Impact of Reward Mechanisms on Consumers’ Willingness to Use Intelligent Express Packaging Recycling Cabinets: A Case Study in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submitting this study; a very interesting one, and I enjoyed reading it. Nevertheless, it has a few shortcomings that need to be addressed:

1-       The title needs to be changed. For example, the consumer's willingness to use intelligent express packaging recycling cabinets may vary from one country to another. This study is more specific to Chinese consumers, so the title should change accordingly.

2—The Methodology part is missing, and the results and experiments jump suddenly in. You need to add a clear methodology section briefing the protocol and philosophical approach to this research?

3-       Also, the ethical approval needs to be included. Do you have one? This needs to be added to the methodology section.

4-     What are the Practical Implications and theoretical application for this research? This needs to be addressed separately.

5- What is the limitation of this study? It needs to be added.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the paper demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the research they are carrying out, it is considered a deep and adequate study. However, it lacks a clear structure that would help the reader to adequately understand what they are trying to study. 

 

The biggest problem of the paper is that it does not have a methodology section, instead, the methodological provisions are broken down in other sections that do not favor the comprehension of the paper at all. Therefore, it is recommended to use the classic structure of a methodology section: research design, data collection and data analysis, where the methodological approach used to achieve the hypotheses is clearly explained step by step. This would help to better understand the approach of the study and the results obtained. In short, to make it easier for the reader to understand and reference the article, it is recommended that it be clearly understandable by users.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggested changes; I think they are very helpful. The structure of the paper has been restructured. Now, the paper consists of six parts: Introduction, Literature Review, Research Hypotheses, Methodology, Results, and Discussion. Please find the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is disjointed. Improve the structure of the abstract by relooking its logical flow. 

Some statements are in inverted commas without the citation and page number.

The introduction lacks logical flow. I would advise the authors to group similar ideas/arguments in one paragraph and then link it with the following paragraph. This comment is also applicable to the literature review.

Do not indicate the hypothesis in a paragraph. State the hypothesis.

The entire methodology section is missing. This should follow the hypotheses section. There should be an entire section dedicated to discussing the methodology in detail.

Some sources show: "Error! Reference source not found."

It is also unclear why specific statistical tests were done and for what purpose. This confuses the reader.

It is also not clear where the model proposed was tested. Where were the hypotheses tested?

No conclusions/managerial implications were included. This is important to underscore the relevance and importance of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A language edit is suggested.

 

Author Response

Thankyou for the suggested changes; I think they are very helpful.Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. 1.The Abstract, Introduction, and Literature Review of the paper have been revised and highlighted; 2.The research hypothesis is covered in a separate paragraph; 3.The Methodology section has been added after the Hypotheses section; 4.All the “Reference source not found.” errors have been resolved; 5.Specific statistical tests are described in the main text; 6.The structure of the paper has been restructured, and the research hypotheses are tested in the Results section. 7.Conclusions and implications have been added in the Discussion section.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper appears to focus predominantly on China, yet the title fails to accurately convey this emphasis, potentially leading to misinterpretation. It is strongly recommended to revise the title to explicitly mention China.

Additionally, the language utilized throughout the article lacks fluency and would greatly benefit from thorough editing by a native English speaker. Certain passages lack clarity and may not effectively communicate with a broader English-speaking audience worldwide.

Furthermore, the description of the paper exhibits significant redundancy in several instances. For instance, there is a repetitive style of articulating ideas observed in lines 174, 184, and 219, as well as in lines 146 and 200, which may hinder reader engagement. Similarly, a repetitive pattern is evident in lines 414, 478, and 485, contributing to monotony. Language editing is imperative to address these issues and enhance readability.

Moreover, the journal purportedly operates as a double-blind peer-reviewed publication. Therefore, it is recommended to update the references to avoid any perception of bias. It is concerning to note that several references originate from the same journal, namely Sustainability, and the paper itself is slated for publication in this journal. Such practices raise ethical concerns and risk undermining the integrity of the peer-review process. It is strongly advised to minimize references from Sustainability and diversify sources from other reputable journals to uphold academic integrity. Specifically, references numbered 1, 4, 5, 7, 29, 35, 39, and 52 should be reconsidered for inclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper appears to focus predominantly on China, yet the title fails to accurately convey this emphasis, potentially leading to misinterpretation. It is strongly recommended to revise the title to explicitly mention China.

Additionally, the language utilized throughout the article lacks fluency and would greatly benefit from thorough editing by a native English speaker. Certain passages lack clarity and may not effectively communicate with a broader English-speaking audience worldwide.

Furthermore, the description of the paper exhibits significant redundancy in several instances. For instance, there is a repetitive style of articulating ideas observed in lines 174, 184, and 219, as well as in lines 146 and 200, which may hinder reader engagement. Similarly, a repetitive pattern is evident in lines 414, 478, and 485, contributing to monotony. Language editing is imperative to address these issues and enhance readability.

Moreover, the journal purportedly operates as a double-blind peer-reviewed publication. Therefore, it is recommended to update the references to avoid any perception of bias. It is concerning to note that several references originate from the same journal, namely Sustainability, and the paper itself is slated for publication in this journal. Such practices raise ethical concerns and risk undermining the integrity of the peer-review process. It is strongly advised to minimize references from Sustainability and diversify sources from other reputable journals to uphold academic integrity. Specifically, references numbered 1, 4, 5, 7, 29, 35, 39, and 52 should be reconsidered for inclusion.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggested changes; I think they are very helpful. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. 1.The title has been changed; 2.The entire article has been professionally edited for English language by MDPI Author Services; 3.The references numbered 1, 4, 5, 29, and 35 have been changed. There are now 4 papers from Sustainability.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your review. The article is much improved now. The only part that worries me is the ethics. It would be good if you stated the ethical approval or reference number in the article. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Thank you for the suggested changes; I think they are very helpful.This section has been added to the Methodology section.

Given the observational nature of this study and in the absence of any medical treatment, no formal approval of the institutional review board of the local ethics committee was required. Nonetheless, all subjects were informed about the study, and participation was fully on a voluntary basis. Participants were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of the information associated with the surveys. This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The requested changes were corrected in fairness and my opinion is that they be accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It looks okay now. 

Author Response

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and suggestions.