The “Pink Tax” and Gender Price Disparity in Personal Care

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is promising but you should extend the coverage of different forms of pink-tax in a more sistematic way. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is quite low

Author Response

The article is promising but you should extend the coverage of different forms of pink-tax in a more systematic way.

Reply: Thank you very much. It is updated at Section 2.1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “The Impact of “Pink Tax” on Women's Buying Power and Gender Price Disparity in Personal Care” has been carefully reviewed. The research topic is insightful and provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of the Pink Tax. Besides, the manuscript is well-written, but some minor problems must be revised.

(1) There is no section 2.2, please add (check line 149).

(2) Please delete the "-" in Section 2.5 (check line 193).

(3) Add more literature to enrich and fulfill the literature review (check from line 81).

(4) Please check the typing in this manuscript, such as line 203, as well as change the red color (in line 90).
(5) There are only 5 references in the introduction and 11 references in the literature review, please conduct a more detailed literature review and enrich the references.

 

Author Response

The manuscript “The Impact of “Pink Tax” on Women’s Buying Power and Gender Price Disparity in Personal Care” has been carefully reviewed. The research topic is insightful and provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of the Pink Tax. Besides, the manuscript is well-written, but some minor problems must be revised.

 

(1) There is no section 2.2, please add (check line 149).

Reply: Thank you for the comments. I have revised the section number

(2) Please delete the “-” in Section 2.5 (check line 193).

Reply: Thank you for the comments. It is deleted

(3) Add more literature to enrich and fulfill the literature review (check from line 81).

Reply: Thank you for the comments. I have added Section 2.1 “Pink tax types” to enrich the whole literature.

(4) Please check the typing in this manuscript, such as line 203, as well as change the red color (in line 90).

Reply: Thank you for the comments. It is reviewed and checked.

(5) There are only 5 references in the introduction and 11 references in the literature review, please conduct a more detailed literature review and enrich the references.

Reply: Thank you for the comments. As it is just an entry paper, it is not very applicable to do a systematic review. I have added Section 2.1 with more references.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concepts presented in this research article are commendable. Since it is an entry and not a research article. I do not have other comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is adequate. 

Author Response

Reply: Thank you for the comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides valuable insights into the Pink Tax and its impact on gender-based pricing, making it a worthwhile read for those interested in the topic. However, it has notable weaknesses that could benefit from improvement. Improving these suggested aspects would make the research more comprehensive and actionable, offering readers a clearer understanding and more practical insights into addressing gender-based pricing disparities:

 

1. Abstract and Introduction Issues: The abstract redundantly defines "Pink Tax," lacks details on Unilever's selection or relevance, and provides vague objectives and missing methodological specifics. The introduction repeats definitions, lacks focus, fails to clearly articulate the research aim or significance, and integrates references poorly. It also abruptly shifts between general concepts and specific examples without coherent transitions or concrete research design details.

 

2. Literature Review: The literature review is fragmented, covering diverse topics like price disparities, marketing, and store design without a cohesive structure. It fails to effectively integrate and analyze key studies, leaving their relevance unclear, and makes broad, unsupported claims about the Pink Tax’s impact.

 

3. Coherence and Integration: The article suffers from fragmentation in discussing gender-based pricing and integrating various studies into a unified analysis. It presents generalizations and contradictory findings about price changes and gendered products without specific examples or detailed evidence.

 

4. Weak Analysis: The analysis of marketing strategies, economic implications, social media influence, and store design lacks depth and thorough examination. The focus on specific companies like Unilever is narrow, and the economic aspects are not deeply analyzed.

 

5. Lack of Recommendations: The article provides no concrete recommendations for addressing the Pink Tax or improving pricing fairness, offering only general calls for transparency and fairness without actionable solutions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

This article provides valuable insights into the Pink Tax and its impact on gender-based pricing, making it a worthwhile read for those interested in the topic. However, it has notable weaknesses that could benefit from improvement. Improving these suggested aspects would make the research more comprehensive and actionable, offering readers a clearer understanding and more practical insights into addressing gender-based pricing disparities:

Reply: Thank you for the comments. However, entries are brief, factual articles on various scientific topics that describe mature knowledge to be used as a reference. In contrast to articles, entries do not focus on original research work or unproven hypotheses. They are not required to exhibit a high degree of novelty or innovation but should be significant to the field and scientifically sound, with established results and achievements. The content is generally composed of the definition of a research object and facts (history, discoveries, applications, etc.). Therefore, I have not written it as a review paper.

I understand your concern, I have added Section 2.1, “Pink tax types”, to enrich the whole literature with more references to show the types of pink tax for connecting the whole work.

1. Abstract and Introduction Issues: The abstract redundantly defines “Pink Tax,” lacks details on Unilever’s selection or relevance, and provides vague objectives and missing methodological specifics. The introduction repeats definitions, lacks focus, fails to clearly articulate the research aim or significance, and integrates references poorly. It also abruptly shifts between general concepts and specific examples without coherent transitions or concrete research design details.

      Reply: Thank you. The abstract is rewritten, and the introduction is shortened by removing the reduced parts.

       2. Literature Review: The literature review is fragmented, covering diverse topics like price disparities, marketing, and store design without a cohesive structure. It fails to effectively integrate and analyze key studies, leaving their relevance unclear, and makes broad, unsupported claims about the Pink Tax’s impact.

       Reply: Thank you. The literature review is revised and Section 2.1 is added.

       3. Coherence and Integration: The article suffers from fragmentation in discussing gender-based pricing and integrating various studies into a unified analysis. It presents generalizations and contradictory findings about price changes and gendered products without specific examples or detailed evidence.

       Reply: Thank you. Some parts a rewritten to enhance the coherence and integration.  

       4. Weak Analysis: The analysis of marketing strategies, economic implications, social media influence, and store design lacks depth and thorough examination. The focus on specific companies like Unilever is narrow, and the economic aspects are not deeply analyzed.

       Reply: Thank you for the comments. As it is an entry paper, we will not give further analyses.

       5. Lack of Recommendations: The article provides no concrete recommendations for addressing the Pink Tax or improving pricing fairness, offering only general calls for transparency and fairness without actionable solutions.

       Reply: Thank you for the comments. As it is an entry paper, we will not give recommendations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The entry has been revised in a useful way.

In my view, section 2.5 'Ironically ineffective marketing' is not particularly meaningful (it could be dropped). 

I also suggest a change of title: The “Pink Tax” and Gender Price Disparity in Personal Care. It is unfair to mention the term 'Impact' in a review article of this type.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language must be improved, especially in section 2.2 Economical aspects. Strange use of '-' : to be corrected!

 

Author Response

Thank you. Section 2.5 has been revised, and the title has been changed. Also, some sentences were revised to enhance the whole paper's English quality. Section 2.2 is also revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done, no more comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much.