The Intertwining Effect of Visual Perception of the Reusable Packaging and Type of Logo Simplification on Consumers’ Sustainable Awareness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study examines packaging and logo as stimuli to explore visual attention and attraction, arousal, and environmental awareness using eye tracking and a survey questionnaire. The topic of study is very relevant and is likely to fall under "Sustainability" (mdpi). The manuscript should present a greater depth in the theoretical framework. Although I recognize the quality and competence in the literature review (good manuscripts from good journals and from the last 5 years, Scopus / WoS), I believe that the authors should develop greater depth in the theoretical framework. I also believe that it will be important for the manuscript to clearly present the contributions (theoretical and practical) that were developed in the manuscript. The manuscript is well-crafted, well-written, and well-organized. I suggest removing the word "chapter" from the manuscript content. I suggest developing the limitations of the study and lines of further investigation.

 

"The study was divided into two aspects: physiological and psychological, to explore the consumption consciousness that affected the packaging and logos on a product" - explain your choice, justify it.

 

My recommendations are minor. I am in favor of publishing the manuscript.

This study examines packaging and logo as stimuli to explore visual attention and attraction, arousal, and environmental awareness using eye tracking and a survey questionnaire. The topic of study is very relevant and is likely to fall under "Sustainability" (mdpi). The manuscript should present a greater depth in the theoretical framework. Although I recognize the quality and competence in the literature review (good manuscripts from good journals and from the last 5 years, Scopus / WoS), I believe that the authors should develop greater depth in the theoretical framework. I also believe that it will be important for the manuscript to clearly present the contributions (theoretical and practical) that were developed in the manuscript. The manuscript is well-crafted, well-written, and well-organized. I suggest removing the word "chapter" from the manuscript content. I suggest developing the limitations of the study and lines of further investigation.

 

"The study was divided into two aspects: physiological and psychological, to explore the consumption consciousness that affected the packaging and logos on a product" - explain your choice, justify it.

 

My recommendations are minor. I am in favor of publishing the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for the excellent suggestion, and I have learned a lot. The theoretical framework of this study is based on the literature review, and this study is an intuitive study of consumer cognition. However, we are working on a further experiment that conducts the Theory of Planned Behavior to explore the cognition of reusable packaging on service design.
Furthermore, we have deleted the "Chapter" from the section, revised the conclusion, add theoretical and practice starting with 397.

Again, thanks for the comment. Please do not hesitate to put it forward if you have follow-up advice. We are looking forward to receiving your reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Article “The Intertwining Effect of Visual Perception of the Reusable Packaging and Type of Logo Simplification on Consumers’ Sustainable Awareness” is well written, can be accepted after major revisions. The main problems are as follows:

1. There is a lack of data support for the content of the abstract.

2. The details of the writing need to be carefully proofread, such as Chapter 2 Literature review on the second page.

3. We saw Table 2 in the 3.2 material, but we did not find Table 1 in the article.

4. Is there a reason why consumers are paying more attention to reusable packaging because reusable packaging materials are more expensive (metal)? The authors should consider it.

5. As it is well known that reusable packaging materials are usually more expensive than traditional petroleum-based materials, will the increased commodity cost due to the use of reusable packaging reduce consumer preferences in daily life? This is also something the authors should investigate and consider.

Authors need to carefully proofread the writing details of the article in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for the excellent suggestion, and I have learned a lot. We have added more methodology and results to the abstract and reregulated the literature review format and all the corresponding documents, including citations and table content. To answer questions 4 and 5 you mentioned, we did not focus on the metal material packaging, just because most reusable packaging in the market and the experiment object “Loop” are made of metal. We have added the issue in the limitation, and the material will be our next-level study in the future.  
Again, thanks for the comment. Please do not hesitate to put it forward if you have follow-up advice. We are looking forward to receiving your reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting publication topic. The authors presented the results of the "eye tracking" research on the assessment of the visual attractiveness of the selected elements of the product-mix. The main advantage is the presentation of the study, which is not often seen in publications. The areas analyzed were the packaging and the logo. The research was experimental and the selection was unrepresentative. Results cannot be equivalent to market behavior. The authors present the research methodology and the results based on basic statistical methods. The authors established the hypotheses and then presented the verifications. It is possible to more clearly present in the publication, extract confirmation or rejection of hypotheses. In addition, I propose to expand on the conclusions and limitations part. More information on the application of results in markeng practice can be added in the conclusions. In the limitations, more can be added about the limitations related to the research technology and the selection of the sample (participants) and problems with the representativeness of the study. In my opinion, the publication meets the standards of the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for the excellent suggestion, and I have learned a lot. We have improved the result and limitations, and further research, including manufacturing and cost issues, especially in the material selection, will be our future research issue. 
Again, thanks for the comment. Please do not hesitate to put it forward if you have follow-up advice. We are looking forward to receiving your reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper contains sufficiently new and sufficient information, and it adheres to the journal’s standards. The topic and level of formality are appropriate for the journal`s readership. Its style and readability are suitable. There is a huge amount of information given throughout the article, but I would suggest revising the paper. 

The methodological concept is clear. The selected methodology is scientifically appropriate, but the methods are not described in detail.  I suggest describing better the procedure and the measurement. Why were the experiment objects divided into three testing groups?

I also miss recent relevant literature in this area. I suggest citing: TOMAŽIČ, Tina, KOVAČIČ ČELOFIGA, Anita. The role of different behavioral and psychosocial factors in the context of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancers’ misuse. Healthcare. 2022,10, 6. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10060972 to see the explanation of psychosocial factors from different point of view.

Results are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately. Anyway, why you used the independent sample t-test?

I recommend rewriting the conclusion.  The concluding remarks should be more specific and better explained.

In summary, the article is sufficiently interesting to warrant publication, but it needs minor revision. Please follow all the comments above.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for the excellent suggestion, and I have learned a lot. We revised the point you suggested. We also struggled with the analysis method, whether using an independent sample t-test or repeated measured ANOVA. So we consulted the Department of Statistics and explained the experiment's purpose; after the discussion, we decided to use an independent sample T-test. Lastly, 
Again, thanks for the comment. Please do not hesitate to put it forward if you have follow-up advice. We are looking forward to receiving your reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

There are no "chapters" in articles.

In my opinion, the research sample was too small, but I also understand how time-consuming this type of research is. Linking re-use packaging to the pandemic is not convincing enough. The study also contains many limitations related to the lack of much data on consumer preferences in the area of reuse packaging. The topic is new, multithreaded, therefore, although I believe that the study is not exhaustive, at this stage of development of the topic it can be inspiring for other researchers.

Author Response

Thank you for the excellent suggestion, and I have learned a lot. I personally agree that the sample of the experiment is a bit low. However, because the eye tracker is a very precise device, and each person makes multiple sets of samples, it can explain to a certain extent, but this will become the focus of our attention in the future. We appreciate your notice that this is the beginning of the research series, and we are excited to move forward with your approbate.
Again, thanks for the comment. Please do not hesitate to put it forward if you have follow-up advice. We are looking forward to receiving your reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

None.