The Moderating Effects of Online Streaming Content Service Characteristics on Online Word-of-Mouth for Service Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is really interesting and deserves to be published. However, I begin by suggesting that the authors rewrite the abstract.
The following sentence is too complex:
"Thus, this paper examines the interaction between eWOM and service (webtoon) characteristics (i.e., author experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion, transfer to pay service, and publication time (Wednesday)) on online streaming contents’ service performance measures such as publication period and gamification of contents. "
My biggest concern lies in the methodology used to validate the hypotheses. What software was used? What macros are implemented? Do you use the Hayes Process?
And finallym, please rewrite the section "5. Results and Discussion". Currently it only presents the results and does not discuss the results obtained with the literature presented previously.
Good luck!
Author Response
To Reviewer #1
We appreciate valuable comments very much. The paper has been revised based on your comments. We would like to explain how the revision has proceeded for each of your numbered comments.
- The article is really interesting and deserves to be published. However, I begin by suggesting that the authors rewrite the abstract.
The following sentence is too complex:
"Thus, this paper examines the interaction between eWOM and service (webtoon) characteristics (i.e., author experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion, transfer to pay service, and publication time (Wednesday)) on online streaming contents’ service performance measures such as publication period and gamification of contents. "
We changed the sentences into: “Thus, in order to test the interaction effect, this paper examines the moderating effects of service (webtoon) characteristics (i.e., author experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion, transfer to pay service, and publication time (Wednesday)) on the relation between eWOM and online streaming contents’ service performance measures such as publication period and gamification of contents.”
The other parts of abstract is also edited by profession native English editors to improve the understandability.
- My biggest concern lies in the methodology used to validate the hypotheses. What software was used? What macros are implemented? Do you use the Hayes Process?
We crawled the eWOM data using a python program from Naver Webtoon as suggested in Methods section. An automated proprietary tool based on Python was implemented to crawl through the Naver Webtoon website and collect the data required to test the hypotheses. IBM® SPSS® Statistics was used to statistically test research hypotheses.
- And finallym, please rewrite the section "5. Results and Discussion". Currently it only presents the results and does not discuss the results obtained with the literature presented previously.
We added the following paragraphs in order to reflect your points: “Our results expand previous studies (e.g., Lee et al. (2015), Zhu and Zhang (2010)) by showing that eWOM can enhance service characteristics’ (author experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion) influence on service performance. Further, our study enhances previous studies (e.g., Einsingerich et al. (2015), Lee et al. (2015)) by identifying the moderating webtoon characteristics (transfer to pay service, and publication time (Wednesday)) and by showing that eWOM enhances social engagement and evaluations of recommendations’ quality by reducing social risks.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The abstract should mention the methodological approach adopted;
- The keywords are repetitive;
- Formal lapses in punctuation and references throughout the text (examples: line 27; 31, 311 and throughout the text);
- The entire sentence structure and repetition of words should be reviewed;
- Figures and tables should have their sources referenced;
- The information in the study relates to 2017, which significantly affects its relevance;
- The nature of the methodological approaches and their justification are not specified;
- With regard to content analysis, there is no justification for the analysis grid or the corresponding dimensions;
- There is no relevant theoretical framework for the variables under study;
- There is no discussion of the results (comparing the results of the study with the literature review);
- The bibliographical references are quite old (the most recent ones date back to 2018 and there are only two of them. All the others are previous).
Author Response
To Reviewer #2
We appreciate valuable comments very much. The paper has been revised based on your comments. We would like to explain how the revision has proceeded for each of your numbered comments.
- The abstract should mention the methodological approach adopted;
We added the methodological approach in abstract as follows: “Based on the scrawled data from 154 webtoons published in Naver Webtoon, multivariate regression analysis with interaction terms showed that … “
- - The keywords are repetitive;
We reduced the repetitive words in keywords.
- - Formal lapses in punctuation and references throughout the text (examples: line 27; 31, 311 and throughout the text);
We corrected any errors in punctuation and references by further editing by proofeditor.
