How Information Technology (IT) Is Shaping Consumer Behavior in the Digital Age: A Systematic Review and Future Research Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Firstly, I would like to say that it is always a great learning opportunity to review articles. Systematic literature review articles are very important for an overview of the research and give insights into future needs in the research. After reading this article, I have several recommendations for improvement:

- Abstract: I suggest providing research results instead of multiple objectives.

- It should not be written "today" and cite references published in 2007 (reference 1); Time application could be eliminated. Just the newest overview of references should be used for the topic's relevance.

- I believe that the abstract screening should be done by reading them and not applying technologies; thus, some errors could have occurred. You should rethink this part of screening: "Secondly, a search using exact keywords i.e., “Information Technolog*” AND "Consumer Behav*" OR "Cus- tomer Behav*" was used in the “Abstract" search field, and 125 articles were found." At the same time, it is not clear what criteria made articles irrelevant in the final selection of the articles. This information is explained in the results part (sub-chapter 3.1), but it is still methodological part. It should be amanded.

- It should be clarified how each figure was made. It seams that bibliometrics R-tool biblioshine was applied but it is not mentioned. Methodology should be strengthen by describing tools used for analysis. I see that thematic analysis as a method was applied too. This is not validated in the methodology.

- The used tool R-Studio biblioshine must be cited as a reference and applied in the text. If another tool was used, it still must be declared.

The authors could overthink methodology and systematisation of research results. Some databases could be used to move the datafiles to and provide just links to databases. The input of analysis is good, but some amendments could be made.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors!

Your article is devoted to how the Digital Age Shaps Consumer Behavior

It should be noted that your article creates an ambivalent impression.

On the one hand, it creates the impression of a well-structured article, where the blocks necessary for the architecture of a scientific article are logically arranged. On the other hand, various shortcomings are identified that blur the impression of the article and require elaboration.

 

Let me highlight some shortcomings that could improve your article.

 

1. Please explain how the article relates to the goals of the journal.

2. You need to clarify the terminology.

a. In the title of the article you use the concept the Digital Age. Further, you practically do not refer to this modern concept.

b. Moreover, you use the already slightly outdated term “ICT”

For example, ICT. When you look at the dates of the articles you link to when entering this abbreviation, it becomes clear that, for example, source #18 is dated 2014, when this abbreviation was completely natural.

In addition, you are using this abbreviation incorrectly. So, for example, when you enter this on page 2, you write that ICT is innovative information and communication tools (ICT). At the same time,

In the usual sense - ICT is an abbreviation for `Information and Communications Technology'.

Further on page 2 you already expand this concept to (!) ICT tools

Even lower, on the same page 2, you again introduce, but this time a new definition of the abbreviation ICT - Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

All this confuses the reader, leading him to confusion.

Typically, an abbreviation is introduced once and then used consistently throughout the article.

 

3. You talk about the Impact of Information Technology on Consumer Behavior, but in the modern world, the use of AI plays a gigantic role in this influence of technology on consumer behavior, about which you say almost nothing in your article. Moreover, this influence is very significant and, at the same time, multifaceted.

i. On the one hand, AI is used to attract consumers and prove the impact on the consumer,

ii. On the other hand, AI allows you to calculate consumer behavior

iii. On the third hand, the consumer himself uses AI to select goods

iv. On the fourth hand, AI allows you to write reports on consumer behavior

v. AI can even create the selection necessary for such an article, and even write the article itself if given the correct prompt.

vi. Etc.

 

In your work, you pay so little attention to the influence of artificial intelligence.

 

4. The tables (pp. 13-17 and 18 - 21) are upside down.

Perhaps this is how I discovered your article.

If the tables are located upside down, then this needs to be reworked, since it is uncomfortable for readers.

5. Methodology. The selection by source dates is not very clear, although you try to explain this in paragraph 2.4.

6. Sources. You have a sufficient number of sources, and many of them are quite relevant and new. At the same time, some references to the works of 2009 seem illogical, since at that time Internet consumption was extremely underdeveloped

Or, for example, you state that “IT is imperative in the interplay between consumer and business” and refer to the source [82] (p. 25), which is dated 2001.

Further in the links do you have a source for No. 05 on page 25? It needs to be replaced with 5.

7. Optional. The table could have been made in a different color. But this is optional. This refers to the table - Figure 4. Geographical dispersion of the selected articles.

 

I wish you success in your scientific activities

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors!
It should be noted that the article has become much better.

The authors listened to advice and comments and carefully processed the article.
Firstly, the name of the article was changed, which immediately makes it more modern and scientifically based.
Secondly, they revised the most important part of the article-annotation.
Thus, the article has become more understandable to the reader, since the first thing the reader meets is an annotation.

The authors revised some lines that caused a misunderstanding when reading the first version of the article.

In addition, the sections of the methodology, as well as the results and section of the discussion, are rewritten.

I believe that the article can be recommended for publication in the existing form.
I wish you fruitful scientific activity.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached Response to the Academic Editor's comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf