Evaluating Developer Responses to App Reviews: The Case of Mobile Banking Apps in Saudi Arabia and the United States
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
We thank the authors for the work. As a result of the research carried out using the content analysis method, information that I think will contribute to the literature is given. The work is systematically fluent and understandable. The points I would like to add for the study are,
- is the expansion of the explanations about the figures (all the figures in the whole work should be interpreted in detail and it should be clarified for what purpose they were put in the work)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: All the figures in the whole work should be interpreted in detail and it should be clarified for what purpose they were put in the work.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We reviewed all the figures and added more explanations to Figures 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15.
Point 2: Although the study is seen as an original study, its contribution to the literature is weak. The aim of the study is to examine the mobile banking application in the United States and Saudi Arabia. Although the study, which evaluates the developer's response to user reviews in both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store in the field of banking, is popular because it is related to the issue of digitalization in banking, the findings, discussion and results are not at a level to contribute to the literature. The development of this study in this regard is of great importance.
Response 2: The data analysis section is actually a part of the results section. We restructured the results section to make the contribution of our research clearer. We also added more studies to the literature review.
Point 3: The contribution of the study to the literature in this state is weak. It would be appropriate to reconsider for publication in Sustainability.
Response 3: Our research studied the interaction between developers and users over the app stores. We selected the relationship between customers and developers in the banking domain. However, the major aim of this study is how to develop this relationship and make it sustainable. We explained the link between our research and sustainability in the first paragraph of section 1.1.
Point 4: Content analysis was used in the study. The methodology of the study should be reconsidered. Although there is a need for clearer data on digital banking applications, different international indices can be used. If the use of content analysis is to be insisted upon, content analysis should be explained in more detail and the steps followed within the scope of the study should be clearly written. should be systematically detailed.
Response 4: Thank you for this comment. Further explanation of the content analysis and the steps followed has been added to Section 3.
Point 5: The number of mobile app 25 downloads has increased from 140.68 billion in 2016 to 230 billion in 2022” (section 1).
Response 5: Thank you for this comment. We re-formatted the in-text citation.
Point 6: The app store/app shop cited in the labor camp should be used with the same name throughout the study. For all brands/logos within the scope of the study, it should be written where they were taken from.
Response 6: The word “shop” is replaced to “store” in section 3.1. Figure 2 was removed from the manuscript since Mdpi asks for permission for every trademark. All the other figures and tables are owned by the authors and thus they do not need any citation.
Point 7: Why Apple App Store sometimes referred to Apple App Shop?
Response 7: The word “shop” is replaced to “store” in section 3.1.
Point 8: Figures 8,9,10,11 contain overlapping content.
Response 8: Thanks for this comment. We have fixed this issue.
Point 9: Set each figure on a single page with their descriptions.
Response 9: We have addressed this comment.
Point 10: Figure numbers should be adjusted according to the template.
Response 10: We have addressed this issue.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- There are many English grammatical, commas, and spelling errors, please get the paper reviewed by a native speaker.
- Facts like "the number of mobile app 25 downloads grew from 140.68 billion in 2016 to 230 billion in 2022" in section 1 needs to cited properly.
- Use proper citation format for Figures and Tables.
- Define all the abbreviations once and then use them.
- Need more details on Content Analysis in section 3.
- What are the essential concepts in point 3 of section 3?
- What are the codes discussed in point 4 and 5 of section 3?
- Why Apple App Store sometimes referred to Apple App Shop?
- Adjust each figure along with their captions on a single page.
- Figure numbers need to adjusted according to the template.
- Figures 8,9,10,11 contain overlapping content.
- It is mentioned in conclusion that the comparison is done between two app stores, then why there is a comparison with a third store i.e. Microsoft in manuscript? Either remove the third store from whole manuscript or add about third store in conclusion as well.
- Figure 2 needs permission and citations for each logo used.
Author Response
Point 1: There are many English grammatical, commas, and spelling errors, please get the paper reviewed by a native speaker.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. The manuscript was sent to a proofreading service before sending it to the journal. However, we have reviewed it again and fixed some issues.
Point 2: Facts like "the number of mobile app 25 downloads grew from 140.68 billion in 2016 to 230 billion in 2022" in section 1 needs to cited properly.