- - The entire sentence structure and repetition of words should be reviewed;
The manuscript is edited by profession native English editors to improve the understandability.
- - Figures and tables should have their sources referenced;
The Figure 1 and Table 1 are our new contributions and shown as in current forms.
- - The information in the study relates to 2017, which significantly affects its relevance;
We admit the limitation in our time of data collection but we show our theoretical and practical contributions which can compensate our limitation.
- - The nature of the methodological approaches and their justification are not specified;
We suggested the methodological approaches and justification in Methods section.
- - With regard to content analysis, there is no justification for the analysis grid or the corresponding dimensions;- There is no relevant theoretical framework for the variables under study;
We reconfigured and added our explanation to enhance rationale for the selection our research variables as follows in Research Model section: “Our study identifies the moderating webtoon characteristics that are related to online streaming content service providers’ decision to further their online streaming contents service and past customers’ responses presented through eWOM. Our research intend to expand previous studies (e.g., Lee et al. (2015), Zhu and Zhang (2010)) by showing that eWOM can enhance service characteristics’ (author experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion) influence on service performance. Further, our study intend to enhance previous studies (e.g., Einsingerich et al. (2015), Lee et al. (2015)) by identifying the moderating webtoon characteristics (transfer to pay service, and publication time (Wednesday)) to show that eWOM enhances social engagement and evaluations of recommendations’ quality by reducing social risks. These webtoon characteristics are factors that play the role either of facilitating eWOM’s effect on online streaming contents’ service performance or reducing their service uncertainty from the service providers’ perspective. Thus, it is necessary to examine the way eWOM interacts with various service contexts to explain online streaming content service providers’ further implementation of service. The service characteristics that interact with eWOM to enhance customer response include author experience, genre popularity, webtoon completion (including suspension), and the service characteristics that interact with eWOM to reduce service uncertainty include transfer to pay service and unpopular publication time.”
- - There is no discussion of the results (comparing the results of the study with the literature review);
We added the following paragraph in order to reflect your points in Results and Discussion section: “Our results expand previous studies (e.g., Lee et al. (2015), Zhu and Zhang (2010)) by showing that eWOM can enhance service characteristics’ (author experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion) influence on service performance. Further, our study enhances previous studies (e.g., Einsingerich et al. (2015), Lee et al. (2015)) by identifying the moderating webtoon characteristics (transfer to pay service, and publication time (Wednesday)) showing that eWOM enhances social engagement and evaluations of recommendations’ quality by reducing social risks.”
- - The bibliographical references are quite old (the most recent ones date back to 2018 and there are only two of them. All the others are previous).
We added the more recent references. Please see the References section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates the relationship between electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and the characteristics of a webtoon service. These characteristics include the author's experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion status, transfer to a paid service, and publication time (Wednesday). The study focuses on how these factors influence the service performance measures of online streaming content, specifically the publication period and the incorporation of gamification elements. The author draws several conclusions from this study, such as, the interplay between the author's experience, genre, and the amount of reviews has an impact on gamification. The article requires some major modifications:
1. The problem statement in the introduction section is vague.
2. What is the significance of this study?
3. What benefits can be drawn from this study?
4. The literature survey is outdated. The latest papers cited are from 2019 and 2018. All other papers that have been cited are quite old. Author should update the literature survey significantly.
5. Figure 1 is blurry. Its quality should be improved.
6. Figure 1 is very general and does not provide any help in understanding the main research problem. Therefore, it must be replaced with a more informative figure.
7. Table 1 is unclear. In the variables’ column, some of the text is followed by variable names while others do not have any variable names.
8. In Tables 3 and 4, the explanations of single star, double star and triple star should be in the footnotes and not in the table caption.
9. In Tables 3 and 4, what is the significance of highlighting “p” using single, double and triple stars?
10. What is the difference between the “p” values shown in the captions of Tables 3 and 4, and the “p” value shown at the bottom of the tables?
