Accessing the Influence of User Relationship Bonds on Continuance Intention in Livestream E-Commerce
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although authors revised some parts of the manuscript (highlighted parts), I still believe that the overall quality of this manuscript doesn’t meet the qualification for publication in the SSCI journal. And I think that the revised contents seem to be at the minimum level.
There are still too many sentences I hardly understand.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful comments. We apologize for the inaccurate expressions. We have engaged professional proofreading services to ensure the accuracy of the language expressions (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and suggestion to Editor
Although the research study is very interesting but many mistake need to improve the article as my comments suggestion below
Abstract
L8-122, L15-17, L17-19 and almost all the sentences didn’t clear and make confusion to the reader and hard to understand.
Introduction
L42-49, 54-59,61-62,68,77,85-88,93-103- Many sentence didn’t clear that make the reader confuse what is the purpose of study the Author want to achieve.
Just one example below L77- thus expanding market share has become
L102-103 This study uses Structural Equation 102 Modeling (SEM) to explore the mechanism of users' relational bonds on the relationship 103 of continuous use.
Theoretical review and hypotheses development
- L158-159 I don’t see clear what theoretical the Author want to contribution
- I didn’t see the purpose of study and the theoretical application clear interconnected (for example the study purpose to explore the mechanism of users' relational bonds on the relationship 103 of continuous use of livestream e-commerce contexts but didn’t clear how relational bonds effect user continuance Intention.
- In the Abstract the Author L13 mediating effect but that doesn’t find in Theoretical review and hypotheses development
Research Method
Sample and data collection
L340-354 The sentences didn’t clear reduplication and hard to understand.
On Table 1, I don’t understand the number of Cumulative coming 100% similar problem with the following on the table
L374-414- the sentences duplicating and make the reader confuses
Analyses and results
L436 where is table 2?
Discriminant validity on Table 3, how the Author get or analysis the data and how to be explaining of results on Table 3.
L477 is table 3?
L492 section 4.2.5 completed confusion and I don’t see Hypothesis on mediating effect. And the sentences below confusions and L503 Table 6 also confused between mediating and moderating effects. That will affect similar problem with such as below
Research Results and Discussion, Theoretical Contributions
Reference needs to be updated, many to old references
Have good Luck
3/10/2022
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Abstract
We apologize for the inaccurate expressions and have rewritten these sentences to make the expressions clearer (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
Response to Introduction
Therefore, this study applies relational bonds to the livestream e-commerce scenario for research and explores the mechanisms of the specific dimensions of relational bonds on users' continuance intention.
Response to Theoretical review and hypotheses development
First, we detail the constitutive dimensions of relational bonds in Section 2.1, thus providing a theoretical foundation for the discussion of relational bonds affecting continuance Intention.
Second, we specifically discuss the hypothesized relationships between the variables in Section 2.2. Specifically, these include the hypothesized inference between financial bonds and cumulative satisfaction, the hypothesized relationship between social bonds and cumulative satisfaction, the hypothesized relationship between structural bonds and cumulative satisfaction, the hypothesized relationship between cumulative satisfaction and continuance intention, and the moderating role of affective commitment in livestream e-commerce scenario.
In other words, the theoretical model consisting of the hypothesized relationships between these variables shows the mechanism of the influence of relational bonds on continuance intention in livestream e-commerce scenario.
Response to Research Method
1.Thank you for your valuable suggestions, and we have rewritten this section based on your comments and those of other reviewers. The revised content is as follows.
Therefore, this study proposes and validates a new theoretical model based on relational bonds to systematically investigate the relationship between relational bonds, cumulative satisfaction and continuance intention in livestream e-commerce scenario, and discusses the boundary role of affective commitment in it.
2.Thank you for your insightful comments. We apologize for the inaccurate expressions. We have engaged professional proofreading services to ensure the accuracy of the language expressions.
3.Thanks to your kind reminder, we have checked the statistics in Table 1 and corrected any errors caused by careless penmanship.
4.Thank you for your interest in this issue. We take this very seriously and have had a series of discussions. The following conclusions have been reached.
First, we have a corresponding presentation of the variables involved in the article and their sources in the 3.2Measures section, which is in line with the paradigm of empirical studies.
Second, we refer to some top journals (SSCI, JCR-Q1) that do not do the same. The top journals we refer to are as follows.
Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Consumer Research.
Finally, thank you very much for your kind suggestions.
Response to Analyses and results
1.Thank you for your very kind reminder. We apologize for the mislabeling of Tables 2 and 3, and we have re-labeled Tables 2 and 3.
2.There are several ways to analyze discriminant validity in structural equation modeling. Among them, the confidence interval method is the most commonly used approach. Therefore, we take AVE method to analyze discriminant validity.
The specific analysis is as follows.
If it fails to include "1", then it is completely correlated, indicating that the facets have different validity. As Hancock and Nevitt (1999) [56] suggested, bootstrap test was conducted in this study. 95% confidence interval of the correlation coefficient does not involve 1 (see table 3 below), which shows the good discriminant validity between all the variables. Therefore, the measurement model has good discriminative validity.
3.We apologize for the confusing use of the word "mediating" and "moderating" and have corrected the error. That is, we have replaced the word "mediating" with "moderating".
4.Thank you for your insightful comments. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the references in the different parts of manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I still don't think this manuscript is qualified to publish in the SSCI journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your encouraging and inspiring feedback on our work and for your constructive and helpful comments that have definitely improved the paper a great deal. We had studied all of your and the other reviewers’ comments carefully and tried to incorporate all of them into the current version of this article. We have modified our research to accommodate your and the other reviewers’ comments concerns (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
Abstract
L 18-19 and 21-22 sentence confusion
Response1
We apologize for the inaccurate expressions and have rewritten these sentences to make the expressions clearer (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
In addition, we have engaged professional proofreading services to ensure the accuracy of the language expressions.
Introduction
L91-94 the present motivation of study still weak need to explain in specific way that can match the research model
Response2
Thank you for your friendly suggestions, we attach great importance to this, after discussion, we have improved this in the revised draft (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
Section 2. Theoretical review and hypotheses development
The presentation on the following of sections could be revise, that the article could look better.
Response3
We have engaged professional proofreading services to ensure the accuracy of the language expressions.
L318-319 the sentence needs to revise, to match the figure 1
Response4
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we have modified the sentence L318-319 to match Figure 1. The modified sentences are as follows.
In summary, we propose the theoretical model shown in Figure 1, which aims to investigate the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance inten-tion in livestream e-commerce scenario.
Section 3. Research method
3.1 Sample and data collection
The research method still has many messes: Sample and data collection and section
Response5
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we have rewritten ‘3.1 Sample and data collection’ to make the expressions clearer (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
3.2. Measures
Where and how the author design to the questionnaire in paper that can link and access by the participants?
Response6
Thank you for your attention to this issue, which is described in detail in "3.2 Sample and data collection" (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
L332 and 340 the sentence confusions
Response7
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we have modified the sentence L332 and 340.
L 34—344 the sentence not clear make confusion to the reader
Response8
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we have modified the sentence L 334—344 .
Note: suggestion, exchange the sections 3.1 Sample and data collection 3.2. Measures.
Response9
Following your suggestion, we have exchanged sections 3.1 and 3.2.
L378 typing mistake
Response10
Thank you for the reminder, we have corrected the error.
4.2.5. Moderating effects analysis
L461-462 sentence confusion, look the Author don’t clear regarding moderating and mediating variable. And the results on table 6 and figure 2 also confusion.
Response11
Thank you for your interest in hypothetical effects analysis.
We take this very seriously and have had a series of discussions. In the end, we came to the following conclusions.
This paper is an empirical study of the structural equation modeling paradigm, using Mplus 7.0 moderating effects for the analysis. This is different from previous ordinary analyses. Moreover, the analysis of the moderating paradigm in this study is a hot method in the international arena. Compared with the previous traditional analysis methods, the analysis method in this study, is a more advanced method.
Furthermore, the analysis of the moderating effect in this study is based on the practice of top international journals. The top journals we referenced are the following. Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Consumer Research.
Therefore, we have reasons to believe that the analysis of the moderating effect in this study is correct.
Finally, this study did not analyze the mediating effect and did not propose the hypothesis of the mediating effect. In this study, the hypothesis of moderating effect was proposed and the moderating effect was analyzed. Therefore, there is also no big confusion between the mediating and moderating effects.
Section 5.1. Research results? writing this way? Or Section 5.1. Discussion
Response12
Thank you for your interest in the results of this study. In this study, Section 5.1 is the research results and is intended to be a discussion of the results of the data analysis.
