The Empirical Analysis of Green Innovation for Fashion Brands, Perceived Value and Green Purchase Intention—Mediating and Moderating Effects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
As one of the selected reviewers, I read your manuscript carefully. While your research has addressed an important subject, however I observed some issues that must be addressed in a newer version.
the most serious flaw is lack of a specific research problem. in lack of such research problem, it is not clear that what problem do you intended to solve and what are the dimensions of this problems.
The introduction is a section that is expected to support your problem by presenting data and evidences. but in your current introduction it is not happened. I recommend you to rewrite your introduction with presenting the data and evidences that show the contribution of texttile and clothing industry in environmental pollution and the specific dimension that you want to study. then develop a research problem and if needed, research questions.
Also no research limitation is explained. alligned with the research problem, research limitations describe what dimensions of the probelm are excluded by you and what are the boundaries of your study.
In lack of this research problem, your conclusion is also insufficient and I cannot judge if it addressed the problem. I suggest you to add a discussion in addition to the conculsion.
I look forward to receive the revision and to review the newer version.
Best of luck
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Dear authors, As one of the selected reviewers, I read your manuscript carefully. While your research has addressed an important subject, however I observed some issues that must be addressed in a newer version.
Response 1: Dear Respected, we are thankful to you for devoting your valuable time to review our article; we have found these suggestions very useful in improving our manuscript further. We believe that the current form of the manuscript would be considerable.
Point 2: the most serious flaw is lack of a specific research problem. in lack of such research problem, it is not clear that what problem do you intended to solve and what are the dimensions of this problems.
Response 2: We apologize if it could not be clear from the introduction. We have tried to revise the language of the last paragraph of the introduction to describe it more clearly. The research problem has been revised in the revised manuscript as:
"The research explores how the green Innovation for fashion brands is perceived by consumers and further influences their purchase intention."
Point 3: The introduction is a section that is expected to support your problem by presenting data and evidences. but in your current introduction it is not happened. I recommend you to rewrite your introduction with presenting the data and evidences that show the contribution of texttile and clothing industry in environmental pollution and the specific dimension that you want to study. then develop a research problem and if needed, research questions.
Response 3: We agree with the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has been modified in the revised manuscript. We have rewritten the introduction to much extent and have attempted to present the data and evidence that show the textile and clothing industry’s contribution to environmental pollution. Besides, we have also added some citations from the existing research as requested in the pdf file along with the comments. We have added more citations for supporting claims in the introduction. We have not added too many citations deliberately, as a literature review section follows this section. Also, we have presented the reason for the negligence of this research dimension in academia. Moreover, we have highlighted the critical research questions that have been proposed for this study.
Point 4: Also no research limitation is explained. alligned with the research problem, research limitations describe what dimensions of the probelm are excluded by you and what are the boundaries of your study.
Response 4: We apologize for the mistake. The two main limitations of this study have been added as the last section in the revised manuscript.
Point 5: In lack of this research problem, your conclusion is also insufficient and I cannot judge if it addressed the problem. I suggest you to add a discussion in addition to the conculsion.
Response 5: We apologize for this short discussion. A complete section has been dedicated to the discussion in the revised manuscript.
Point 6: I look forward to receive the revision and to review the newer version.
Best of luck.
Response 6: We have tried our best to improve the manuscript according to the valuable insights of the reviewer. We hope that the current form would be acceptable for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is focused on the analysis of the mechanism of clothing brand green innovation on consumers’ purchase intention, and on this basis, investigates the mediating role of perceived value and the moderating role of consumer innovation. The topic of the paper can be considered as actual and the methods are chosen correctly and in accordance with actual state of knowledge in scope of marketing analytics. The main parts of the paper are not included when standard form of the scientific paper is taken into account (so called "IMRD rule" - introduction, methodology, results, discussion). The last part of this structure - discussion is missing at all what partially derogates scientific value of the paper. However, other parts of the paper are structured adequately despite the fact that more detailed analysis of chosen methodology including relevant formulas would be appreciated. The material is ordered logically, clearly and easily to follow. The sources are cited adequately, their formatting is correct. All the citations in the text ate listed in the Literature Cited section. Quotations respect APA style. The level of the knowledge of authors is satisfying. It is obvious that authors are oriented in the topic and that they use appropriate terms. The overall level of language is appropriate. On the other hand, wider context of the presentation of the topic based on own research outcomes should be applied to make the results more scientifically valuable and understandable for the audience.
Author Response
Point 1: The paper is focused on the analysis of the mechanism of clothing brand green innovation on consumers’ purchase intention, and on this basis, investigates the mediating role of perceived value and the moderating role of consumer innovation. The topic of the paper can be considered as actual and the methods are chosen correctly and in accordance with actual state of knowledge in scope of marketing analytics.
Response 1: We are thankful for the review for devoting his valuable time to review this article.
Point 2: The main parts of the paper are not included when standard form of the scientific paper is taken into account (so called "IMRD rule" - introduction, methodology, results, discussion). The last part of this structure - discussion is missing at all what partially derogates scientific value of the paper. However, other parts of the paper are structured adequately despite the fact that more detailed analysis of chosen methodology including relevant formulas would be appreciated.
Response 2: We agree to the reviewer that the structure of the manuscript should be revised. We have revised the manuscript to IMRD format. Also, we have added a section Discussion as was suggested by the reviewer.
Point 3: The material is ordered logically, clearly and easily to follow. The sources are cited adequately, their formatting is correct. All the citations in the text ate listed in the Literature Cited section. Quotations respect APA style. The level of the knowledge of authors is satisfying. It is obvious that authors are oriented in the topic and that they use appropriate terms. The overall level of language is appropriate.
Response 3: We are thankful to the review for giving encouraging and appreciating comments.
Point 4: On the other hand, wider context of the presentation of the topic based on own research outcomes should be applied to make the results more scientifically valuable and understandable for the audience.
Response 4: We have revised the manuscript as per the guidance of all the reviewers. We hope that the current form of the manuscript would be acceptable for publication.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for your revision. I feel satisfied from the imporvement you made. Now, it provides a clear path for the readers and they know what to expect.
I just see one minor flaw remains: while you developed four research questions, you have not answered them! I suggest you to add answers to the questions in the conclusion section.
Write: answer to RQ1: ..... answer to RQ2 ....
In this way, you have opened your article well and close it appropriately. then your article will be ready to publish, in my view.
Well done, and best of luck.
Author Response
Comment #1
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for your revision. I feel satisfied from the imporvement you made. Now, it provides a clear path for the readers and they know what to expect.
Response to reviewer
We are once again thankful to the reviewer for reviewing our manuscript and giving us positive feedback for our efforts. We have revised the manuscript carefully according to the guidance of the reviewer. The changes are highlighted in yellow color.
Comment #2
I just see one minor flaw remains: while you developed four research questions, you have not answered them! I suggest you to add answers to the questions in the conclusion section.
Write: answer to RQ1: ..... answer to RQ2 ....
In this way, you have opened your article well and close it appropriately. then your article will be ready to publish, in my view.
Well done, and best of luck.
Response to reviewer
Yes, we agree with the reviewer that adding these answers to the conclusion section would make the papers clearer to the readers.
