Optimizing the Location of Virtual-Shopping-Experience Stores Based on the Minimum Impact on Urban Traffic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While the paper presents a novel approach to optimizing the location of virtual-shopping experience stores, several critical points warrant to rejection:
Lack of novelty: The paper should present a thorough literature analysis to show how the suggested strategy differs from already-existing models and procedures in the field of online and offline shopping experiences.
Unclear methodology: The work needs to clarify the assumptions that underlie the bi-level programming model's development, components, and justification. The upper- and lower-level submodels' interaction should also be explained in great depth. The authors' unsubstantiated assumptions are the main basis of this investigation.
Validation and generalizability: The application and generalizability of the suggested paradigm outside of the lone case study in Dalian should be covered in the paper. Additional case studies from various countries or sectors would support the robustness and adaptability of the concept.
Incomplete analysis of disadvantages: The paper should address potential drawbacks of virtual-shopping experience stores, such as reduced social interaction, increased reliance on technology, and the environmental impact of shipping and packaging. The authors hardly discussed the adverse effects of such shopping, like Lack of tactile experience, Delayed gratification, Shipping costs and delivery times, Ethical consideration, Environmental impact, and dividing lines between people of different classes.
Insufficient discussion of VR devices: The selection of virtual reality (VR) devices for the virtual shopping experience stores is mentioned in hurry in the paper, but a more thorough examination of how these devices will affect the shopping experience and what factors should be taken into account when choosing them is required.
Algorithm explanation: The paper ought to go more deeply into consumer behavior, taking into account elements like preferences, routines, and demographic traits that might affect the decision
Consumer behavior analysis: The paper ought to go more deeply into consumer behavior, taking into account elements like preferences, routines, and demographic traits that might affect the decision between online and physical buying.
Real-world implementation challenges: The study should discuss potential difficulties and impediments to the proposed virtual-shopping experience retailers' real-world implementation, such as technical constraints, infrastructure needs, and consumer acceptability.
Clarity and coherence are missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Title of paper reviewed is very promising. It is related to the contemporary issues of sales, its channels and technology used. The main problem expressed by tittle is framed for reason between aspects of traditional sales and e-commerce what substantially increase its importance. Authors use appropriate methods and conduct the study in proper way. Unfortunately there is insufficient number of cited literature in the paper.
Tips for revision:
- Introduction section can be improved by presentation of data related to e-commerce, m-commerce and traditional sale during last three years in the world and China (some comments in the proscpect of Covid-19 may be done); These problems should mentioned in literature review as well; It should let Authors to cite more literature (its number should be at least doubled).
- some sets of data are taken from 2013 and 2016. There is a need of explanation why these sets of data are important and worth to incorporate in study;
- Conclusion section needs comments on limitations of study. Used data sets where pre-Covid, during pandemic times consuments bahaviours had changed. What is the real importance of this study and its limitations for current circumstances? Authors can formulate the direction of future studies as well.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper examines optimization of virtual reality shopping in China, with the use of two-level programming model.
The novelty of the paper is present. However, this reviewer thinks that several improvements must be implemented before considering publication:
Firstly, the paper is readable, but this reviewer would suggest using more precise and academic phrasing whenever possible.
Secondly, the figures on the paper need to be high-resolution pictures. Whenever possible, consider vector graphics.
There are no clear research questions presented throughout the text, not is the main contribution stated. This reviewer suggests a rewriting the introductory part, with clear research questions, which can be later reflected on in the results and conclusion.
Finally, regarding references - please add more relevant references in the field of VR/AR e-commerce besides web articles.
Without the necessary changes this reviewer thinks the article is not suited for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Firstly, I appreciate the authors' efforts in exploring a novel research topic and methodology with Virtual-Shopping Experience Stores. However, for the following reasons, I do not recommend the publication of this article in the current journal:
(1)Despite the research being based on urban traffic, the article lacks discussion of or relevant terminology related to sustainable development.
(2)The biggest issue with this article is the lack of clarity in research objectives. While the abstract states that the new mode proposed is intended to enhance consumers' online shopping experience and reduce unnecessary trips for offline shopping, the introduction states that virtual-shopping experience stores can be established to allow consumers to enjoy the virtual shopping experience nearby and complete online shopping directly. The authors should clarify the true purpose of the article.
(3)In the abstract: “The case-study result demonstrates that the trips for offline shopping would be greatly reduced after the establishment of virtual-shopping experience stores, which can effectively alleviate urban traffic congestion and reduce the exhaust pollution from cars.” I think the case study in this article is insufficient to support this result.
(4)The authors need to provide literature support or research results to support their claim “This mode could eliminate the disadvantage of online shopping that consumers cannot try out goods on site, and thus could increase the consumers’ shopping efficiency. Furthermore, this mode could also facilitate the reduction in travel demand for shopping offline, and thus facilitate the alleviation of urban traffic congestion and air pollution.” in the introduction.
(5)The introduction section requires reorganization.
(6)More references should be added.
(7)The sample size in the case study is not sufficient.
(8)In addition, I personally believe that, given the impact of the pandemic, the economic recovery requires more offline consumption and travel to promote the development of the transportation and tourism industries. Therefore, it is essential for the authors to clarify the research objectives of this article, even if exploring the reduction of unnecessary consumer shopping trips and emissions, and supplement relevant literature.
I hope that my suggestions will not affect the authors' enthusiasm and that they will carefully revise the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you for taking my previous suggestions into consideration. Here are some additional observations:
1. The topic itself remains weak. It's a subject that, as of now, is difficult to understand in terms of its potential benefits, especially given the prevalence of virtual shops worldwide that eliminate the need for visiting physical stores.
2. When visiting any shop, there's no guarantee that I will be interested in the same items I saw in virtual shops. As a consumer, I am likely to explore other products as well. Therefore, it's not feasible to assume that virtual shops will save time or save money or improve experience unless you have robust, quality data to support this.
3. Consider the sample size you're using compared to the overall population size. In essence, you could conduct a survey or develop a more reliable data collection model than the current one, which is based entirely on assumptions.
In essence, you need to put in more effort. Developing an initial data collection model that holds validity beyond assumptions is crucial. Gathering data from both individuals who are frequenting virtual shops and those who aren't should be a priority. Aligning this data collection with the problem you're addressing will boost its relevance. Currently, this vital component is lacking, which is concerning as it is the most critical part of your study.
It would help if you were more pragmatic in your approach, given the practical nature of your topic. Your study significantly depends on consumers' behaviors and from place to place it can be different too.
Currently, you're proposing a mathematical method based on assumptions. It might be more beneficial to shift your focus towards creating a robust data collection model with a decent number of real samples. Doing so will eliminate the need for complex methods, as you'll always have data on hand to analyze.
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Present version of the paper seems to be improved properly. New threads in theoretical discussion are presented, new references to literature are provided and limitations are extended. Method presentation and results are discussed deeper and wider. My concern is the justification for data sets use form 2013 and 2016. Are authors able to explain why those data sets are valuable for study (the only existing?) and how they influence the results in prospect of issues expressed by research problem?
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This reviewer has no further comments.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewer for the valuable evaluation and useful suggestions on our paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
After reviewing the revised manuscript and the cover letter, the authors have addressed my concerns satisfactorily. I personally endorse the changes made in this article and agree to recommend its publication.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewer for the valuable evaluation and useful suggestions on our paper.
