The Role of Influencing Factors on Brand Equity and Firm Performance with Innovation Culture as a Moderator: A Study on Art Education Firms in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for submitting this article, on a very relevant and timely topic. Although all the different sections of the manuscript are well addressed, in my opinion, the sample of respondents is too low to give scientific soundness to the work and to allow a generalization of results.

I strongly suggest you to extend the number of respondents to the survey, then to re-submit the paper. In alternative, consider a slight change to the methodology of the work, moving to a more qualitative method.

Best wishes!

Author Response

Thank you for the comment and suggestion. In response to this comment, first and foremost, the data was collected during pandemic; it was indeed a big challenge to gather a huge number of respondents specifically with art education firms in the studied location. However, with the assistance of G*power software, a stand-alone power analysis software (Faul et al., 2007), a minimum sample size was suggested (n=153). The actual data collected were more than the minimum sample size, with that it is deemed to be enough to measure the studied conceptual framework.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and well crafted. However, I have few concerns.

In Line 414 and 415 you mentioned that H1-H6 focused on direct relationship between brand equity and firm performance.  Hypotheses  1-5  focused on components of brand equity and brand equity not performance, please clarify, this appear confusing for readers.

What is the theoretical contribution of this study? It is not clearly stated.

Finding of the current study was not compared with previous related studies. Where the present study contradicts previous studies it is important to give possible reasons for this.

Suggestions for future research is not clear.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. Please find attached file the responses to reviewer's comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The title is somehow confusing! Which "influencing factors"? You shall be more precise and clear about the title, approach, and findings. Unfortunately, the paper lacks enough integrity and rigour.

You shall ask a native English proofreader to review the revised draft.

The abstract must include all the necessary elements of a typical abstract while considering the word limits.

Please provide references for critical sentences such as "However, art education has received little attention from schools and parents due to the conventional teaching approach, where art classes in most elementary and secondary schools are rather limited". Who says that? Are there any facts and figures that approve your statement?

Please clarify your theoretical contribution.

Please add the paper's structure at the end of the Introduction.

Please use precise phrases. What do you mean by "2.1. Resource Based View Theory"? That's a view and not a theory.

It is mentioned that "The numerical data were collected quantitatively by the dissemination of an online closed-ended questionnaire". How did you design the questionnaire?

It will be great to add insights based on the information presented in Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.

English language proofreading is very critical. For instance, "The respondent of this study consists of the..."!!!

Avoid using low-quality figures, such as Figure 3.

Please compare the findings with those of the others. Besides, add the limitations, implications and directions for future research.

Best of luck!

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. Please find attached file the responses to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for the opportunity. I like the authors’ work. No comments. Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you for the comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the clarification, which in my opinion could be included more specifically also in the text of the manuscript. Besides this, the article can now be accepted in its current form.

Best wishes

Author Response

In response to this comment, the usage of G*Power software was indeed included in the body of the manuscript with necessary source cited, particularly in Line 317.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I am glad to read the revised version. Although you have addressed most of the issues, the following remain unaddressed.

- Theoretical contribution needs further elaboration

- Many relevant references are overlooked.

Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions. Please find attached our responses to reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf