Simplicity Matters: Unraveling the Impact of Minimalist Packaging on Green Trust in Daily Consumer Goods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor comments:
1) The authors use many times the expression “the present study” or “this study”. That are misunderstanding when it refers to “Design Simplicity in sustainable Products: the perspective of 2 paradox of complexity” or to “Hypotheses development” or in one of three “study”.
2) Missing results that present comparisons of the three experiments
3) Missing conclusions that supported by the results presented in the article.
Minor, but still important comments that should be addressed:
Page 1, line 4 “Yuechun Ding 1,” text are highlight color
Page 1, line 32 “imperatives[1].” Missing space before “[“ – the same observation are in all paper
Page 1, line 39 “ited[2–5].Research”. Missing space before “[“and after “.” The missing space after “.” are repeated many times in this paper.
Page 4, line 175 “Hypothetical conceptual model” the text should not be bolded
Page 4, line 177 if this is correct “The present study conducted three experiments”
Page 4, line 184 why “3.1 Study 1 visual” and not “3.1 Experiment 1 visual”
Page 5, line 213 “Laundry detergent packaging with different complexity” the text should not be bolded
Page 6, line 269 “3.1.4 Discussion”, Page 8, line 323 “3.2.3 Result” – correct to “Results” and Page 11, line 469 “3.3.3 Result” – correct to “Results” why is in methodology and not in “Results” in a new chapter
Page 6, line 228 “3.1.4 Discussion”, Page 10, line 407 “3.2.4 Discussion” and Page 13, line 530 “3.3.4 Discussion” why is in methodology and not in “4. Conclusion, implication and limitation” Page 13, line 539
Page 7, line 283 why “3.2 Study 2 the mediating” and not “3.2 Experiment 2 the mediating”
Page 7, line 301 Missing explication text for Figure 3
Page 7, line 301 “Laundry detergent packaging with different complexity and pattern types” the text should not be bolded
Page 10, line 423 why “3.3. Study 3 the moderating” and not “3.3 Experiment 3 the moderating”
Page 11, line 451 “Figure 3.” Correct to “Figure 4.”
Also, authors must keep attention on editors’ template and indications and on editing mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article employed the pupil eye-tracking system to conduct research on the visual complexity of packaging and product green trust. However, the research charts and content presented in the current article cannot show the significance of visual gaze, line of sight trajectories, and visual hot spots of the pupil eye-tracking system. Past research has shown that eye-tracking systems can demonstrate relevant research on visual search behavior for products on shelves. If the influencing factors of product display background information are removed and the focus is on the packaging visual appearance design of a single product, this article does not discuss some necessary product information, such as necessary visual design and labeling of product ingredients and related precautions. However, this part of the green trust in the product is crucial. The overall research is biased towards the impact of visual simplicity or complexity on product green trust. The overall research seems too narrow, and the packaging form and visual complexity of washing powder and facial tissue are essentially different. The reviewer suggested that the author choose one of the environmentally friendly products to conduct the study. It is recommended to add visual label information that must be stated on the product, such as ingredients and precautions. Products with relatively simple packaging stand out among a group of complex products. This is the result of the differentiated design of product packaging. However, if the impact of product display in this article is ignored. For the design of packaging visual information, the complexity and impact of visual components such as product name, background visual, and necessary ingredient description information should be explained in detail. However, there is no simulation analysis diagram of the pupil eye-tracking system in the full text. The gaze track records and gaze hot spots are distributed in those areas of the product visual design. The rigor of the research design and the quality of the graphics and text of this article need to be supplemented and strengthened. In addition, the reviewer suggested that the title of this article should directly state the research content of this article, because it remains to be clarified whether the current research evidence supports this research title.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I am pleased to provide my review of your manuscript titled "Design Simplicity in Sustainable Products: The Perspective of the Paradox of Complexity." This manuscript explores an interesting topic in the field of sustainable product design, namely the relationship between design simplicity and the paradox of complexity. However, there are some issues that should be addressed.
In the Introduction section: Novelty of the study should be highlighted.
In the Methodology section: Instead of simply stating the number and gender of participants, You can add information about why these criteria were chosen. For example, You can explain that the university campus was selected for population accessibility or that certain characteristics (such as right-handedness and normal vision) are important for the study itself.
3. In the Results section: I am not sure that a sample of 20 participants is sufficient for your study, I recommend conducting a power analysis to assess the necessary sample size for your specific research needs. Additionally, you may consider the possibility of combining your data with data from other similar studies to increase the sample size and improve the reliability of the results.
4. In the Results section: The ANOVA result F(1.816, 34.50) also looks peculiar. Typically, the F-statistic should have two numbers in parentheses - df1 (degrees of freedom between groups) and df2 (degrees of freedom within groups).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The abstract is too long (almost 259 words). Abstract must be a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum.
The conclusions must be highlighted and emphasized better.
Try to keep attention on editors’ template and indications and on editing mistakes.
For example page 4 line 180 and 181 - there is extra space before and after Figure 1.
Line 183 - "3. Methodology" are last line in page - try to move in next page.
Page 6 line 230 look like an exta space
Page 7 line 297 - "3.1.4 Discussion" last line in page.
Try to verify all images for extra space before and after
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirst of all, the reviewer affirms the author's specific response to the review comments and the efforts in research and experiments. Moreover, the article after the revised reply has greatly improved the factors that do not fully support the conclusion, but there are still some concerns about the new content. The reviewers believe that Figure 3. Heatmap Analysis and Gaze Path Analysis on p7 can enhance readers’ understanding of visual gaze and visual packaging design. In addition, the reviewer pointed out that there are essential differences in the packaging form of detergent and facial tissue. One is filled with liquid and the other is solid. This means that the packaging materials and contents of the products are very different. Tissue paper itself has the inherent advantage of reducing packaging volume. We all agree that reducing packaging is a consensus, but how to focus on the simplicity of the visual image rather than being affected by the packaging form. The reviewers recommended that the authors select a single product for comparison in the study analysis. Generally speaking, the reviewers also believe that this article's focus on visual design and green trust is the right research direction, but the reviewers suggest that the parts of this article that are not confirmed by research evidence or have research doubts should be re-edited.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made the necessary improvements and the paper is now of suitable content for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article employed the pupil eye-tracking system to conduct research on the visual complexity of packaging and product green trust. After the author's reply and the revision of the article, the content of the article has been greatly improved and the credibility of the research has been increased. However, the reviewers suggested that the authors' suggestions for improvements to all figures and tables could be strengthened. Since the paper is in the field of design, it must have a certain image quality. If the authors improve the graphics, I would recommend it for publication in this journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
