Review Reports
by
- Muhammad Tanveer 1,*,
- Abdul-Rahim Ahmad 2 and
- Ikram Ul Haq 4
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is noticed that required changes are implemented. The positive point is the paper has been improved.
I would like to suggest the following ways to improve this paper:
The contribution should be clarified.
The authors should further clarify what the contribution of the paper is, what is new in this paper? Why should it be published? What is the literature gap covered by this paper? what is the associated interest of this contribution? Has anyone previously suggested the need and interest in developing this specific contribution?
The literature review included in the manuscript should serve to synthesize the state of the art in the topic addressed, to describe the main specific contributions made to date, what is the gap that the work tries to fill, how the previous contributions relate to the contribution that is intended to be made in this paper and if it is the case, who previously suggested the need to make the analysis included in this new study.
Overall the quality of LR is acceptable.
The contribution of the paper should serve as a basis for developing both the theoretical implications and the managerial implications.
The paper should incorporate a more solid argumentation that allows justifying the reason that allows selecting the explanatory variables that are considered in the empirical analysis.
Why Table 1, has different sections? What is the logic? Is that necessary?
The authors should explain in more detail the sampling method. They say that data were collected from a snowball sample, but this non-probabilistic method is used in hidden
populations (where potential participants are hard to find), which is not the case. Moreover, snowball sampling is where research participants recruit other
participants for a study, therefore I don’t understand how they could PHONE? Moreover, is the data representative?
The presentation of the hypotheses is still confusing on the figure. Furthermore, I suggest the authors improve the argumentation of the hypothesis.
The hypotheses should be formulated separately and should be properly argued. There may be exceptions, if they are many and very similar, but this is the general rule.
The hypotheses formulated should be closely related to the previously conducted literature review.
In the current version of this manuscript the author are including different aspects of previous literature, but it does not exist any convincing storyline in any particular direction.
It is not enough to say that other authors have found similar results. It must be justified why some variables influence others. Possibly, the studies that have found similar results offer arguments that can also be used in this case.
Author Response
Dear,
Thanks for the suggestions/comments please see the attachment, thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
well-done with the developed article.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thanks for the nice comments and help.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
First of all, It's honor to review the paper. The study provides valuable information to understand the relationship between ethical marketing and brand performance. The explorative approach is robust and the model included in this study is interesting. Overall, this paper is well written and structured. The model seems to me nice and the results are quite good even if there some limitations that the author is aware about.
I appreciate the authors’ attempt to study an important and challenging area of research. However, I agree with many of the reviewers’ concerns. I’m particularly concerned that the literature is covered in a “review” way, and not with a ‘theoretical development” approach. There is no reason that the authors could not consider how the various theoretical domains might combine to predict effects of the various aspects of marketing environment. Generally, much more intensive, critical thinking and attention to detail will need to be done in order to heighten the contribution of the paper.
It is the case that ethical marketing is indeed an interesting topic and your manuscript was not without value. But as I know, this journal is a bit more "theory-driven" than the manuscript, which had more of an empirical feel to it.
In other words, the manuscript seems to not include a new idea and causal relationships that are of some importance, but does not do a good job at explaining to the reader why that combination of variables is theoretically interesting. Some past researchers have been studied the issues. Comparing the previous studies (e.g., articles published in sustainablity), what is major implication for academicians and enterprisers, new developed theory and relationship with outcome variables.
Thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Title:
Please revise the title and make it shorter than the current version. The title should contain important keywords, importantly please do not use those terms that confuse readers. For example, authors used the term issues in the title which can mislead readers. Also, I suggest the author (s) make the title interesting, and attention-grabbing. The grammatical mistake should not be seen in the Title.
Abstract:
As the author explains the study attempts to study the Sustainability of Ethical Marketing, and its relation with Perceived Product and Consumer Brand.
Please notice that the information provided in the abstract must be sufficient to help the readers decide whether the work is relevant to their interest or not. It should be brief but not lacking in important elements necessary for an understanding of the research conducted.
The current abstract should definitely get revised. Sentences should be connected to each other, especially when authors explain the main purpose of the study. Do not use repetitive words or phrases. For example, line 3 and 4, in addition, is used two times. Besides, clear information should be given to readers regarding the place that the study is conducted. I can not see that right now. In sum, the quality of the abstract is not acceptable. When revising the abstract note to
1) State clearly the objectives of the study
2) State clearly the principal conclusions of the research
Introduction, literature review, and hypotheses development:
The introduction is poor and short. The importance of the study and constructs are not well explained. Major questions and research gaps are not clearly addressed. I still cannot see how the research problem is closely related to the research objective. The literature is not really consistent with the proposed hypothesis statements. I cannot see where the items of each construct are derived from. The author should elaborate more on the theories used. The organization of the hypotheses is very confusing. My suggestion, instead of H1-1 and H1-2 use H1a or H1b and so on.
Methodology:
Sampling is clearly explained. However, a major issue is observed in the methodology section. I recommend the researcher (s) to pay particular attention to the measurement construct and elaborate more on the scale used.
The result, discussion, and conclusion:
Please correct the figures. I expect much better information and knowledge for mentioned sections. In particular, the research implications and contributions of the study should get updated. I strongly urge the author(s) to rewrite the front end to match the back end. I have observed a few unfounded claims, even contrary to the scholarly sources quoted. There are some style issues as well (grammar, syntax, the layout of tables, and referencing style).