How to Enhance Corporate Customers’ Loyalty on Purchasing Service Products? Exploring from the Perspective of Information Search

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper is about a very interesting and relatively new subject of the quality of service and the loyalty relation by applying the information processing theory. Although the paper is clear in its content, the sequence is logical, but implementing some research ideas must be improved.

-       Introduction should be more accurate, i.e., the research methods should be clearly provided. The service quality definition provided here should be up to date.

-       Theoretical part is dedicated to the literature review and hypotheses formulation. Information processing theory has been applied. I suggest considering applying Decision-making theory (or/and integrating it with Information processing theory). It would be interesting to see the results.

-        The Research methodology needs to be more precise. The author should mention how a focused interview was conducted, when the survey was conducted, and so on. The authors just noted that 167 valid responses were returned, but what is the representativeness of this survey? This should be calculated and mentioned.

-       Conclusions should be related to the main goal and tasks (they are missed). Therefore, conclusions should be reformulated. I suggest providing the Discussion part, which is now missing.

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper, and I wish you good luck in strengthening the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 Thank  you for your valued suggestion. Please  see  the attachment file for   reply. Have a good

Night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

On page 4, the question about the main external channels for information search is formulated. In addition, the results and conclusions refer to this issue and provide an answer to the question. However, throughout the text it is not correctly seen where these data come from to reach these conclusions. Where does the data come from? Were they in the questionnaire? In this case, how do you ask about these "principal information acquisition sources?" The authors should explain more clearly how they reached these conclusions and where the data comes from, since this is not reflected in the proposed model.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your valued suggestion. Please see the attachment file for reply. Have

a Good Night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I am afraid that I cannot recommend the article for publication, mainly for the following reasons:

1) The topic addressed in the article is basically clarified. The established hypotheses essentially contain known facts, currently not only reported in professional literature, but also taught at universities as part of marketing subjects. It would certainly be surprising if the stated hypotheses were not confirmed (or partially confirmed, as stated for hypothesis H1). 

2) The results reached by the authors would be meaningful if they were presented in a special context. However, this did not happen, the application to any more specifically stated "service products" does not offer any real enrichment of theoretical knowledge.

3) The out-of-dateness of the issue can also be demonstrated by the literature used - the authors used only approximately 23% of professional articles younger than 5 years, only a third of sources are younger than 10 years. More than a third of the resources are older than 20 years……

Apart from this important comment, I have other important comments, namely:

1) The article does not have a clearly defined goal, or the main goal broken down into clearly structured sub-goals. It is difficult to understand the relationship between the use of different information sources in obtaining information by decision center members and verifying the relationships between service quality, relationship quality, perceive value and loyalty.

2) The process of primary research is not sufficiently described - on the one hand, the selection of "experts in focus group discussions" is not justified (and, moreover, their number seems insufficient to me), but it is also not sufficiently described what the questionnaire itself looked like (what the researchers really asked, what was the subject of individual questions). How could this conclusion be made "The results indicated that the Internet, colleagues, sales representatives, professional magazines, industry peers, friends, advertisements, and exhibitions were all significant information sources."?

3) Conclusions and recommendations that are made from the research, e.g.: "vendors of service products should focus on the Internet, professional magazines, and sales staff as the three main information channels"; or "If the vendor leaves a favorable impression on enterprise users, such actions have a positive effect on loyalty over time" or "Vendors should use sales staff to provide useful information about the company's products and improve the relationship quality." are too general and basically common knowledge.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your valued suggestion. Please see the attachment file for reply. Have

a Good Night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you very much for the opportunity to read this paper.  I believe that it is well-built and well based article both in theoretical, methodological and practical aspects. But I would recommend for Some minor changes. From abstract to methodology part is written in a beautiful way, even the analysis conducted on the SmartPLS explains each ingredient in a perfect way. However, the conclusion and suggestion section is short. There need to be a section based on the discussion about the results of the study. After these minor changes, I highly recommend the publication of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your valued suggestion. Please see the attachment file for reply. Have

a Good Night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors,

Thank you for your interest in Sustainability.

