The Agency of Consumer Value and Behavioral Reasoning Patterns in Shaping Webrooming Behaviors in Omnichannel Retail Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
1. Sentences are too long at a few places, it is difficult to read them. This is the opening statement and is too long to process, ““With the expeditious growth of web and information technology, omni-channel re- 32 tailing is becoming more customary with customers' preferences transposing from single- 33 channel to dynamic, network-structured omni-channel retailing, where they could lever- 34 age multiple channels of web, brick-and-mortar, mobile etc. to acquire more knowledge 35 about products, make smart decisions, and enjoy a seamless and tenacious buying experience (Flavián et al., 2020; Kleinlercher et al., 2020; Boardman & McCormick, 2018a).
2. The factors taken for ‘reasons for webrooming’ (Haptic touch and immediate possession) and against webrooming (cost savings and product assortment) do not add much value. I request the authors to find more reasons for and against. In the present form, the manuscript only adds value by using BRT. The nuances coming from reasons for and against are very much limited. Otherwise, I urge you to offer strong justifications for the same.
3. Likewise for implications sections, they need to be reflected for both reasons for and against. Because, when it comes to reasons against webrooming, it holds benefits for online retailers. That needs to be reflected too.
No changes are suggested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
After reading your article "The Agency of Consumer Value and Behavioral Reasoning Patterns in Shaping Webrooming Behaviors in Omnichannel Retail Environments", I consider that the following improvements should be addressed.
1. In the Introduction you presented the gap and the main objctives and they are very clear. However, I recommend you to also include a clear description of the research question.
2. The "Figure 1: The Conceptual Model" should be placed in the article after you defined and described the research hypotheses. Taking into consideration the structure of your article, I would place figure 1 after the section "2.2.7. The Mediation Effect Hypothesis".
3. In the Literature Review section, your research context should be enriched with the following new resources: https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040057 (social networking sites and purchase intentions), https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12132857 (influence of the network on buying decisions), https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010033 (multi and omni channels), https://doi.org/10.3390/info13010012 (customer experience). These resources will improve your research proposal.
4. In "Table 2. Assessment of the Measurement Model" you present the constructs and their relevant values. I recommend you to include an appendix at the end of the article where you should present the desciption of the constructs and the items (ATT1, ATT2, ... , INT1, INT2, ..., etc.). The readers are interested in knowing them in detail.
5. If you can, I would recommend to include in the "Results" section a Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis in PLS (CTA-PLS).
6. At the end of "4.3. Assessment of the Structural Model", please include a new figure similar to figure 1, but this time with the values (?) on the paths. This way, the readers will have a complete visual image of the model.
7. In "Table 6. Assessment of the Structural Model" you present the results on the last column. It would be interesting for the readers to present some details about the syntagm "Rejected (due to direction)". Please provide some details under the table.
Best wishes!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Please see below my remarks for the second round of review. I appreciate your work and effort to improve the manuscript.
However, the following aspects should be addressed:
- "Figure 2. Assessment of the Structural Model" is ok, but the pixel resolution seems to be poor. Maybe you could try an enhanced image for this picture, so that the readers can clearly see the texts and values.
- at the end of the article (line 676) you have the Data Availability Statement with the text "Data sharing is not applicable". If it's possible, I recommend you to publish the raw data on a public repository (e.g.: FigShare) and insert the corresponding link in this section of your article.
- I recommend you to include the following articles within the background of your research: https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040057 (social networking sites and purchase intentions), https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12132857 (influence of the network on buying decisions), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020666 (omnichannels), https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070181. These resources are very useful for your researh context.
- in the Discussion section, please include a short paragraph regarding the research questions from the lines 92 -95.
Best regards!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
