Analyzing Healthcare and Wellness Products’ Quality Embedded in Online Customer Reviews: Assessment with a Hybrid Fuzzy LMAW and Fermatean Fuzzy WASPAS Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First, congratulations on the paper. Please see below for suggestions that I believe could significantly improve the article.

- The figure 1 reference is missing. 

- The reasoning of the literature review is confusing. It is necessary to follow a coherent and logical line of thought to understand the study's theoretical framework.

- I don't see the study's originality, so you should clarify what gap in the literature you intend to address.

- The 2.1. Contribution section should be mentioned right in the introduction

- Needs a deep correction of the English language

- In the presentation of the model framework, you must present the propositions related to it

- The methodology for analyzing customer reviews must also be presented schematically

- Why use a Hybrid Model of the Fuzzy- LMAW and the Fermatean Fuzzy (FF) WASPAS? Which authors are you based on to use this methodology?

- There is no real discussion of the results but only a presentation. A critical interpretation of the results is expected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research is very interesting and it is possible to see that a lot of effort was put into this work. The paper is well structured and presents discussions that contribute to the state of the art on the topic of e-commerce and customer satisfaction. However I believe there are some minor improvements that should be made, pointed out as follows:

1. Review the text to correct minor typing errors and inclusion of parentheses where maybe there is not.

2. I also recommend that you include a short description in the beginning of the literature review section that explains what is the focus of the literature review.

3. Also, it would be interesting to include in the conclusion section information of how this work differs from other similar research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Name of the Paper:  Analyzing Healthcare and Wellness Products’ Quality embedded in Online Customer Reviews: Assessment with a Hybrid Fuzzy LMAW and Fermatean Fuzzy WASPAS Method

The paper attempts to analyze the healthcare and wellness products s’ quality filtering from online customer reviews and considering various quality parameters of the product, shipment service, and after-sales service quality. The user employs the Hybrid Fuzzy LMAW and Fermatean Fuzzy WASPAS Author found that the most important criteria were products’ performance, side-effects, payback, and change possibility, while the reasonable products’ price was at least. The aftersales service quality was more significant than the delivery service.

  General Observation:

1)      “Please refer to Abstract: “Although online shopping is …… number of online purchasing transactions in 2022” is contradictory.

2)      There are some typos for instance: Please refer to “sales in 2018 and 2025 should be sales in 2018 and 2025”. Please refer to “sales in 2018 and 2025 should be sales in 2018 and 2025”

3)      Figures 1 to 3 are very ordinary and scientifically incomplete.

4)      The interpretation from Figure 2. E-commerce sales in 2022 compared to the previous year should cover the whole year instead of a single month of November 2022.

5)      Please refer to 392 "For example, chemical dishwashing detergents...." authors may provide some examples of side effects of Healthcare and Wellness Products.

6)      Please refer to lines 493-494 “In line with fourteen quality parameters, each comment, when they were detected, was measured with a Likert-type scale….. “Authors may provide an illustrative example of gauging the quality parameters found from sample online comments for more judging the accuracy of the research methods employed.

7)      Please refer to line 678: The sentiment analysis, ….. complaints.” It may be explained with the illustrative example

8)      Please refer to Table 4. Sample customer reviews according to the quality parameters. How the table is arrived at may be clarified.

9)      Please refer to Table 5. Customers’ overall ratings for the selected product, all products rating is very close to 5, Authors' inference from this is not clearly stated with relation to customer satisfaction.

10)  How the DM interpreted the online reviews to provide their judgment to get Table 7. The aggregated fuzzy weights and final criteria score of criteria of LMAW Results.

11)  More information on DM may be useful to understand and gauge the accuracy of the decision-making process

12)  How the fourteen criteria are selected to gauge the quality is unclear.

13)  The expiry date is a more sensitive parameter in health-related products which is taken seriously by pharmaceutical and chemists. It will be a rare experience for customers to get an expired product. The author may provide some clarity.

14)  Please refer to lines 759-760: “Table 8 shows shoppers choose moisturizing cream over washing liquid when purchasing health products online. The inference/logic will not be true for choosing the “Electric toothbrush”. These may be referred to as shoppers' most preferred choices for online shopping.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I had my article proofread again, and I removed the Turkish parts from the manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the updated manuscript. The author has amended the manuscript, some comments may further be addressed to provide more clarity and understanding to readers:

 

(a) Please refer to " Figure 8. Example of sentiment analysis" is not helping the majority of readers in understanding the nature of complaints for the healthcare and wellness products to connect themselves because of language. In my opinion, English translation will help new researchers to adopt it in their quality research will help author and journal for citations.

 

(b) Authors may cite the following research for SERVQUAL

(i) Abu Jadayil, W., Shakoor, M., Bashir, A., Selmi, H. and Qureshi, M.R.N., 2020. Using SERVIQUAL to investigate the quality of provided wireless communication services in UAE. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 12(1), pp.109-132.

(ii) Qureshi, K.M., Mewada, B.G., Alghamdi, S.Y., Almakayeel, N., Mansour, M. and Qureshi, M.R.N., 2022. Exploring the lean implementation barriers in small and medium-sized enterprises using interpretive structure modeling and interpretive ranking process. Applied System Innovation, 5(4), p.84.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I had my article proofread again and removed the Turkish parts from the manuscript, which were later translated into English. Apart from that, according to your suggestion, the references were added to the manuscript. These references  can be seen in the "Literature Review" section and "The limitation and future work."