Moderating Role of Connoisseur Consumers on Sustainable Consumption and Dynamics Capabilities of Indonesian Single Origin Coffee Shops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It was interesting to read an article about the dynamics of coffee consumption in Indonesia. However, the structure of the work must be reviewed. Even if the article is based on a simple descriptive analysis, it is necessary to report more clearly the data obtained through the survey. If numerical references can not be made, for example, it is possible to indicate in a schematic way what factors have been investigated and on which the dynamics found are aggregated.

In this article, the paragraph on the results does not clearly present the results, but rather a discussion of the phenomenon seen and analyzed by the authors but without presenting the supporting data. These ideas and comments can be part of the discussion of data, but it is necessary to present the data.

at line 53 an also in 58, the adjective "too much" should be replaced, for example by "very often" or "frequently". The adjective "too much" seems to indicate that research in a specific issues or into a given area is excessive, but it is my belief that research is always welcome.

Here are some annotations and some examples of the paragraphs in which it is necessary to make changes.

At line 67, specify the reference year for the data

At line 79, I recommend including a very short paragraph in explaining that literature identifies CCs as a community and why, before indicating what factors this community focuses on

At line 81-83, a single research conducted on a sample of 178 individuals is not sufficient to support the statement made. It is necessary to expand the bibliography, or indicate that the research carried out by O'Connor et al. highlighted what was said

At line 83 – 85 and 89-92, researches that support the claims made are not mentioned

At line 124-127, I understand that what is written here is more a consideration of the authors and not the result of any research. This must be specified. Furthermore, if the topic has been investigated and there are results that confirm how "hypothesized" must be reported. Otherwise, it can be reported as an idea of future research.

Line 144 , Figure 2 should be mentioned in the text. The source from which Figure 2 was taken is missing

At line 160, names of the authors are needed…by Geiger, Fischer and Schrader  [41]

At line 166 the reference [41] must be moved to the end of the paragraph, alternatively indicate "Furthermore, in accordance with the work done by Geiger, Fischer and Schrader…

Line 220-228, this paragraph does not describe a result, but the technique used to choose the CCs. Therefore, it should be removed from the pargraph results and included in the pargraph materials and methods.

Line 298-305, who and how many SOCSs use these terminologies? which is more used (better describe this result?

314-321, It does not seem to me that a result is presented here, rather a discussion of the authors. This concept should be moved to the comments section

322-330, how many of the interviewed SOCSs used social media to communicate? What are the efforts made by SOCSs who make it appear that their effort is serious? In this section the results of the survey that allow these statements to be made must be presented. This paragraph presents a comment by the authors not supported by the presentation of the data

331-339, How many of the interviewed SOCSs owners consider the presence of CCs in their store essential? how many SOCSs have highlighted the formation of communities in their SOCSs thanks to the presence of CCs. this is a result that must be presented here. the rest are only considerations of the authors that can be made on the basis of the results obtained in the survey (which were not presented here).

341-419, the whole paragraph concerning the results must be reviewed.

The data that allow the authors to make the statements contained here, must be reported in this paragraph. If it is not possible to quantify them numerically, however, they must be presented in a more schematic way. Indicating which factors emerge from the analysis.Otherwise, more than the presentation of the results, this paragraph represents the discussion of the data.

The paragraphs of the discussion and conclusions should be reviewed in the light of the changes made to the results paragraph.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We send our clarification of your comment point by point. We also make some changing to manuscript based on your suggestion. We attach our answer file to the attachment together with this letter.  I hope it will pas standard of the journal. Thank you for your attention.

 Best Regard,

Mangku Purnomo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper shows how the consumer behaviour study is fundamental to understand market dynamics and how they influence production processes and marketing strategies, especially with regard to food.

In general, the topic of the article is interesting; however, I would suggest a revision of paper form that is written in bad English with too long sentences that are difficult to read. 

Major revision:

Abstract structure should be revised with short and clearer sentences. The abstract should contain a background, materials and methods (which are missing) results and conclusions. The authors should try to be more precise in describing these parts in the abstract section.

In the introduction interesting information are reported, but too many sentences are written reporting concepts interpreted as their own opinions and not as the context description.

Theoretical Frameworks:

Has the profile of CCs consumers just defined in the literature for coffee and for other food products?

The methodology is not clear for my opinion: it is a. the authors should rewrite it more clearly and also indicate the issues investigated with greater clarity. was the questionnaire used? is it possible to put it in the appendix?...

Also results are confusing and in some parts reported notions of methodology…please revise.

Minor revisions:

Title:

Connoisseur Consumers, Dynamics Capabilities and  Sustainability of Indonesian Single Origin Coffee

Consumption. For my opinion, the paper title is unclear. I would suggest: “Dynamics capabilities and sustainability of Indonesian single origin coffee: the perception or preference of the connoisseur or conscious consumer.

Keywords should be reported in alphabetical order.

Lines 34-37 very long sentence

Line 64 dot and not comma

Line 79 consumer community or target?

Line 80 attention to specific product attributes….

Line 81 consumer behaviour or their behaviour…

Figures must be reported in the same style

No opportunities and limits of the research are reported in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We send our clarification of your comment point by point. We also make some changing to manuscript based on your suggestion. We attach our answer file to the attachment together with this letter. I hope it will pas standard of the journal. Thank you for your attention.

Best Regard,

Mangku Purnomo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is a very interesting paper, which presents elements of originality in addition to the existent academic literature as it focus on the SOCSs business, rarely discussed in the literature academy.

It is suggested to better organize the theoretical and managerial implications in order to valorize them. In this sense, it is suggested to emphasize and to link it to how this research advance the literature and the practice into conclusions.

The research questions are clear and interesting. It is well designed and justifies the achievement of the research objective. 

The communication quality is good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We send our clarification of your comment point by point. We also make some changing to manuscript based on your suggestion. We attach our answer file to the attachment together with this letter. I hope it will pas standard of the journal. Thank you for your attention.

Best Regard,

Mangku Purnomo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

We thank the authors for having accepted the suggestions

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made a good attempt to improve their paper. I think the manuscript could be published in this form and could make an important contribution to consumer studies.