A Comparative Study of High-Quality Broiler Purchase Behavior between Chinese and Sierra Leonean Consumers: The Moderating Role of Uncertainty Avoidance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

None of my comments are addressed in the paper. Just a simple explanation in the author's response letter is not enough. You need to update the manuscript. All the comments of reviewer#2 should be addressed and updated in the manuscript. 

Author Response

We appreciate the editorial office's decision to revise and reconsider our manuscript for publication after the revision. Also, we would like to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and comments to improve this manuscript. Based on the major comments highlighted by the reveiewers, additional information and environmental data collected were analyzed  (highlighted in yellow colors).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I think this is an interesting paper, with a high sense of opportunity. Nevertheless, there are some aspects that could increase the quality of this paper.

1.     Lines 96-102 should be given a pre-contextualization of Hofstede dimensions, to better understand how comparations are made and what means. The definition is made on line 308, but some explanation is needed at this early stage.

2.     Line 372 describes the questionnaire sections but it is not mentioned how many questions make up the questionnaire in each one.

3.     Table 1 (Line 400) states a "Monthly Family Income", common for both countries. It should be explained how the same intervals are used, namely the question of purchasing power parity in both situations.

4.      Lines 414-424 are empty, they must be deleted.

5.      In lines 429-434 income level comparisons don’t mention the statistical sources that allow those relationships. It is also necessary to use socio-demographic and economic data to support the comparations made in lines 425-434.

6.      Lines 466-477 424 are empty, they must be deleted.

7.      Lines 481-510 are empty, they must be deleted.

8.      Statistical results cannot be presented without any explanation. For example, the paragraph of lines 522-526 is a set of raw values that turns impossible understanding for many readers.

9.    The graphs shown in Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8 add nothing to the text.

Author Response

We appreciate the editorial office's decision to revise and reconsider our manuscript for publication after the revision. Also, we would like to thank the reviewers for their suggestions and comments to improve this manuscript. Based on the major comments highlighted by the reveiewers, additional information and environmental data collected were analyzed  (highlighted in yellow colors).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

No response letter is provided to see how and where the comments are addressed. None of my previous comments are addressed in this version. No suggested references are included.

Author Response

Dear Editor,
We appreciate the editorial office's decision to revise and reconsider our manuscript for publication after the revision. Also, we would like to thank the reviewer for his/her suggestions and comments to improve this manuscript. Based on the major comments and suggestions  highlighted by reveiewer we have addressed them below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

All my previous comments are addressed in this version. 

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

I totally value the contribution of this paper to knowledge and science. 

The only recommendation I have is to state in which manner you have considered in your research model the fact that attitude is a composite construct (cognitive+emotional+intentional). You have measured the overall attitude, or each component of it.

Otherwise, this work is thorow and keen. Congratulations!

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall the study is conducted well. However, I have the following comments. 

First, in the introduction section, I would like to see a research question following the study's primary aim. 

Include the H1 to H.. numbers in the Figure 1 research model. 

Justification is required as to why only UA cultural dimension is considered but not others? 
Also, the following references are missing related to culture, and purchase intention, social norms etc., are missing in the study. 

Sohaib, O., Kang, K., & Miliszewska, I. (2019). Uncertainty Avoidance and Consumer Cognitive Innovativeness in E-Commerce. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 27(2), 59-77. http://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.2019040104

Individual Level Culture Effects on Multi-Perspective iTrust in B2C E-commerce. O, K Kang. Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2015
https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=acis2015 

 Gender-Based iTrust in E-Commerce: The Moderating Role of Cognitive Innovativeness. Sustainability 2019, 11, 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010175 

Cultural Aspects of Business-to-Consumer (B2C) E-commerce:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2014.tb00431.x 

Reviewer 3 Report

• In the introduction, it is stated that the main concern on food buying decisions are about food safety and quality attributes. However, in the structural model, the predictors merely including the TPB variables. Therefore, the contributions of this study should be highly justified.
• TPB has been much discussed to predict purchase intention. There should be additional contributions of where this study could fill the gap, especially for the study of sustainability. TPB variables included in the model is still very general.
• The inclusion of uncertainty avoidance requires strong judgements. If the factors involved is culture, there are several cultural dimensions should be included, why only uncertainty avoidance?
• There should be sustainability factors included in the model, to add the knowledge gap as well as to fit in the scope of the journal
• The study is a comparative study between China and Sierra Leone, therefore, there should be additional information on the consideration of choosing those two countries (such as: whether they have different meat/broiler consumptions, or else).
• The result is pretty predictable, and therefore the theoretical and practical implications should be better justified. At the current moment, the use of TPB limits new findings and knowledge. Alternatively, the uncertainty avoidance should be much highligthed.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a nice study on purchasing behaviour of broilers. My suggestion is that the heavy use of abbreviations make it difficult to follow some if the results and conclusions (BA, SN, etc.). Suggest a different style of presentation. The discussion has elements of results with multiple figures being displayed. it also needs more integration with the literature introduced earlier in the paper.