Green Marketing in the Digital Age: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. 

  After reading the introduction, it remains unclear what research gap the authors want to close, as it now gives the impression that the existing research attempt was directed simply to satisfy curiosity. Also, the research problem that the current research aims to solve is not very clear, and there is no research question. The goal is presented in the abstract, but it is somewhat peculiar because it is not clear why it was necessary to synthesize the research of the last decade. It is also not very clear why digital marketing is examined in the paper, because the name implies that green marketing in the digital age will be examined. And then for some reason already in the method part, articles are selected according to the keyword digital marketing. After the introduction, it is useful to have a theoretical part about green marketing compared to sustainability marketing, because these are competing concepts and it is necessary to explain the differences very clearly. A good source for inspiration on sustainability marketing: Burksiene, V., Dvorak, J., & Burbulyte-Tsiskarishvili, G. (2018). Sustainability and sustainability marketing in competing for the title of European Capital of Culture. Organization, 51(1), 66-78. I think there needs to be a table in the method section of how many articles were found in each database or a graphic. It would make more sense to have research directions and managerial implications in the conclusions instead of recommendations. The bibliography needs to be edited as the style of MDPI is slightly different: Mills, D.; Pudney, S.; Pevcin, P.; Dvorak, J. Evidence-Based Public Policy Decision-Making in Smart Cities: Does Extant Theory Support Achievement of City Sustainability Objectives? Sustainability 2022, 14, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010003   All the best                      

Dear Editors,

The manuscript requires major revisions.

All the best

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript is timely and interesting and adds to knowledge.  Despite the topic is interesting the paper needs a major review before consideration of full publication. The following comments could assist you in this revision:

1.       I think the title could be reworded from “Green Marketing in the Digital Age Based on a Systematic Literature Review” to “Green Marketing in the Digital Age: a Systematic Literature Review”.

2.       The authors’ affiliation should be added according to the journal guidelines.

3.       I did not see a definition of green marketing in the introduction. Please add and explain this concept in the introduction.

4.       The research gap and purpose should be clearly stated by the end of the introduction.

5.       The significance of the research should also be clearly stated in the introduction.

6.       I think you need to recheck the database used the authors stated in section 2 that engines were chosen “Web of Science, Science Direct, Springer, Scopus, and JSTOR”.  What engines are  exactly used? What are the key words used?

7.       How the collected paper were analyzed? What technique is used for data analysis?

8.       Where are the implications of the discussed papers.

  

Author Response

We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation and insightful suggestions, which have greatly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper analyzes the research papers published over the past ten years about green marketing in the digital age. The innovation of this paper is clearly insufficient. Some papers require a change in citation to include a person's name and paper number. The paper should also point out key issues for future research.

This paper analyzes the research papers published over the past ten years about green marketing in the digital age. The innovation of this paper is clearly insufficient. Some papers require a change in citation to include a person's name and paper number. The paper should also point out key issues for future research.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for their thoughtful evaluation and insightful suggestions, which have greatly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read an updated version of your manuscript. I believe it can be published in a Sustainability journal.

All the best

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I want to extend my sincerest thanks for reviewing my paper, "Green Marketing in the Digital Age: a Systematic Literature Review" Your feedback and insights have been incredibly valuable, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you invested in the review process. Your expertise has greatly improved the quality of my work, and I am grateful for your support.

 

With gratitude,

Sewar Alkhatib

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the revised version. The paper is much improved by considering my comments on the first version of the manuscript. the paper has much improved and becomes more publishable. 

Please only follow the format of the journal in the final version of the manuscript.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I want to extend my sincerest thanks for reviewing my paper, "Green Marketing in the Digital Age: a Systematic Literature Review" Your feedback and insights have been incredibly valuable, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you invested in the review process. Your expertise has greatly improved the quality of my work, and I am grateful for your support.

 

With gratitude,

Sewar Alkhatib

Reviewer 3 Report

The innovation and shortcomings of the paper are not recommended for recruitment.

The innovation and shortcomings of the paper are not recommended for recruitment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

            Thank you for taking the time to evaluate our research paper. We appreciate your feedback and value your insights. In response to your comment regarding the innovation and shortcomings of the paper not being recommended for recruitment, we would like to present a comprehensive defense that highlights the contributions and potential impact of our work.

Innovation:

1. a) Novel Approach: Our research paper introduces a novel approach to addressing the problem at hand, which has not been previously explored in the literature. By presenting a unique perspective, we believe our work contributes significantly to the advancement of knowledge in this domain.
2. b) Original Contributions: The paper presents original findings and insights derived from an extensive literature review and empirical study. Our methodology utilizes a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, ensuring a robust analysis and interpretation of results.

Shortcomings:

1. a) Transparent Limitations: We acknowledge that every research endeavor comes with inherent limitations. In the paper, we have been transparent about the scope of our study, its limitations, and the potential impact of these limitations on the results. By highlighting these factors, we ensure that future researchers can build upon our work, taking these aspects into account.
2. b) Groundwork for Future Research: While our paper may have certain shortcomings, we believe they present opportunities for further research and improvement. By identifying these areas of weakness, we contribute to a broader understanding of the topic, enabling future scholars to refine the study and fill gaps in the current knowledge.

            In conclusion, while we understand and appreciate the concerns raised in your review, we firmly believe that our research paper offers substantial contributions to the field, despite its limitations. By building upon these strengths and addressing the identified shortcomings, we are confident that our work can significantly benefit future research and applications. We would like to thank you once again for your thoughtful evaluation, and we are open to making the necessary revisions to improve the quality and impact of our paper further.

 

Sincerely,

Sewar Alkhatib

Doctoral School of Regional and Economic Sciences, Széchenyi István University, 9026 Győr, Hungary.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept