Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is not clear what relation the article has to the research field of the Journal “Sustainability”

Theoretical background, literature review and hypotheses need to be improved. The literature analysis must be “airy” consequently demonstrating from the literature analysis the methodology of the research and the literature gap.

Conclusions are rather trivial, no gap in the literature is fulfilled

More detailed comments:

 

78 It is not clear when - maybe in 2004?

Lines 45-95 are not necessary for the elaboration of the topic of the article

 

232-233 “The research instrument considered in this study is a survey questionnaire developed after following recommendations of measures designed by Churchill [41].” So, what measures were recommended by Churchill?

247-252 “from the study of Ryan [42] has been used due to the fact that the population is unknown. The sample size for the study was calculated using Ryan [42] and taking 95% confidence interval with ±% precision. According to Ryan [42] ormula, the required sample size with this confidence interval and precision will be 385. So, approximately 430 respondents were approached through Google forms and online platforms. Of the 439 completed questionnaires, 416 were usable, resulting in a response rate of 96.74%.” The formulas and calculations must be revealed, mistakes (ormula, ±% precision) must be removed.

285 The meaning of abbreviation “CR” is not explained.

306 The meaning of these abbreviations: CMIN/df GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA is not explained.

313 The meaning of these abbreviations: AVE, MSV AND MaxR(H) is not explained.

319 The meaning of these abbreviations: HTMT SE PRC ASFR AC CON is not explained.

329 Figure 3 What is SEM? Picture is unreadable; the meaning of pictures' name abbreviation is not explained.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations:

364 “With the rapid advancement in technology, mobile phone use has been increased among young consumers. In this context, the present study has examined the factors in-

365 fluencing mobile phone buying decisions and behaviors among young adults in Pakistan”. Trivial conclusion weakly connected with the main text.

385 “From a theoretical point of view, the study contributes to the consumer buying be- havior literature by identifying factors influencing the choice of mobile phones. By exam-386 ining the mobile phone shopping behavior of young adults, the study contributes to the 387 growing demand of studying the buying behavior of youngsters [61, 62].” Conclusions are rather trivial, no gap in the literature is fulfilled

Author Response

Thank you so much for your valued comments and suggestions. We did our best to fulfill all the required stuff. Needed your help to publish this article. Thank you again.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I consider that this article can be improved by considering the following issues:

1. The abstract is way too long and includes very granular results. Therefore, it should be shortened and focused only on the main points of the study.
2. The main aim, the objectives, and the contributions to knowledge are not clearly articulated in this paper.
3. The sample structure must be presented in order for the reader to have an idea for sample representatives relating to the target population.
4. Common method bias was not discussed or evaluated in this study and it should, because both dependent and independent variables are measured using the same method.
5. The discussion section where comparisons with other studies are made is not sufficiently developed.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for your valued comments, and we did our best to respond accordingly. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Mobile Phone Buying Decisions Among Young Adults: An Empirical Study of Influencing Factors presents a significant problem of changes the mobile shopping behavior of young adults in Pakistan. In the article, the auteurs consider the problem in contemporary social, technological, and market norms. To analyze obtain data, the authors use Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within the Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) model using AMOS 24. The considered hypotheses correspond to the formulated research problem. Despite the indicated research limitations the research and formulating conclusions are correct. The theoretical background and related works are selected and prepare properly. Practical implications of the findings is  the advantage of the article.

The paragraph Introduction looks like it is not formatted according to the MDPI guidelines.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer, 

Please open the attachment we did accordingly as you guided. thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is of interest, well structured, within current tendencies related to the study of e-commerce. The research is adequate, well argued. The following can be considered lines of improvement:

1. The abstract is too long, it is recommended that the authors make modifications to the length;
2. Figure 1 is insufficiently explained considering the evolution trend. It is necessary to introduce a comparison with the global trend;
3. Some tables (e.g. table no. 2) are not sufficiently configured and explained. In general, all information in the tables should be explained more in depth in the article;
4. The discussion chapter is only 15 lines long, it needs to be extended;
5. The conclusion chapter does not specifically state the novelty element and the contribution of the study to the improvement of the field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We have tried our best to counter your valuable comments. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The text is much better, but the literature analysis may be made airier.

Author Response

Dear, 

Thanks. We have tried to do as you suggest or guide. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

Unfortunately you did not adequately addressed all the issues mentioned in the first round of review. Therefore, your article is not significantly improved and I consider it is not ready for publication in this current form.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer, 

We have tried our best to do as you highlighted. Thank you & Regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks to the authors for their efforts in improving the article. I wish them much success!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you so much. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx