Decoding the Dilemma of Consumer Food Over-Ordering in Restaurants: An Augmented Theory of Planned Behavior Model Investigation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for the opportunity to review your interesting manuscript on food waste and overeating in China. The studies combines two theory branches TPB and NMA and uses a PLS-SEM approach. Overall, the work seems to be of merit, however I have a few questions and comments. I hope you find my input helpful

Introduction

L46-52: Untrue. Maybe for China- not globally. Please rephrase. 

L54-56: Can the authors argue add or reshape here. While it may be true that the number of studies dedicated to China is limited, why are best practice recommandation and solutions to overcome waste at the very least in adapted form not applicable.  This remains so far unclear to the reader

Can the authors in addition provide to the global situation, elaborate statistic information on food waste in particular plate waste in China. That would help to understand the extend of the problem

Than the authors should present information on overordering and plate waste and what is so far done to overcome this problem or to be more sustainable.

L64-80: While it is clearly explained that there is need for new framework, it is not well argued how the theory branches add and compliment one and another. If that is done the merit and vaue of this work will be very clear. I like bringing in the concept of Mianzi that fits very nicely with the social norms of the TPB.

Conceptual framework

While the theory branches and the concept of Mianzi are well presented I am missing research using the TPB in a waste context.  Please elaborate. In addition I would like to note that the behavioral, normative and controll beliefs are not mentioned. Why? This is also missing for the hypothesis. Similarly for NAM- I would like to see studies in the applied context.

Material and method

The survey, items and scales are clearly explained. However the sampling approach is not entirely clear to me? Was this a convience sample? Can you indicate the drop out rate in %?

Can you elaborate the information on PLS-SEM. Provide more information on the measurement and structural model? As well as the realibility and validity tests and their importance? Also indicate if your model was reflective?

Table 2: Can you please report the Cronbachs alpha values. Why are they not present? Can the authors comment on the AVE values for personal and subjective norms. They are below the recommanded threshhold value 0.6.

Table 3: Why are you not reporting on the Fornell-Lacker Criterion. In addition to the HTMT-criterion, convention expects both to be reported.

Can the authors please add to the method section how they made sure that multi-collinearity and common method bias where not an issue in the data set.

In addition it would be good if you report SRMR, NFI and GOF. Even though Hair cautions, PLS-SEM conventions still expect them to be reported.

The discussion and conclusion are well written, thought through and clear. 

I am looking forward to see the revised manuscrip

 

 

 

Author Response

The portions which have been rewritten, restructured, or added as per the suggestions from esteemed editor and reviewers are highlighted in red font in the manuscript in the word file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper could be interesting after improvement. Some suggestions for authors:

1. Change the title espeacially the first part. It is not academic one but for the newspapers.

2. Don't used the abbreviations in the abstract (TPB, NAM; PBC) and in the keywords

3. line 30: base on what sources....there are a lot of number without any citation

4. the abstract hasn't aim of the research

5. explain the acronyms first in the paper, line 83

6. explain the miazi concept or a simple definition (1-12 sentences) in the Introduction for unknowns not only in lines 175-176

7. cut paragraphs from line 89 to line 92

8. change the title into theoretical background NOT undepining

9. correct the citation in the paper, for example line 230, according to the journal recommendations

10. in the Methodology section, please complete the time for collecting data

11. Please explain acronym RMB from table 1

12. Remove paragraphs about PLS - SEM from Results to Methodology

13. Please complete 1-2 sentences between table 2 and figure 1 and between table 4 and figure 2.

14. write R square correctly

15. the subtitles from Conclusions is not necessary. Please remove.

16. More details and really discussion by comparing the authors' results with the results from international literature. Nothing about validation/ or not of the research hypothesis.

17. All the references mus be re-write accordingly to the journal recommendations

18. Please add more references linked to the subject of cultural influence on food waste and  consumer bahaviour espeacilly.

Author Response

The portions which have been rewritten, restructured, or added as per the suggestions from esteemed editor and reviewers are highlighted in red font in the manuscript. in word file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have performed an adequate and well structured assessment of factors that affect food over-ordering behavior in the specific cultural context of China. Some error corrections and suggestions for improvement are listed below:

1.       Most importantly, the discussion needs to emphasize (e.g. in lines 329-331 and 354-358) that the moderating effect is marginally weak. The idea proposed by the authors is novel, but the results show that the issue needs further exploration before claims of such certainty can be made.

2.       There are some areas in the manuscript where entire phrases repeat themselves almost word-by-word. One clear example is lines 126- 129 and 129-133. In addition, the phrases from lines 134-139 also seem redundant. Similarly abundant in redundancies, but with few direct repetitions, is the entire paragraph between lines 183-192.

3.       With regard to the Likert scale used (line 224), there are several studies in which the scale is measured differently, with 1 being Strong disagreement and 7 Strong agreement. Please briefly explain this choice and if it may have an impact on the reliability of responses.

4.       Please explain how you assessed the impact of ease of ordering and available items on over-ordering. (line 350)

5.       Some examples of studies should be given for the phrase on lines 167-168.

6.       The spellings “Mianzi” and “mianzi” are used interchangeably throughout the manuscript. I suggest that the capitalized form be used throughout the text, including the abstract.

7.       An error in copy/pasting phrases is likely the result of the unreadable and incomplete mix of phrases in lines 406-410. Please correct this error.

8.       The phrases between lines 232-236 include numerous spelling and other English errors. Please revise thoroughly.

9.       For clarity, on line 239, the phrasing should be “consumers over 18 years of age”.

10.   Figure 3 is less sharp compared to the other figures. This should be improved.

11.   Minor English errors and spelling issues: line 85 - “chines e”; line 250 – “are” should be “is”; line 232 – “china”.

12.   Finally, please consider shortening the title to around 15-20 words.

 

Author Response

The portions which have been rewritten, restructured, or added as per the suggestions from esteemed editor and reviewers are highlighted in red font in the manuscript in word file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments were well adressed and appropiately implemented. I am hopeful to see the work published soon. It will be a helpful piece of work.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Comment: All my comments were well addressed and appropriately implemented. I am hopeful to see the work published soon. It will be a helpful piece of work.

Response: We are grateful to the esteemed reviewer for this encouraging observation.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There are still a lot of paragraphs without no citations. Especially the new paragraphs, with red color in the manuscript!

Author Response

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Comment: There are still a lot of paragraphs without no citations. Especially the new paragraphs, with red color in the manuscript!

Response: We are grateful to the esteemed reviewer for indicating this major lacunae. We have added the references based on the esteem reviewer’s suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx