Predicting Trends and Maximizing Sales: AI’s Role in Saudi E-Commerce Decision-Making

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting to read manuscript, with a topic that is timely and relevant - how AI is being adopted in Saudi Arabia's e-commerce sector, focusing mainly on how it impacts customer experience, satisfaction, operational efficiency, especially from the point of view of female consumers and online retailers. The authors use in their study a mixed-method design (quantitative surveys and interviews) and the study is framed using sociotechnical theory.

Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript and please allow me to make a few suggestions for the authors.

Even though the authors clearly state that the study focuses on female university students, many of the interpretations (especially in the discussion and conclusion sections) feel like they’re being generalized to the whole population. That seems a bit problematic, and a reader could easily get the impression that the results apply to all Saudi customers. I suggest that the authors could rephrase certain conclusions to make it clear that the findings are based on a very specific group (female students in two public sector higher education institutions). In my opinion there’s no problem with a focused sample, it just needs to be acknowledged more clearly throughout the paper.

There are a few items in the SEM model with very low or even negative factor loadings (for example CE1 = -0.015, CS1 = 0.081, EO1 = -0.131). I think it’s important to explain clearly why the authors kept these items. As it stands, keeping them might weaken the statistical claims.

In my opinion the literature review is a little bit unbalanced and the discussion is rather local; there’s little comparison with international cases, which could add more weight to the claims. I suggest that the authors could add a few stronger, peer-reviewed sources ( especially recent ones from Europe, Asia, other GCC countries) . This would also place the Saudi case in a broader context, which I think is important for a journal audience.

This is a mixed-methods paper, but the qualitative interviews are mainly with business owners, while the hypotheses are about female customers; and this might create a bit of a disconnect. In a few places, the manuscript discusses customer experience based on retailers’ opinions and that feels a bit indirect. I suggest that the authors either include interviews with female customers as well, or clearly state that the qualitative part is meant to provide a complementary business-side view. Just avoid mixing the two perspectives without saying so.

The authors nicely introduce the sociotechnical theory, but then don't quite return to it. It would be stronger if the analysis made use of the actual concepts from the theory. In my opinion, it would help to bring in some key ideas like “joint optimization” or “interdependence between systems” when discussing the results in order to make the theoretical framing feel more integrated.

Regarding ethics, there’s a brief mention of consent, but there’s no clear statement about formal ethics approval. Since human subjects were involved, it would be good to clarify whether an IRB or ethics committee reviewed the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a careful proofreading to improve clarity and flow

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their time and effort in evaluating the research and for their valuable comments that helped improve the quality of the study. We have taken all comments into consideration and made comprehensive revisions to enhance the clarity of the introduction, strengthen the theoretical aspect, clarify the methodology, and improve the presentation and analysis of the results.

 

Even though the authors clearly state that the study focuses on female university students, many of the interpretations (especially in the discussion and conclusion sections) feel like they’re being generalized to the whole population. That seems a bit problematic, and a reader could easily get the impression that the results apply to all Saudi customers. I suggest that the authors could rephrase certain conclusions to make it clear that the findings are based on a very specific group (female students in two public sector higher education institutions). In my opinion there’s no problem with a focused sample, it just needs to be acknowledged more clearly throughout the paper.

thank the esteemed referee for his valuable comments, which we consider an important addition to improving the clarity of the study. Indeed, we acknowledge that some of the wording of the discussion and conclusion may suggest that the results are generalizable to the entire population. In response, we have reworded the conclusions and interpretations to clearly highlight that the study's findings are based exclusively on a specific sample: female students at two public higher education institutions. We have also added clarification of the limits of generalizability in several places to ensure readers are not confused.

 

There are a few items in the SEM model with very low or even negative factor loadings (for example CE1 = -0.015, CS1 = 0.081, EO1 = -0.131). I think it’s important to explain clearly why the authors kept these items. As it stands, keeping them might weaken the statistical claims.

