Understanding the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Team Identification, and Behavioral Intention with the Mediating Effect of Satisfaction in Korean Professional Baseball League
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper titled: Understanding the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Team Identification, and Behavioral Intention with the Mediating Effect of Satisfaction in Korean Professional Baseball League. The Impact of Digitalization on Supply Chain Integration and Performance. The purpose of this paper is to propose a research model to test a theoretical model that explored the relationship among perceived CSR, team identification and satisfaction, along with the behavioral intention in the context of the Korea Baseball Organization (KBO) league. The topic area is understudied, likely due to the corporate social responsibility has become a crucial aspect of organizational strategy across various sectors, including the sports industry. Thus, this study is timely. The paper presents a current and relevant theme. The theoretical framework is consistent, well used, and provides an appropriate basis for the construction of the methodology. The results obtained are relevant and present a contribution to their field of study. Overall, this is an interesting study. I have provided detailed feedback in the attached file.
a. The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cites an appropriate range of literature sources.
b. The results were clearly presented and properly analyzed. The conclusions adequately brought together all the other elements of the study.
c. There are several broad arguments and claims in the manuscript. Particularly I encourage the authors to highlight the research’s theoretical and practical implications for each hypothesis than simply stating previous research’s suggestions.
It is my pleasure to read and give some advices to strengthen this manuscript. Overall, it is a well-written paper.
Author Response
Point c. There are several broad arguments and claims in the manuscript. Particularly I encourage the authors to highlight the research’s theoretical and practical implications for each hypothesis than simply stating previous research’s suggestions.
Dear Peer Reviewer,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript.
We appreciate your suggestion to highlight the theoretical and practical implications of our research for each hypothesis, rather than simply stating previous research suggestions. We have made sure to incorporate this into our manuscript accordingly. In addition, we have revised our manuscript to provide more detailed discussions on how our findings relate to existing theories and how they can inform practical applications.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a relatively interesting study, however, there are areas for improvement and refinement as follows:
1. In the introduction section, the importance and value of conducting this study needs to be further clarified.
2. In the method section, the authors used the convenience sampling, however, this has the problem of sample representativeness. This is probably the biggest threat to the scientific validity of this study. The authors need to clarify and address it.
3. Table 3 is not very clear, especially the arrow position is not correct and needs to be readjusted.
4. The discussion section needs to distinguish between theoretical and policy implications and to have a focused discussion.
5. It is better to end with a conclusion section.
6. The references cited in the paper are too old and need to be significantly increased for papers published in the last three years, especially since 2020.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Peer Reviewer,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on my manuscript.
I have attached my response for your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is written on a current topic. The tasks are correct. The methods are selected accordingly in order to reveal the topic of the work, complete the task and achieve the goal. The authors set out to test a theoretical model that examined the relationship between perceived CSR, team identification, and satisfaction along with behavioral intentions in the context of the Korean Baseball Organization (KBO) league. A total of 523 respondents who attended KBO league playoff games took part in the study. Notably, the authors argue that future studies should sample different types of games (eg, regular season games and postseason games) or employ longitudinal studies to examine how the model develops in different situations. The proposed model of this study shows that the effect of CSR activities on behavioral intentions is explained by the inclusion of a social identity variable (e.g., team identification) and a social exchange variable (e.g., satisfaction).
However, the article needs revisions:
1) In the article, a sample of 326 respondents was made. However, it is not clear how this sample was formed. What criteria have been met? It may be too small or too large to interpret the data. It should be clarified in work (214).
2) In the abstract, 523 respondents (15) are identified, and in the text, the research was conducted on 326 respondents (214). It is worth clarifying this point or agreeing on it.
3) The study did not consider social variables such as trust and commitment, but did consider team identification and satisfaction (364, 365). The author did not justify why he did so during the research. It would be worthwhile to reveal this point in more detail.
The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner. It has a well-founded mathematical base.
Quotes are relevant.
The conclusions correspond to the given evidence and arguments.
Author Response
Dear Peer Reviewer,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on my manuscript.
I have attached my response for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors argue that there was no research on CSR-customer satisfaction in the sports field (lines 57-59, 100-101). As hypothesis 2 was adopted and verified in this study, it will be this paper’s unique contribution to the researchers. From a model perspective, this study considers customer satisfaction and team identification between CSR and behavioral intention (lines 62-64). Based on empirical results, this study's contribution is claimed to consider customer satisfaction as a mediating variable between team identification and behavioral intention in the sports field (lines 338-339). It is necessary to summarize and highlight the uniqueness or contribution of this study. You explained in the paper that most other hypotheses have similar research on the sports field.
There are some typos. The excessive use of pronouns sometimes causes problems. It is impossible to confirm what “the authors” and “the study” refer to in lines 122 and 123.
Author Response
Dear Peer Reviewer,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on my manuscript.
I have attached my response for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Yes.It can be published.
no