Please find above my comments. 

The introduction has several strengths and weaknesses that should be highlighted.

• First, the introduction effectively contextualizes the study, providing a clear understanding of the importance of revenue growth for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Taiwan's service industry. Additionally, it provides an overview of the limited literature on B2B service products, which is relevant to the study's hypothesis.
• However, the introduction lacks a clear purpose statement that outlines the study's objectives and research questions. While the study's focus on information processing theory is clear, it is not clear how this theory will be used to explore the relationship between service quality and user loyalty to service providers. Additionally, the introduction could benefit from more concise language to improve its overall readability.

The literature review needs to be improved. Although the review provides some relevant information, it is not comprehensive enough. The review could have also addressed the limitations of previous studies, which would have allowed the authors to establish the novelty and contribution of their research.

The hypotheses proposed seem to be based on a sound theoretical foundation, particularly in terms of the information processing theory and the importance of service quality, perceived value, and relationship quality in driving customer loyalty. However, there are some areas where the hypotheses could be improved.

• Firstly, the paper could have provided more specific definitions or operationalizations for the constructs being measured, particularly for perceived value and relationship quality, to ensure clarity and consistency in measurement. Additionally, the paper could have explained how these constructs were being measured, such as through surveys or interviews.
• Secondly, the paper could have addressed potential alternative explanations for the proposed relationships, such as the impact of other variables on customer loyalty. This would have strengthened the robustness of the hypotheses and their applicability to a wider range of contexts.

In conclusion, while the proposed hypotheses are generally well-supported by the literature, the paper could have been more comprehensive in terms of defining and operationalizing constructs and addressing potential alternative explanations.

The Materials and Methods section provides some useful information. It could be improved by providing more detail on the research framework, questionnaire survey, and sampling method, as well as by including information on the validity and reliability of the survey items and constructs:

• Firstly, the section does not provide sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Although the research framework is depicted in Figure 1, it is not described in detail, and there is no explanation of how it was developed or how it relates to the research hypotheses. Additionally, while the questionnaire survey is briefly described, more information is needed on the questions asked and how they were developed.
• Secondly, the section does not provide enough information on the software used. While the software used for data analysis is mentioned as Smart PLS 4.08, there is no explanation of how it was used or whether the computer code is available. This is an important detail that should be included in the Materials and Methods section.
• Thirdly, the sampling method used for the questionnaire survey is not well-described. Although it is mentioned that the survey was conducted using purposive sampling, there is no explanation of how the sample size was determined, or whether any bias may have been introduced due to the sampling method. Additionally, there is no information on how the respondents were contacted, how many times they were contacted, or whether any incentives were provided to encourage their participation.
• Finally, while the section describes the variables and how they were measured, there is no information on the validity and reliability of the survey items and constructs. This is an essential aspect of research methodology and should be included.

Concerning the results, the paper presents some interesting insights into the factors influencing customer loyalty for enterprise service products. However, the authors should address the aforementioned issues and provide more detail and clarity in their analysis to strengthen the paper's contribution to the field. While the authors offer clear demographics and descriptive statistics for the sample, and the use of hierarchical regression to test hypotheses, there are several issues with the paper that need to be addressed:

• Firstly, the sample size of 167 is not large enough to generalize the results to the population. Additionally, the paper lacks a detailed explanation of the sampling method used, which raises concerns about the representativeness of the sample.
• Secondly, the paper's language is not clear and concise, making it difficult for the reader to follow the presented arguments. The writing style should be revised to ensure clarity and precision.
• Thirdly, the results of hypothesis testing are not thoroughly discussed, with no explanation for why the first hypothesis does not hold. The authors should provide a more detailed explanation of their findings and address any potential limitations of the study.
• Finally, the authors should consider providing additional insights into the practical implications of their findings for vendors of service products. While the paper provides recommendations for vendors, more detailed and specific suggestions for actions that can be taken would improve the paper's contribution to the field.

Overall, the conclusions of this paper are clear and well-organized. The authors discuss the results and their implications in the context of previous studies and working hypotheses. They highlight the limitations of the work and suggest future research directions. However, the authors could improve the clarity of their conclusions by providing a more in-depth analysis of the limitations of the study and potential implications for future research. They could also consider addressing any potential limitations of the information processing theory and exploring alternative theories that may provide additional insights.

 

• The authors conclude that service quality has a positive effect on perceived value and relationship quality, but not on loyalty, which is consistent with previous research. They suggest that good service quality is a basic procurement requirement but cannot drive loyalty formation without sufficient information transmission. This conclusion is well-supported by the data and is a valuable contribution to the field.
• The authors also conclude that perceived value and relationship quality mediate the relationship between service quality and loyalty, which is consistent with previous research. They suggest that this may be due to the trusting partnerships and relationships built between IT personnel and vendors. They also emphasize the importance of information transmission through trusted channels to enhance perceived value and relationship quality, and ultimately loyalty. This conclusion is well-supported by the data and previous research and provides useful insights for service providers.
• In terms of academic implications, the authors suggest that the study expands the application of the information processing mechanism and proposes a new theoretical perspective on the marketing strategy of service products. They emphasize the importance of service providers delivering correct information during the service process to prevent the perceived value of customers from being reduced due to excessive expectations. They also highlight the mediating effects of perceived value and relationship quality on loyalty, which has been less explored in previous research. This conclusion is insightful and provides useful directions for future research.
• The practical implications section is lacking in specificity and practicality and could benefit from further refinement.
• One of the main suggestions for management practices is that vendors should use sales staff to provide useful information about the company’s products and improve relationship quality. While this is a valid suggestion, it is not clear how vendors can implement this in practice. Additionally, the recommendation that service providers implement mentorship within their companies to enhance communication with customers is also vague and could benefit from further elaboration on how this can be done effectively.
• Furthermore, while the paper acknowledges the limitations of the study and suggests future research directions, the practical implications section does not provide any concrete suggestions for how these limitations can be addressed. For instance, the paper suggests that future studies can explore whether this model is applicable to other service industries but does not provide any guidance on how such studies can be conducted.

I hope they can help you improve your research.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your valued suggestion. Please see the attachment file for reply. Have

a Good Night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear authors:

After the modifications made by the authors to the first version of their manuscript, it has improved in terms of formal aspects, clarifications, etc. 

In addition, the number of responses to the questionnaire remains low. 

Kind regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your valued suggestion. Please see the attachment file for reply. Have

a Good Day

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

In the case of this article, I do not consider further improvements to be beneficial and I recommend printing the article in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your affirmation. Please see the attachment. Have

a Good Day

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors,

Please find my comments:

1.

Thank you for your response and for clarifying the purpose of your study. I appreciate the effort you have put into revising the introduction section to address the weaknesses pointed out in the initial review. However, I have a few additional suggestions for improvement.

·         Firstly, while the red parts you have added do simplify the language, I still think that the introduction could benefit from further simplification to improve its overall readability. I suggest revisiting the text with a critical eye to remove any unnecessary technical jargon or complex sentence structures that could hinder comprehension.

·         Secondly, I suggest rephrasing the last sentence of your response to provide more clarity on how information processing theory will be used to explore the relationship between service quality and user loyalty. This will help readers understand the significance of your study and the contribution it will make to the literature.

Overall, I believe these revisions will help strengthen the introduction section and improve the overall quality of your manuscript.

2.

Thank you for addressing the concerns raised in the initial review regarding the literature review and hypotheses. I appreciate the effort you have put into revising the manuscript.

·         The additional definitions and operationalizations provided for the constructs being measured in your study are helpful and improve the clarity and consistency of measurement. However, I suggest checking the text carefully to ensure that all definitions and operationalizations are clearly presented and explained in a way that is accessible to readers who may not be familiar with the terminology.

Overall, I believe that these revisions have significantly improved the literature review and hypotheses sections of your manuscript.

3.

The additional information provided on the research framework, questionnaire survey, sampling method, and validity and reliability of the survey items and constructs is helpful and improves the transparency and reproducibility of your study.

·         However, I suggest checking the text carefully to ensure all information is presented clearly and concisely. In particular, I suggest that you revise the text to address the concerns raised regarding the sampling method used in your study. It is important to acknowledge any potential bias that may have been introduced and to provide a clear justification for the sample size used.

Overall, I believe that these revisions have significantly improved the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript.

4.

Based on the response provided by the authors, they acknowledge that the sample size of 167 may be a limitation of the study and that it may make it difficult to generalize the results to the population. However, they argue that the information service industry with a high knowledge-intensive degree was used as a sample to answer the research questions, which may help to identify the exact type of information manufacturers can use to promote the maximization of cooperation opportunities when enterprise users are faced with high uncertainty.

While the authors provide a rationale for using a smaller sample size, they could have provided more detailed information about the sampling method used and the sample's representativeness. The fact that they acknowledge the limitation of the sample size and add it to the research limitations section is a positive step. Additionally, the author's decision to strengthen the explanation of the sampling method used in the study is also a positive step in addressing the reviewer's comment. However, this still remains a critical point, in my opinion, for the non-acceptance of the article.

5. 6.

 

The authors have improved their text with our recommendations. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

  Thank you for your valued suggestion. Please see the attached file for reply.

Thanks again and have a

Good Day

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Finally, and after the authors' latest contributions, I consider that the article is publishable in its current state.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract may be improved for clarity

You may consider for Abstract

Building upon literature contribution on Organizational procurement IS , firms have to confront challenges  deriving from uncertainty of collective decision making and increasing efforts of scanning for relevant information among buyers. Your study outcome is to explore options to overcome the effect of these vulnerabilities. This study advances a research framework to enrich theory with…. , addresses a relevant challenge of practitioners……. and   provides managerial guiding........ to strengthen customer loyalty.  

Literature review

Trends

„Based on the above literature, this study got the following conclusions”

This is not the place for study conclusions but for exploiting previous relevant insights for exploring information search behavior in order to develop the author’s research framework and testing hypothesis.

Relevant insights may be announced as follows

Managerial difficulties deriving from coordination of conflicting interests -various business partners rising transaction costs

Limited knowledge about the compound effect of rational and irrational components

Customer's perceived value evolves from preferences to exigences

B2B environment is defined by value based  interactions which prevails  price/performance criteria

.....

5.2 Academic implication

Please reformulate

“This good feedback cycle will let customers generate repeat buy willingness”.

For example

This virtuous cycle may influence customer’s buying willingness to repeat purchasing and is conditioned by trust embedded in addressing customer uncertainty while scanning for relevant information. The marketing strategy has to pursue increasing loyalty while guiding customer choice. The customer propensity to repeat purchasing is influenced by vendor capability to genuinely address customer uncertainty.

Please revise

“Specifically, service providers must continuously deliver positive information during the service process, so that consumers can improve their perceived value, or establish a good relationship quality through the good evaluation of their services by customers”.

Positive information is ambiguous, you may also consider as “positive“the capacity of marketing tools to share responses to negative testimonials about service quality. This approach serves to enhance customer trust on vendors’ information content, whenever in doubt with repeated purchasing.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper. It explores the impact of service quality of service products on three other constructs: perceived value, quality relationship, and loyalty. There are two strong points (i) it focuses on B2B service products, which are less explored, and (ii) the methodological approach sounds correct. Nevertheless, I could only see a little value in the article. What has been added to the extant literature? It is well known that service quality is a driver of loyalty. For this reason and others, I suggest the rejection of this paper. My recommendation was based on the following significant points:

First, the introduction sections need to be improved.  For instance, the research gaps (why is this research relevant? How the extant literature dealt with the suggested relationships) should be clarified. Another point is that the introduction is too short, which makes it challenging to write an appealing one.  

Second, the discussion of the hypotheses is weak. Authors should focus on the relationships and, mainly, the contradictions. I will give on clear example. Instead of focusing on service intangibility, the authors should better explore the relationship between service quality and loyalty. In particular, the controversial results would justify its investigation. 

Concerning the research method, critical information is missing. How was developed the CMB (common method bias) test? Was it? Who were the respondents (C-level or operation level)? HTMT for assessing the discriminant validity?

Fourth, the extant literature used by the authors is limited, which contributed to a limited discussion of results. This is clear when one considers articles cited in the discussion sections. However, there was nothing new in the discussions and implications. The lack of novelty is the main problem of the article. 

My apologies for the feedback. I hope they prove helpful for the further improvements of our article and research.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The references used in the theoretical justification are out of date. There is only one reference from 2022 and another one from 2020, while there is none from 2021. From 2019 there is only one reference.

Some aspects should be studied in greater depth, such as Relationship quality, since the most current reference is from 2015 (see, for example, the study by Estrada-Guillén, Monferrer-Tirado and Moliner-Tena published in The service industries journal, vol. 40 (3-4), 2020).

The study does not detail the items used to measure each of the constructs. It is recommended to detail and add a table with loadings and t-values.

It would also be convenient to add a table with the characteristics of the respondent.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper attempts to discuss an interesting question about the relationship between perceived value/relationship quality and service quality. To obtain some novel findings, questionnaire survey and focused interview are conducted, results analysis as well as some conclusions and suggestions are presented. Overall, this is an interesting research subject. However, I have some concerns that should be further addressed.

1. In the Abstract section, the purpose of this paper should be mention briefly, and the conclusion is too long, which should be mentioned briefly and clearly. Moreover, there are some typos such as “........ this has .........” in line 9 of the Abstract section. Please check and revise them.

2. Introduction section should be strengthened. The background of this paper should be well-organized. The authors should update the latest data in this section. In addition, the contributions of this work should be summarized more clearly in this section.

3. The literature review section should be strongly enhanced. Literature review should not a simple stack of papers, but a comprehensive analysis. In addition, the authors should update the latest literatures in the literature review sections, such as doi: 10.1111/itor.13186 and doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2020.106951.

4. In the beginning of the Research methods section, the author descripts the research framework in the first paragraph of the section 3.1, however, the meaning of the paragraph seems to be repeated. Moreover, there are a number of variables in this paper, it is a litter hard to evaluate which were developed by the authors and which parts were taken from published works.

5. In the Results and Discussion section, the authors should provide sufficient examples or literature comparisons to support your results and findings, which may highlight your contributions.

6. Conclusion and suggestions section should be enhanced. The author should provide some practical examples in the Practical Implications section.

7. The logic of this paper is not very clear, and the language should be improved significantly. Please check the formula symbols and typos in the paper to ensure that they are correct.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate author's effort to improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

   Please see the attachment revised  manuscript.
Have a good night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

Unfortunately, I continue to recommend the rejection of this paper.  Although this new version was improved by the authors, I continue to have the same concerns regarding the paper.  My comments were marginally addressed by the revision.  Major improvements are still necessary for hypothesis development, CMB, and discussion.

Sorry for keeping my assessment regarding the paper.

Best regards

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your suggestion.

Although you think my paper is not suitable  for publication,

I have tried my  best to revise my manuscript. Please see the attachment. 

Have a Good Night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The requested changes have been made. With the improvements, the paper is considered suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

   Thank you for your suggestion. Please see the attachment revised manuscript. Thank you very much.

Have a good night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper has been modified according to the modification suggestions, and it is recommended to accept.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

I am very appreciated for  you suggestion.

Please see the attachment  revised manuscript.

Have a Good Night

Sincerely

Tsu-yeh

Author Response File: Author Response.docx