We thank the referee for their valuable feedback regarding the SEM model elements with low or negative loadings (e.g., CE1 = -0.015, CS1 = 0.081, EO1 = -0.131). After reviewing this feedback, we would like to emphasize that the retention of these elements was based on the strong theoretical foundation and conceptual importance of these indicators in measuring the latent variables relevant to the study. We also verified that deleting these elements would not significantly improve the statistical power of the model, while at the same time potentially leading to the loss of some important conceptual aspects represented by these indicators. Therefore, these elements were retained, with the rationale for their retention explained in the methodology and discussion of results sections to ensure transparency and clarity for the reader. We also added an explanation clarifying that the low loadings do not substantially affect the reliability of the overall model or the validity of the general conclusions, which enhances the model's credibility, balances theoretical and statistical considerations, and ensures that the reader understands the significance of each indicator within the context of the study.

 

In my opinion the literature review is a little bit unbalanced and the discussion is rather local; there’s little comparison with international cases, which could add more weight to the claims. I suggest that the authors could add a few stronger, peer-reviewed sources ( especially recent ones from Europe, Asia, other GCC countries) . This would also place the Saudi case in a broader context, which I think is important for a journal audience.

thank the reviewer for their valuable comments regarding the balance of the literature review. After reviewing the comments, we expanded the literature review to include recent and reliable studies from Europe, Asia, and other GCC countries, in addition to local Saudi studies. This expansion places the Saudi case within a broader regional and global context and enhances the strength and credibility of the study's findings. These new studies are also included in the discussion to illustrate the similarities and differences between international experiences and the Saudi context.

This is a mixed-methods paper, but the qualitative interviews are mainly with business owners, while the hypotheses are about female customers; and this might create a bit of a disconnect. In a few places, the manuscript discusses customer experience based on retailers’ opinions and that feels a bit indirect. I suggest that the authors either include interviews with female customers as well, or clearly state that the qualitative part is meant to provide a complementary business-side view. Just avoid mixing the two perspectives without saying so.

thank the Reviewer for his valuable comments on the mixed-methods study design. Indeed, we recognize that the qualitative interviews were conducted primarily with business owners, while the hypotheses focused on female customers, and that some parts of the manuscript may suggest an indirect approach to customer experience through the perspectives of retailers. In response, we have clarified the purpose of the qualitative aspect of the study, emphasizing that the interviews with business owners aim to provide an integrated view of the market and retail experience, not a direct attempt to represent the perspective of female customers. We have added explanatory notes in the Methodology and Discussion sections to clarify this distinction and prevent any confusion between the two perspectives. We also emphasize that the findings relating to customer experience are based on quantitative data from female customers, while the qualitative aspect provides supporting insights from the retailers' perspective to enhance understanding of the overall business context. We believe this clarification maintains the robustness of the study, enhances methodological clarity, and avoids any confusion for readers and reviewers about the source of the data and interpretation of the findings.

The authors nicely introduce the sociotechnical theory, but then don't quite return to it. It would be stronger if the analysis made use of the actual concepts from the theory. In my opinion, it would help to bring in some key ideas like “joint optimization” or “interdependence between systems” when discussing the results in order to make the theoretical framing feel more integrated.

thank the referee for his valuable feedback on the use of sociotechnical theory in analyzing the results. In response, we revised and reworded the discussion section to include key concepts of the theory, including "co-optimization" and interconnectedness between systems, to link the results directly to the theoretical framework.

Regarding ethics, there’s a brief mention of consent, but there’s no clear statement about formal ethics approval. Since human subjects were involved, it would be good to clarify whether an IRB or ethics committee reviewed the study.

thank the reviewer for their observation. We confirm that all participants provided informed consent, and the study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee of the academic institution. The methodology section has been updated to clearly reflect this.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this work is very current, while the results and conclusions of the research indicate that the adoption of artificial intelligence brings progress in user experience and satisfaction and business optimization when it comes to e-commerce.

Special emphasis is placed on the experience and satisfaction of female consumers.

