Optimal Service Strategies of Online Platform Based on Purchase Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

review report is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments, please see the attachment for details.

Your sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the article is well written, the authors precisely define the origin of the problem and its solution. however, they should focus more on discussions, I suggest including a discussion in the text, or reorganizing the text using a discussion that would answer the following questions:

- use of the model in practice, within specific market situations?

- subsequently, in discussions, develop comparisons with similar models from other authors, what does this model bring that is different from others?

- what if the buyer changes the strategy during the next (repeated) purchase, changes the seller?

- are the factors included in the models static or changing? how often do they change and what influences their change?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments, please see the attachment for details.

Your sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There are not adequate references in the study. It is proposed to conduct secondary research and incorporate additional papers published in scientific journals, particularly those of more recent date. It is strongly recommended to use more sources from the journal "Sustainability" and its affiliated journals.

2. To make it easier for the reader to understand the purpose of this research, it is suggested to provide a more detailed explanation of the objectives of the paper.

3. It is suggested to add more information about the tools and techniques used, as well as the steps taken in the analysis.

4. In the discussion section, it is suggested to include scientific studies that both support and contradict the research hypotheses, and to clearly present your positions on these findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments, please see the attachment for details.

Your sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The authors have changed the term ‘old consumer’ to ‘regular consumer’ throughout the text. However, why do the authors still use ‘old consumer’ in Tables 1, 4, 5, 6, and many other places in the article?

2.     In line 151 of the resubmitted manuscript, there is a grammatical error: ‘In addition, some studies examining...’ should be written as ‘In addition, some studies examine ...’ The authors should carefully check the grammar of the revised section.

3.     Does the symbol m in Table 1 denote the set {1,2} or the set {1,2,3}?

4.     Symbol superscript errors in Equation 10.

5.     The article lacks articles in many places, which makes the whole text less coherent. There is a grammatical error on line 446, Please recheck the grammar of the whole text carefully.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We have provided a point-by-point response to your comments, please see the attachment for details.

Your sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf