Understanding of Customer Decision-Making Behaviors Depending on Online Reviews
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of this paper has been widely debated in the literature. The conclusions obtained by this work are not necessarily new although they are interesting. I think it has potential for publication but needs major revisions.
Improvement suggestions:
- Authors note “There is large diversity for reviews due to reflecting consumers’ perceptions, and there is usually a variety of consumer perspectives even for a single product.” It would be important to understand the types of reviewers and the difference between them.
- Formal research hypothesis should be presented by the author. Currently only open research questions are provided.
- Authors use as dataset movie review. It looks an interesting dataset but the authors should also explore issues related to the generalization of results.
- This sentence needs to be scientifically justified: “As a consumer product, a factor that significantly product consumption is price.”
- The discussion of the results is very weak. It is not possible to explore only the limitations and future work. It lacks to address how the methods adopted by the authors are different from other authors and whether they reach similar or different conclusions. This work of scientific discussion of the results is not done by the authors.
- Authors state “Thus, consumers value star ratings and comments differently based on the scenario in which they are provided.” More concrete information regarding this conclusion must be provided.
- The literature review also shows considerable margin for improvement. There are many papers in this area published in recent years that have not been adequately considered. An extension of the number of references is also suggested to increase the scientific impact of this study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am pleased to submit a research article entitled “Understanding of Customer Decision-making Behaviors
Depending on Online Reviews” for the consideration of publication in MDPI Applied Sciences.
We have studied to better understand how consumers are influenced by reviews generaed by other consumers. In this manuscript, rather than analysing reviews of a single product, we focused on understanding the relationship between the text and numerical information of the review and understanding the decision-making process of consumers affected by the review. To better understand the decision-making of the users affected by the review, we explored three research questions according to the decision-making environment targeted for verification.
RQ1: how consumers compare products based on reviews;
RQ2: how they perceive products individually based on reviews;
RQ3: how they interpret star ratings and comments
We conducted a user study with a total of 72 people, and found that consumers were more affected by stars when comparing various products, while evaluating individual products were more affected by comments. It also confirmed that consumers who intend to purchase products evaluate them on a stricter standard than those who have already purchased them.
We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by MDPI Applied Sciences in that it helps understand the perception of user-generated review and analyzes in detail how to make decision according to the numerical score and text review.
This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jin-Hyuk Hong, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Integrated Technology
Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology +82-62-715-5343
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper "Understanding of Customer Decision-making Behaviors Depending on Online Reviews" focuses on the relationship between the text and numerical information of the review on products to comprehend the decision-making process of consumers via evaluating the decisions consumers made when encountering the review structure of star ratings paired with comments. The paper tackles an interesting subject and uses robust methods to produce non-trivial results. Nevertheless, there are some issues I would like the authors to consider:
1. The Abstract should indicate who might benefit from the research and how.
2. In the Introduction, the limitations of the research need to be indicated. There are several limitations to this research, including the limited scope, since the study only focused on movie reviews, which may not be representative of other products and industries. Further research is needed to determine if the findings apply more broadly.
3. The paper needs to have its literature review strengthened. The number of references need to be increased by some 20-30 relevant sources which need to be discussed in detail.
4. Another issue is the small sample size: the study was conducted with only 72 participants, which may not be large enough to draw robust conclusions. A larger sample size would increase the reliability and generalizability of the findings. The authors need to explain the sampling and the selection of the respondents and perhaps present the descriptive statistics.
5. The authors need to acknowledge the lack of demographic diversity: The study did not report on the demographic characteristics of the participants, such as age, gender, or socioeconomic status. These factors could influence how people perceive and behave towards star ratings and comments.
6. The Conclusions need to be written up and extended. The pathways for further research need to be added and they could investigate consumer behavior in naturalistic settings to provide a more accurate picture of how people use star ratings and comments.
7. The improvements to this research could include the increased sample size - conducting the study with a larger sample size would increase the statistical power of the findings and make them more robust. In addition, recruiting participants from diverse backgrounds could provide insight into how different groups of people perceive and behave towards star ratings and comments. In addition to behavioral and sentiment analysis, future research could use other methods, such as eye-tracking or physiological measures, to gain a more complete understanding of consumer behavior.
8. The paper might benefit from minor English proofreading.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am pleased to submit a research article entitled “Understanding of Customer Decision-making Behaviors
Depending on Online Reviews” for the consideration of publication in MDPI Applied Sciences.
We have studied to better understand how consumers are influenced by reviews generaed by other consumers. In this manuscript, rather than analysing reviews of a single product, we focused on understanding the relationship between the text and numerical information of the review and understanding the decision-making process of consumers affected by the review. To better understand the decision-making of the users affected by the review, we explored three research questions according to the decision-making environment targeted for verification.
RQ1: how consumers compare products based on reviews;
RQ2: how they perceive products individually based on reviews;
RQ3: how they interpret star ratings and comments
We conducted a user study with a total of 72 people, and found that consumers were more affected by stars when comparing various products, while evaluating individual products were more affected by comments. It also confirmed that consumers who intend to purchase products evaluate them on a stricter standard than those who have already purchased them.
We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by MDPI Applied Sciences in that it helps understand the perception of user-generated review and analyzes in detail how to make decision according to the numerical score and text review.