What can be a shortcoming of the paper is an overly broad introduction that should focus solely on the research questions. In addition, the theoretical part includes the analysis of sociotechnical theory, where it would be desirable to explain its role in this research in more detail and depth.

When it comes to the methodology, it would be good to explain why only female students were sampled, first of all, due to the general applicability of the obtained research results.

The presented research results are very extensive, it is necessary to scale the quantitative and qualitative data more clearly, that is, it is necessary to explain and interpret the research results shown in the tables in more detail.

When it comes to the discussion of the results, it is mainly focused on confirming the hypotheses, it could be improved with a more critical analysis of the obtained results. Likewise, the conclusion should be much more concretely written, first of all with an emphasis on the Saudi context, when it comes to the research results.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their time and effort in evaluating the research and for their valuable comments that helped improve the quality of the study. We have taken all comments into consideration and made comprehensive revisions to enhance the clarity of the introduction, strengthen the theoretical aspect, clarify the methodology, and improve the presentation and analysis of the results.

 

A potential shortcoming of the paper is that the introduction is overly broad and would benefit from being more focused on the specific research questions. Additionally, while the theoretical section presents an analysis of sociotechnical theory, it would be desirable to elaborate more clearly on the role of this theory within the context of the current research, providing greater depth and explanation regarding how it informs the study’s framework and analysis.

 

We thank the reviewer for their valuable comments regarding the introduction and theoretical aspects. In response, we have revised the introduction to focus more on the research questions, reducing general information not directly related to the study's objective, thus enhancing the clarity of the research scope and objectives. In addition, the theoretical section on sociotechnical theory has been improved, adding a detailed explanation of its role in the research.

 

When it comes to the methodology, it would be good to explain why only female students were sampled, first of all, due to the general applicability of the obtained research results.

We thank the reviewer for their valuable comments regarding the study sample. We would like to emphasize that the selection of female students was intended to focus on a specific group whose behaviors and attitudes could be studied in-depth, in line with the research objectives. This selection is explained in the methodology section, noting that the results are limitedly applicable to a similar category of participants, and that generalizing the results to all groups requires future studies that include diverse segments of the population.

The presented research results are very extensive, it is necessary to scale the quantitative and qualitative data more clearly, that is, it is necessary to explain and interpret the research results shown in the tables in more detail.

We thank the reviewer  for his valuable feedback on the presentation of the results. In response, we have revised the Results section to enhance clarity and detail in the explanation of the quantitative and qualitative data. Each table is carefully explained, providing a comprehensive interpretation of the results and their relationship to the research objectives and questions.

When it comes to the discussion of the results, it is mainly focused on confirming the hypotheses, it could be improved with a more critical analysis of the obtained results. Likewise, the conclusion should be much more concretely written, first of all with an emphasis on the Saudi context, when it comes to the research results.

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments on the analysis of the results and the formulation of the conclusion. In response, we revised the discussion of the results to enhance the critical and analytical aspect, so that it goes beyond confirming the hypotheses, but also includes interpreting the results, comparing previous literature, and clarifying the possible reasons for discrepancies or unexpected results. We also reformulated the conclusion to be more specific and focused on the Saudi context, highlighting the relevance of the findings to the Kingdom's e-commerce market. We emphasized how AI applications can improve operational efficiency, increase customer satisfaction, and enhance the competitiveness of local companies, while pointing out the challenges and opportunities specific to the local context.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for revising the manuscript and for providing respectful response with details to all comments. I can see that improvements were made in terms of structure, clarity, theoretical integration .
In my opinion the generalizability issue is now addressed well and the explanation of the mixed-method design seems now clearer. I appreciate the inclusion of more global references and also the explicit mention of ethics approval. The discussion of sociotechnical theory is still rather brief, but does connect better to the findings now.
My only remaining concern is the inclusion of items in the SEM model with very low or negative loadings. While I would normally expect such items to be  removed, the authors provided a clear justification for retaining them based on theoretical considerations and this is now explained in the paper.