11. In Tables 3 and 4, what is the significance of showing the “F value” and “p = 0.000” at the bottom of the tables?
12. No comparisons in the results section have been provided with any of the existing techniques.
13. A reference should be provided for the statement given in Lines 28-29.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Author Response
To Reviewer #3
We appreciate valuable comments very much. The paper has been revised based on your comments. We would like to explain how the revision has proceeded for each of your numbered comments.
- The problem statement in the introduction section is vague.
We enhanced our presentation to be more persuasive.
- What is the significance of this study?
On the significance of this study, we tried to improve elaboration in Introduction and Conclusion and Implications section.
- What benefits can be drawn from this study?
On the benefits of this study, we tried to improve elaboration in Introduction and Conclusion and Implications section.
- The literature survey is outdated. The latest papers cited are from 2019 and 2018. All other papers that have been cited are quite old. Author should update the literature survey significantly.
We have updated our references. Please see the References section.
- Figure 1 is blurry. Its quality should be improved.
We replaced with the more clearer one.
- Figure 1 is very general and does not provide any help in understanding the main research problem. Therefore, it must be replaced with a more informative figure.
We tried to change Figure 1 to be more informative. Table 1 can be further used to explain the variables included in Figure 1.
- Table 1 is unclear. In the variables’ column, some of the text is followed by variable names while others do not have any variable names.
We changed Table 1 in order to improve readability.
- In Tables 3 and 4, the explanations of single star, double star and triple star should be in the footnotes and not in the table caption.
%
We changed the positions into the footnotes as you suggested.
- In Tables 3 and 4, what is the significance of highlighting “p” using single, double and triple stars?
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 indicate that the estimates are significant according to 90%, 95%, 99 significance level, respectively.
.
- What is the difference between the “p” values shown in the captions of Tables 3 and 4, and the “p” value shown at the bottom of the tables?
These are same values. We denoted as “* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01” instead of “* p-value< 0.1, ** p-value < 0.05, *** p-value < 0.01” to normally follow the notation in papers.
- In Tables 3 and 4, what is the significance of showing the “F value” and “p = 0.000” at the bottom of the tables?
This is significant according to 99.9% significance level.
- No comparisons in the results section have been provided with any of the existing techniques.
In Results and Discussion section, we added the following paragraph to show our elaboration to link our results with previous studies: “Our results expand previous studies (e.g., Lee et al. (2015), Zhu and Zhang (2010)) by showing that eWOM can enhance service characteristics’ (author experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion) influence on service performance. Further, our study enhances previous studies (e.g., Einsingerich et al. (2015), Lee et al. (2015)) by identifying the moderating webtoon characteristics (transfer to pay service, and publication time (Wednesday)) showing that eWOM enhances social engagement and evaluations of recommendations’ quality by reducing social risks.”
- A reference should be provided for the statement given in Lines 28-29.
We added the reference into the corresponding part.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version suffers from poor formatting as I describe in the following:
1) Figure 1 is on one page while its caption is on the next page. Even the lower part of the figure is going beyond the page margins. It must be fixed.
2) Part of Table 2 is on one page and the remaining on the other page. The paper should be formatted such that Table 2 fits on one page.
3) The caption of Table 4 is on one page while the table comes on the next page. It must be fixed.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Author Response
To Reviewer #3
We appreciate valuable comments very much. The paper has been revised based on your comments. We would like to explain how the revision has proceeded for each of your numbered comments.
The revised version suffers from poor formatting as I describe in the following:
1) Figure 1 is on one page while its caption is on the next page. Even the lower part of the figure is going beyond the page margins. It must be fixed.
We fixed the Figure 1 to be positioned in the same page as a whole.
2) Part of Table 2 is on one page and the remaining on the other page. The paper should be formatted such that Table 2 fits on one page.
We fixed the Table 2 to be positioned in the same page as a whole.
3) The caption of Table 4 is on one page while the table comes on the next page. It must be fixed.
We fixed the Table 4 to be positioned in the same page as a whole.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