This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jin-Hyuk Hong, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Integrated Technology
Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology +82-62-715-5343
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Understanding of Customer Decision-making Behaviors Depending on Online Reviews” addresses very interesting aspects regarding the impact of reviews on consumers’ perceptions. I commend the study for its multifaceted approach and insightful outcomes.
Considering the examined manuscript, I recommend the improvement of the following aspects:
1. The Introduction could use more recent studies to present the background of the study. Additionally, the introduction should clearly present the scope of the paper based on the existing research gap on this topic.
2. Sections 2.1. and 2.2. could use more recent sources to explain the literature review in a comprehensive manner.
3. Section 2.3. could present more focus and cohesiveness in the presentation of the ideas. I believe the study is valuable for its multifaceted approach, but the presentation of its original perspectives could be improved.
4. In 3.1. additional details on the data collection process are required for research transparency. The same idea applies for the User study. Additional method details are necessary.
5. Certain results could also be presented in tables to increase the readability factor of the paper.
6. It is quite uncommon for the limitations and future directions to be included in the Discussion section. Usually, the Discussion addresses the results in a manner that articulates comparisons with similar (or slightly similar) studies. Moreover, the Discussion should present the original contributions of the study.
7. Overall, I believe the set of literature review sources could be greatly improved beyond the current list of 30 references. The topic of online reviews is broad and additional papers should be included.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am pleased to submit a research article entitled “Understanding of Customer Decision-making Behaviors
Depending on Online Reviews” for the consideration of publication in MDPI Applied Sciences.
We have studied to better understand how consumers are influenced by reviews generaed by other consumers. In this manuscript, rather than analysing reviews of a single product, we focused on understanding the relationship between the text and numerical information of the review and understanding the decision-making process of consumers affected by the review. To better understand the decision-making of the users affected by the review, we explored three research questions according to the decision-making environment targeted for verification.
RQ1: how consumers compare products based on reviews;
RQ2: how they perceive products individually based on reviews;
RQ3: how they interpret star ratings and comments
We conducted a user study with a total of 72 people, and found that consumers were more affected by stars when comparing various products, while evaluating individual products were more affected by comments. It also confirmed that consumers who intend to purchase products evaluate them on a stricter standard than those who have already purchased them.
We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by MDPI Applied Sciences in that it helps understand the perception of user-generated review and analyzes in detail how to make decision according to the numerical score and text review.
This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jin-Hyuk Hong, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Integrated Technology
Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology +82-62-715-5343
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
MY decision: major Comments: Thanks for the opportunity to review again this manuscript. I consider there have been important but still insufficient improvements. The discussion of results is the weakest section. In my first revision round I have noted: “- The discussion of the results is very weak. It is not possible to explore only the limitations and future work. It lacks to address how the methods adopted by the authors are different from other authors and whether they reach similar or different conclusions. This work of scientific discussion of the results is not done by the authors.” The authors ignored this claim of mine. Further analysis of the theoretical and practical implications of the results is needed. It should be clarified and discussed whether the work done by the authors allowed them to confirm or added new knowledge to previous studies in the field.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am pleased to submit a research article entitled “Understanding of Customer Decision-making Behaviors
Depending on Online Reviews” for the consideration of publication in MDPI Applied Sciences.
Prior to providing an explanation regarding the revision of my thesis, there is a matter that I would like to address. The review received contained only one paragraph. As a consequence, in order to prepare the revision note, we referred to the comments provided by other reviewers. I would like to clarify that not applying your review comment was unintended result of misunderstanding and was likely due to a system error. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Upon receipt of the second review, I was able to review the first feedback that was previously inaccessible. I had the opportunity to compare the first and second reviews, and made an effort to incorporate all feedback into this revision note.
In the manuscript after the revision note, 1Round correction is highlighted in yellow and 2 Round correction is highlighted in green.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jin-Hyuk Hong, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Integrated Technology
Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology +82-62-715-5343
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been revised and the majority of issues have been taken care of. However, I would still recommend the authors to strengthen and reinforce the methodology and the literature review extending the cited sources (additional 15-20 relevant sources with proper analysis and discussion would significantly improve the paper).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am pleased to submit a research article entitled “Understanding of Customer Decision-making Behaviors
Depending on Online Reviews” for the consideration of publication in MDPI Applied Sciences.
I made an earnest effort to accurately incorporate the feedback provided by you, thus, I kindly request you to review ."
In the manuscript after the revision note, 1Round correction is highlighted in yellow and 2 Round correction is highlighted in green.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jin-Hyuk Hong, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Integrated Technology
Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology +82-62-715-5343
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Minor improvement suggestions:
- Authors note “The experiment took on average about 23 minutes for each participant, 6.80 USD was paid as compensation, and conducted online.” Why is it important to have a paid panel? Is there any potential impact in terms of bias?
- Clarify the date(s) when this study was developed.
- Authors state “This is a challenging issue in the existing sentiment analysis field [61-63].” Explain better the reasons.
- Avoid the use of colloquial tone in this expression “We hope this study…”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am pleased to submit a research article entitled “Understanding of Customer Decision-making Behaviors
Depending on Online Reviews” for the consideration of publication in MDPI Applied Sciences.
I made an earnest effort to accurately incorporate the feedback provided by you, thus, I kindly request you to review ."
In the manuscript after the revision note, 1Round correction is highlighted in yellow, 2 Round correction is highlighted in green, and 3Round correction is highlighted in blue.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jin-Hyuk Hong, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Integrated Technology
Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology +82-62-715-5343
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
