Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and Nudge Theory: Examining the Effects of Choice Architecture on Consumption of Sustainable Fashion over Fast Fashion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1The authors conducted survey in the research and some minors completed the survey, e.g., 150 high school students and 199 participants were aged 16-20. The authors should clearly state the IRB approval for this human subject research.
2Please check the data in Table 2 and in lines 403-409. For example, for the control group, the amount of purchase was: Mean=154.0 and SD=300.6, which seemed incorrect (Mean minus one standard deviation would be a negative number). It seems the authors switched the data of Mean and SD in Table 2. In addition, the authors should put the unit of the amount (Israeli New Shekel, or NIS) in Table 2.
3In Table 3, row 3, Alternative SD is 9. And Social norms SD is 9. Should these two data be .9 (instead of 9.)?
4Like data in Table 2, please check the data in Table 7 and lines 465-473. Mean minus one standard deviation were negative numbers. Please also add the unit of amount in Table 7.
5Some contents in “Conclusion” are more appropriate to be moved to the “Discussion.”
6The authors proposed hypotheses A-H in lines 229-247. They should provide a summary in “Conclusion” on the test results of these hypotheses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper titled "Fast fashion, sustainability, and nudge theory - Examining the Effects of Choice Architecture on Consumption of Sustainable Fashion, Over Fast Fashion."
After a careful and detailed analysis of the material, I regret to inform you that, unfortunately, I cannot recommend the publication of your paper in its current form.
Below are some of the main problems identified:
1. 1. The questionnaire used in the study lacks a previously demonstrated theoretical model, and there are no references regarding how this questionnaire was constructed.
2. 2. The analytical tools used, except for frequency analysis, are not appropriate for the type of variables (especially the dependent variables) studied.
3. 3. The first sentence of the abstract suggests that the study offers solutions for increasing the consumption of sustainable fashion, but the study fails to fulfill this promise.
4. 4. In the article is not explained why an experiment conducted over four days in a single Mall would be relevant to support the conclusions presented, in the context of discussing the global textile industry and its environmental impacts.
5. 5. Figure 9 is presented before Figure 7, with no commentary explaining this order. This confusing presentation requires clarification.
6. 6. Question 16 uses a 6-point scale, which does not provide a neutral option. In such cases, the scale should include an odd number of points.
7. 7. The sentence in lines 239-240 refers to young consumers and adults as distinct categories, implying the participation of minors in the study. You did not mention whether parental consent was obtained for the minors.
These are just a few of the problems identified in your paper. Given the significance and number of these issues, I believe the study does not meet the necessary standards for publication in the prestigious journal Sustainability.
Best regards.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongrats for article. Very good, really. Is clearly written, but there are some errors in typing words, like in Figure 1, where is written clothng instead of clothing. This same Figure I suggest to improve, in order to be more clear in informations, because I couldn´t understand numbers of the scale in this Figure and relate them to the Amount of clothing purchased and also Average amount paid per item. First information should be number and other money, but in the scale seems like Amount be between 100 and 150. Strange. Many others Figures I suggest to be revised also, to be more clear information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Your response was not what I expected. I have observed a clear lack of interest in the possibility of improving the material. Therefore, I maintain my recommendation to reject the publication of a material whose results do not adhere to even a single rule of solid empirical research.
1. I regret that the You did not understand the aspect related to the theoretical model followed in the development of the questionnaire and the necessity of presenting the differences included in the research. The referenced bibliographical indications present different theories, but the received response clearly demonstrates the authors' misunderstanding of the notion of a theoretical model. While I initially hoped for the article to be supplemented with the necessary information, the received response demonstrates that no model was used. This leads to a situation where the research lacks a solid foundation.
2. The research includes a series of ordinal variables for which not all of the statistical tests chosen by you can be used. These tests are valid for metric variables.
3. This response is not only unprofessional and impolite, but it also demonstrates a lack of interest in improvement. Additionally, the abstract also mentions that a series of experiments were conducted, yet the entire paper does not contain a single experiment. In this context, we are referring to the term "experiment" from a methodological perspective, of course.
4. I continue to believe that the study has no foundation and expresses only the opinion of a few individuals at a certain time and in a certain context. No conclusions can be drawn from such data.
5. Ok.
6. The explanation would be valid only in the context where all the variables follow a single rule, and the pro and con groups are compared to obtain results. The received response reinforces my initial position.
7. Unfortunately, the study continues to confuse young people and adults. In Europe, it is not permissible to survey minors without the written consent of their guardians. In this case, it is necessary to verify the database and to prove that the written consent of the questionnaire respondents exists.
Best of luck!
Author Response
Please check the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
