Big Data Contribution in Desktop and Mobile Devices Comparison, Regarding Airlines’ Digital Brand Name Effect

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are plenty of changes that the authors must do to improve the presentation of the manuscript, especially in terms of English language and style. Some of these changes are minor, whereas others might require a little more editing.

An indispensable "minor" change is to make sure that no contractions are used in the text. Please, do not use can't (see Line 105) or there's (see Line 136). You must write 'cannot' (Line 105) and 'there is' (Line 136). Ideally, the authors must have their text proofread before the submission to avoid this kind of problem.

Other required amendments and suggestions are listed below:

• Line 56: Replace the word 'focalize' with focus'. The sentence must read, "In our research, we focus on the airline sector by...".
• Line 89: Capitalize the letter 'u' in User, so that the line starts with "User Experience (UX), which...". If you do not want to capitalize the letter 'u', then do not capitalise the letter 'E' in 'Experience'. You can state 'user experience' or 'User Experience', but not 'user Experience'.
• Line 92: Remove 'with' in "with Kim et al.".
• Line 105: Avoid using contractions. Please, do not use "can't". You must write "cannot".
• Line 63 and Line 106: The authors talk about 'unique visits'. Unfortunately, this is a concept that is not defined previously. It is important to clarify the difference between 'visits' and 'unique visits' because Line 106 seems to indicate that this difference matters. To avoid confusion (especially in the case of readers who are not fully familiar with the terminology), it is important to explain this difference before Line 106. It might be a good idea to explain this at the beginning of Subsection 1.2.2, or anywhere else, as long as it is before the line where readers need to understand clearly the difference between 'visits' and 'unique visits'.
• Line 100: There may be some places where the authors wrote 'though' instead of 'through'. The authors should have their text proofread before the publication to avoid this kind of problem. In the case of Line 100, it should be 'through' rather than 'though'.
• Line 101: Replace 'quite more often than other platforms' with 'significantly more frequent than through other platforms'. If you prefer, you can remove the word 'significantly'.
• Subsection 1.3.1 talks about three types of web traffic: organic, referral and direct traffic. The definition of organic traffic begins in Line 124, and the definition of referral traffic appears to begin in Line 137. Where is the definition of direct traffic? It may be obvious for the authors what direct traffic is, but the paper needs to include all the definitions clearly stated. I realise that Table 2 provides a description for the web analytics metrics, but we need to understand this before Table 2. It is not useful to keep us waiting until Table 2 for those definitions. Either explain what direct traffic is before Table 2 or move Table 2 before you start talking in detail about organic and referral traffic.
• Speaking of Table 2, why are the metrics stated in a different order to the one stated in the first two paragraphs of Subsection 1.3.1? I would prefer the authors to list the metrics in the order stated in the first paragraph of Subsection 1.3.1 -- that is, organic, referral and direct.
• The Description for 'Visitors/Unique Visitors' in Table 2 is not clear. I wonder if the authors meant, "A website visit can be defined as a line of page requests from an identically unique visitor within...". This seems more coherent that what Table 2 shows at the moment, but the authors need to check and fix this issue.
• Line 163: Why is the name Bouchrika a link? Remove the hyperlink; otherwise, it is unclear why other authors' names are not underlined.
• Line 190: Why is Table 1 displayed after Table 2? Please, fix this. Perhaps, the captions are wrongly numbered, and Table 1 should be Table 2 and vice versa. If this is not the case, exchange the order of the tables.  
• Line 237: I recommend that authors should re-word the H3 question. A suggestion may be: To what extent does airline organic traffic gets affected by the choice of desktop platforms? Starting the question with the words 'Into what amount' is not an adequate use of English language.
• Line 239: Reword the H4 question.
• Line 260: SEMrush is mentioned for the first and only time in the paper. If the authors want to keep SEMrush in their text, they must  acknowledge the website where we can download this tool. Ideally, a citation must be added. If the tool plays an important part in the authors' research, a brief paragraph explaining what SEMrush does and how it was used must be included. Be careful with the way you spell SEMrush. Apparently, the first three letters must be capitalised ('SEMrush'), which is not the way in which it appears in Line 260.
• Line 349: Replace 'figure' with 'Figure 2' (using capital F).
• Line 578: The Conclusions need to be reworded, as there are several sentences that are unclear or grammatically incorrect. For example, the first sentence (Line 578): "There’s a plethora of benefits from capitalizing the suitable for firms KPIs." First, do not use contractions. Write 'There is' instead of There's. Then, fix the sentence. An option could be: There is a plethora of benefits from capitalizing our findings to improve a firm's KPIs. However, I am not sure this is what the authors meant to say.
• Line 621: Replace platform with devices. This is another example to show why the Conclusions need to be re-worded. You can use platforms, but then you can only talk about desktop and mobile. If you want to talk about tablets, etc (as in Line 621), it is best to use devices instead of platforms. However, I am not sure this is what the authors meant to say.

 

Is there a way to access the data involved in this study? Is there a website where the authors can upload part of the data? It is great to learn that data for 180 days were accumulated, but we cannot see any of this. I realise there may be copyright restrictions, but it would be useful to show a snapshot of the data to give an idea of what the authors are handling. Indeed, we know very little about the data in this study... For instance, we do not know which airlines have been involved. I realise that there may be copyright restrictions (or some other restrictions), but can the authors state if we are talking about international airlines? Or we are taking about Greek airlines, or a combination of European and North American airlines...?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) On the one hand, new technologies can be helpful in developing a business, on the other hand, they can lead to its collapse. In other words - new technologies are changing the market of services / products etc. The article says that new technologies allow you to reach a wider group of customers and are "an invaluable tool for marketers", but on the other hand, these tools can cause (marketers) a lot of worry, because tools change very dynamically, just like the media and media users and the devices too.

2) To the best of my knowledge, the authors in the introduction presented an exhaustive argument on topics related to website optimization for search engines SEO and goal conversion.

3) My first doubt is about the key phrases in the article. What is this article about? Is the article about the comparison of websites run on stationary devices with websites run on mobile devices (mobile Web, RWD, AWD), or maybe the article about the comparison of the use of websites with mobile applications?

4) A mobile application is not the same as a Mobile website. Meanwhile, I had the impression that in the article these terms are used interchangeably (eg Line 143-152 - mobile apps; Line 153 - mobile platforms; Line 198, etc.). Therefore, the issue of nomenclature should be sorted out *. I am asking the authors to respond to this doubt.

* It can be helpful – please specify the difference between: a) mobile applications; b) mobile platforms; c) mobile website; d) responsive website; e) adaptive website (Responsive Design vs. Adaptive Design); f) internet applications.

5) What is the difference between an online desktop platform and a mobile one? Is it one and the same IT product that adapts to the device on which it is viewed? Are these two separate IT products?

6) Which communication channel should be supported in terms of marketing / organization / financial / strategic etc. – the one with more visits, higher target conversion and lower bounce rate (BR), or the one with fewer visits, lower target conversion and higher BR?

7) It is not entirely clear how the authors obtained the data. Website usage statistics are sensitive data. Companies do not share this data publicly, which is usually a strategic secret of the company. Did the airlines make their data available? Or were the values of the selected KPIs only estimated (estimated) using the Semrush tool? Where did the authors obtain the number of unique users, the value of the bounce rate, etc.? Were these absolute values obtained from the airlines?

8) Figure 4 is difficult to interpret. It would be more readable if the intensity of the phenomenon was also presented using the so-called heat map.

9) Did the airlines have two websites? One for computers and the other for mobile devices? Or maybe the airlines had a classic website and mobile application? Or maybe they had a RWD, AWD or mobile web site? It is not fully explained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made appropriate corrections. 
The article is better now and more understandable.