine the behavior of young consumers of organic products in stationary stores. Bibliography has also been enriched.
We sincerely hope that our explanations meet with your approval and allow us to share the results of our research.
Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of paper is very interesting and actual. The methods used in paper are relevant and prepared in a correct way. Statistical analysis is also suitable for research method but not sufficient in my opinion. Crossing analysis according to the characteristics of the research sample would be desirable. The results are clearly presented. The references are quite actual and completed. The hypotheses were properly formulated and proven.
It would be good that authors apply one more statistical analysis or indicator at least.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your valuable comments. The process of making revisions after reviews is not easy, but we did our best to meet expectations.
We would like to inform You, that Abstract was completely rewritten to focus on the objectives, methodology, results, implications, recommendations and limitations and the Introduction section was remodeled. The Materials and Methods section was reorganized and enriched.
Some description of the SEM method and Pearson correlation matrix have been added that shows the strength and the direction of correlations.
Bibliography has also been enriched.
We sincerely hope that our explanations meet with your approval and allow us to share the results of our research.
Authors
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
Your article entitled ,,Determinants of purchase behavior of young e-consumers on the market of eco-friendly products in the aspect of sustainable consumption” is interesting but I have some suggestions for you.
In the Abstract you should clearly show the research objective, where you applied the questionnaire, the concrete results obtained and the usefulness of the research. Personally, I don't think you should mention here the program which you used for empirical part. You should mention it in Methodology (if you want to mention it).
I think that the objective of your research, which is also reflected in the title, is too broad in the conditions in which you have applied several hundred questionnaires. I have very much doubt that a study based on 620 questionnaires allows the drawing of generally valid conclusions.
I do not suggest you to use the article`s structure that you have chosen. The Introduction is a component of the paper which, as a rule, is not broken down into subchapters.
You emphasize a lot some concepts, but you do not capture the current framework of the literature which is, without a doubt, a big minus for your research because you can not justify your research goal.
As long as you have used the SEM method, it would be more than advisable to bring a series of technical details about it.
The results you have obtained must be analyzed/discussed in relation to your sample of Polish respondents (this aspect have to be mentioned starting with the title). It is not enough that we obtain some results from the empirical analysis. These need to be discussed. Usually, in any research, the Methodological part is followed by a component of Results and Discussions. In addition, an SEM analysis needs a robustness analysis.
References are written differently, they do not follow the same citation pattern. In addition, there are quite a few old references.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your valuable comments. The process of making revisions after reviews is not easy, but we did our best to meet expectations.
First of all the title was changed to remove redundancies.
Abstract was completely rewritten to focus on the objectives, methodology, results, implications, recommendations and limitations and the Introduction section was remodeled.
The section with the prosumer was removed from the article as this part was not relevant in the context of the deliberations.
The research questions were moved before the demographic information, scales were explained. The whole Materials and Methods section was reorganized and enriched.
We added some description of the SEM method and Pearson correlation matrix.
Bibliography has been enriched by the new items.
We sincerely hope that our explanations meet with your approval and allow us to share the results of our research.
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have substantially improved the article based on the recommended suggestions; however, if they can further improve to create more interest and motivation of research study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The article was enriched with deeper recommendations based on references to contemporary literature, which also affected the presentation of the results.
We remain hopeful that the article in its present much revised and improved form will be accepted.
Sincerely, Authors
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
The effort to improve the article is laudable. However, I insist on mentioning in the title that the article presents a research conducted strictly on a group of Polish consumers. In addition, in the Conclusions, the usefulness of the research would be indicated to find and develop the practical utility of the results you have obtained.
Success!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for appreciating the effort we put into improving the article. Your reflections andextremely valuable comments obviously contributed by showing us the way to go.
First of all the title of the article was changed mentioning that the research was conducted strictly on a group of Polish consumers.
The article was enriched with deeper recommendations based on references to contemporary literature and with respect to previous and present and empirical research which also affected the understanding of the results.
We hope that the article is properly referenced now and that the article in its present much revised and improved form will be accepted.
Sincerely, Authors