Response 2: Thanks for this comment. We have rewritten this sentence.
Point 3: Use proper citation format for Figures and Tables.
Response 3: All figures and tables are owned by the authors and thus no citation is needed. We have removed Figure 2 since it needs permission for every logo.
Point 4: Define all the abbreviations once and then use them.
Response 4: Thanks for this comment. We have reviewed the manuscript and made sure that this comment is applied.
Point 5: Need more details on Content Analysis in section 3.
Response 5: Further explanation of the Content Analysis is added in Section 3.
Point 6: What are the essential concepts in point 3 of section 3?
Response 6: We added information in point 3 of section 3 to explain the essential concepts.
Point 7: What are the codes discussed in point 4 and 5 of section 3?
Response 7: Since we followed the inductive content analysis method, the codes are created during the analysis process. We added an example to explain this process in points 4 and 5 of section 3.
Point 8: Why Apple App Store sometimes referred to Apple App Shop?
Response 8: Thanks for this comment. We have changed the word “shop” to “store” in section 3.1.
Point 9: Adjust each figure along with their captions on a single page.
Response 9: We have addressed this issue.
Point 10: Figure numbers need to adjusted according to the template.
Response 10: We have addressed this issue.
Point 11: Figures 8,9,10,11 contain overlapping content.
Response 11: We have addressed this issue.
Point 12: It is mentioned in conclusion that the comparison is done between two app stores, then why there is a comparison with a third store i.e. Microsoft in manuscript? Either remove the third store from whole manuscript or add about third store in conclusion as well.
Response 12: We totally understand your thought. Thus, we added a new section (Limitation) to explain this issue.
Point 13: Figure 2 needs permission and citations for each logo used.
Response 13: Thanks for this comment. We removed Figure 2 since every logo will need permission. Additionally, banks' names are enough and we do not need their logos.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Objective of this work (Mobile banking app reviews in Saudi Arabia and United States) is evaluating developer response to user reviews in both Apple App Store and Google Play Store in the banking domain. The idea is popular and can be used to dealing with the pandemic issue, such as COVID-19.
Both quantitative and qualitative approaching were used to code and categorize developer responses for each app using content analysis. My main comment is time: how to use such large data from 2018 -2022 for detailed stock analysis both in horizontal and vertical.
It is nice work for a PhD thesis Chapter of Literature Review, however, it needs Editor-in-Chief's approval to in-press if Journal of Sustainability is targeting the scientific finding rather than the market survey.
Author Response
Point 1: Objective of this work (Mobile banking app reviews in Saudi Arabia and United States) is evaluating developer response to user reviews in both Apple App Store and Google Play Store in the banking domain. The idea is popular and can be used to dealing with the pandemic issue, such as COVID-19.
Response 1: We added this information in section 1.2
Point 2: Both quantitative and qualitative approaching were used to code and categorize developer responses for each app using content analysis. My main comment is time: how to use such large data from 2018 -2022 for detailed stock analysis both in horizontal and vertical.
Response 2: We have not worked with stock analysis before and therefore we have no answer for this comment.
Point 3: It is nice work for a PhD thesis Chapter of Literature Review, however, it needs Editor-in-Chief's approval to in-press if Journal of Sustainability is targeting the scientific finding rather than the market survey.
Response 3: We aimed to study the relationship between developers and users over app stores. Our main objective is how to develop this relationship and make it sustainable. Thus, we have provided recommendations for users, developers, and app stores to accomplish the main objective. We added a new section (1.1) to explain this point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The required revision is satisfactory.
Author Response
Point 1: The required revision is satisfactory.
Response 1: Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article (Mobile banking app reviews in Saudi Arabia and United States) is well refined based on the last version. One question is if the user, developer and app store can work coherently with the crashed microsoft? Would the brain and body function properly if a heart has an issue, and how long it sustains?
Author Response
Point 1: The article (Mobile banking app reviews in Saudi Arabia and United States) is well refined based on the last version. One question is if the user, developer and app store can work coherently with the crashed microsoft? Would the brain and body function properly if a heart has an issue, and how long it sustains?
Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We have addressed this comment in the first paragraph of section 5 (Discussion).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
