Investigating Antecedents of Intention to Use Green Agri-Food Delivery Apps: Merging TPB with Trust and Electronic Word of Mouth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors 

The work seems good and well-structured; however, please find some observations that might help you improve it.

1. Some sections are highlighted in yellow. Why? Is it a revised version? I don't see any previous record.
2. What's the novelty here? TPB is overused, as are your constructs. You need to show in the introduction--what's your USP in this study?
3. The introduction should not exceed 3-4 paragraphs. Background, rationale (robust), research questions (specify), and section plan (given). REWRITE.
4.  TPB as the theoretical base must be strengthened with new theories or frameworks. Provide the conceptual model figure and clearly show how the constructs align with TPB.
5. Gender (any demographic construct) as a moderator is not appreciated. At best, they are used as controls. Gender is a binary or (3) scale item, whereas your main constructs are on a 5 or 7-point scale. How do you justify the constructs of different scales tested together???????
6. Convenience sampling is not accepted in scientific studies. Show how your sample is random and representative.

Analysis, discussion, and conclusions seem fine. All the best.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is improved in accordance with the reviewer's comments. It can be recommended for publishing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the key factors driving customers' intention to use green agri-food delivery apps (GAFDAs) by integrating trust and electronic word of mouth (eWOM) into the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) framework. This study contributes to the literature by extending TPB with trust, eWOM, and gender moderation, offering valuable insights for marketers, policymakers, and app developers promoting sustainable food consumption. The authors have made significant revisions based on the comments. However, there are still some minor suggestions for the manuscript.

(1) Adding some data on the green agri-food delivery in the introduction would help readers to understand the promotional value of the green agri-food delivery apps.

(2) The authors have examined the moderating role of gender. However, based on prior research, other demographic variables may also serve as potential moderators. For instance, studies have shown that education level positively moderates the relationship between environmental self-efficacy and willingness to pay for environmental protection; age moderates the relationship between social media usage and mental well-being. Additionally, according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model, gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use can all function as moderators. Therefore, the authors should further discuss these possibilities in the discussion section.

(3) The interpretation of the results requires additional literature support. For example, the claim that “In fact, men may demonstrate greater risk sensitivity in digital environments, prompting them to prioritize trust-related factors such as data security, payment safety, and the reliability of service providers.”

(4) The authors should provide more specific and feasible management recommendations based on their findings. In addition, the literature citations should be avoided in the practical implications section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Lines 151-157: “The Materials and Methods should be...” This paragraph is not relevant to the study of the manuscript.

 

2. Lines 165-167: “Attitudes toward using food delivery apps can be influenced by various factors, including perceived usefulness [49], perceived value, perceived food safety, and satisfaction [4].” This paragraph is not relevant to hypothesis H1.

 

3. Lines 219-221: “In the context of food delivery apps, customer trust may be influenced by factors such as perceived value and ease of use [47], as well as personalization and information quality [60].” Authors need to focus on why trust can influence the intention to use GAFDAs.

 

4. Lines 224-227: “However, the findings of Troise et al. [22] did not confirm the impact of trust on the intention to use online food delivery. Therefore, increasing trust is expected to positively influence the intention to use green agri-food delivery apps.” There is a contradiction between the preceding and following sentences.

 

5. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is widely used in behavioral and intention research. The authors use the extended TPB applied to intentions to use GAFDAs. Trust and Electronic Word of Mouth can influence not only intentions to use GAFDAs, but also other behavioral intentions. For example, in recent studies, trust can influence an individual's willingness to pay for environmental protection as well as the acceptance of artificial intelligence. In the discussion section, the authors could focus on how Trust and Electronic Word of Mouth supplement the TPB.

 

6. The similarity of some paragraphs is too high and it is recommended to check the full text to reduce the similarity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have found the study presented in the paper interesting and relevant. It will add to the literature on agri-food marketing and sustainable consumer behavior.

The abstract is informative and reflects the core value of the research but it seems that information about future research (lines 29-32) should be removed; better to describe more clear the findings and the value of the study presented in the paper. 

The keywords are mostly in line with the terms used in the research. Maybe it makes sense to change the consequence and composition of keywords, something like that: green food delivery apps; sustainable marketing; theory of panned behavior; digital customer; electronic WOM; Algeria. The keyword Africa seems a bit misleading since only consumers from three northern cities in Algeria were recruited for this study. If it is important for the authors, better to put North Africa then.

The Introduction section correctly puts the research topic in context. Still, one should clearly state the research question(s) and critical gap in the current research (actually, the gap is mentioned, but only in the Conclusion section, lines 412-415). At the end of the Introduction section, better to add information about the structure of the paper that will help the reader to orient in the main text.

The references are correct of which most are up to date, and those from previous decades are relevant, though there is no separate Literature Review section. From our point of view, it is not a traditional way. Of course, it is possible to use the structure that puts the literature review partly in the Introduction section, and partly as short theoretical inputs to substantiate hypotheses (Section “2. Theoretical background and hypotheses”). At the same time, the separate Literature Review section could give more space for structuring the existing literature. As an example, at the beginning of the section 2, the TPB is too briefly described (lines 133-140), and some other conceptual frameworks briefly mentioned (lines 140-150). As a result, the reader cannot really understand if it is good or bad that in the current study “the extended TPB model was able to explain 55% of the variance in intentions to use GAFDAs” (lines 417-418). 

IMPORTANT: Lines 151-156 are actually the guidelines for authors that were not removed while using the template! 

The measurement methods, data sources and processing are correctly detailed. The proposed approach is relevant. The study adopts a quantitative approach and uses a questionnaire as the primary instrument for collecting data from respondents; PLS-SEM employed to test the model's fit and hypotheses. The results are relevant. The Discussion and the Conclusion sections are OK. The authors discuss the main findings with the existing literature, present the managerial implications of the study, limitations, and paths for future research

The English language is clear enough.

 

Overall, I recommend this paper for publication, after revisions proposed above.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors 

1. There is no novelty in this study.

2. The theoretical base is obsolete.

3. Trust and e-WoM merged with TPB do not add any value. 

4. It is not based entirely on TPB. Your conceptual model is flawed and convenient rather than theory-driven. 

5. Control, mediation, or moderation should have been explored.

6. It is a simple regression model that can't be published in a good journal without advanced analysis or value additions.

Nothing more to say.