Regarding the design of the paper structure, we refer to some top journals (SSCI, JCR-Q1) and our approach is consistent with them. The top journals we referenced are the following. Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Consumer Research.
Therefore, we have good reasons to believe that such writing is in line with the usual paradigm of empirical research.
Finally, thank you very much for your kind suggestions.
5.2. Theoretical contributions
L603-604 In the hypothesis and results of study where is mediating?
Response13
Thank you for your concern about the mediating role, but in this study, we did not propose the hypothesis of a mediating role.
L 600-609 how this study made difference from previous study? That could be contributions on this study.
Response14
Thanks to your friendly advice, we have rewritten the research contribution (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal)..
5.3. Practical implications
L612 Similar problem In the hypothesis and results of study where is mediating?
Response14
We did not formulate a hypothesis about the mediating role. We have rewritten this section to make it more accurately expressed so as to avoid misunderstandings.
L680-681 ……. couldn’t understand the sentence.
Response15
We have rewritten these sentences to make the expressions clearer (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and suggestion to Author
Abstract
L 18-19 and 21-22 sentence confusion
Introduction
L91-94 the present motivation of study still weak need to explain in specific way that can match the research model
Section 2. Theoretical review and hypotheses development
The presentation on the following of sections could be revise, that the article could look better.
L318-319 the sentence needs to revise, to match the figure 1
Section 3. Research method
3.1 Sample and data collection
The research method still has many messes: Sample and data collection and section 3.2. Measures
Where and how the author design to the questionnaire in paper that can link and access by the participants?
L332 and 340 the sentence confusions
L 34—344 the sentence not clear make confusion to the reader
Note: suggestion, exchange the sections 3.1 Sample and data collection 3.2. Measures.
L378 typing mistake
4.2.5. Moderating effects analysis
L461-462 sentence confusion, look the Author don’t clear regarding moderating and mediating variable. And the results on table 6 and figure 2 also confusion.
Section 5.1. Research results? writing this way? Or Section 5.1. Discussion
5.2. Theoretical contributions
L603-604 In the hypothesis and results of study where is mediating?
L 600-609 how this study made difference from previous study? That could be contributions on this study.
5.3. Practical implications
L612 Similar problem In the hypothesis and results of study where is mediating?
L680-681 ……. couldn’t understand the sentence.
Good Luck
2022/3/24
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Abstract
L 18-19 and 21-22 sentence confusion
Response1
We apologize for the inaccurate expressions and have rewritten these sentences to make the expressions clearer (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
In addition, we have engaged professional proofreading services to ensure the accuracy of the language expressions.
Introduction
L91-94 the present motivation of study still weak need to explain in specific way that can match the research model
Response2
Thank you for your friendly suggestions, we attach great importance to this, after discussion, we have improved this in the revised draft (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
Section 2. Theoretical review and hypotheses development
The presentation on the following of sections could be revise, that the article could look better.
Response3
We have engaged professional proofreading services to ensure the accuracy of the language expressions.
L318-319 the sentence needs to revise, to match the figure 1
Response4
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we have modified the sentence L318-319 to match Figure 1. The modified sentences are as follows.
In summary, we propose the theoretical model shown in Figure 1, which aims to investigate the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance inten-tion in livestream e-commerce scenario.
Section 3. Research method
3.1 Sample and data collection
The research method still has many messes: Sample and data collection and section
Response5
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we have rewritten ‘3.1 Sample and data collection’ to make the expressions clearer (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
3.2. Measures
Where and how the author design to the questionnaire in paper that can link and access by the participants?
Response6
Thank you for your attention to this issue, which is described in detail in "3.2 Sample and data collection" (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
L332 and 340 the sentence confusions
Response7
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we have modified the sentence L332 and 340.
L 34—344 the sentence not clear make confusion to the reader
Response8
Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we have modified the sentence L 334—344 .
Note: suggestion, exchange the sections 3.1 Sample and data collection 3.2. Measures.
Response9
Following your suggestion, we have exchanged sections 3.1 and 3.2.
L378 typing mistake
Response10
Thank you for the reminder, we have corrected the error.
4.2.5. Moderating effects analysis
L461-462 sentence confusion, look the Author don’t clear regarding moderating and mediating variable. And the results on table 6 and figure 2 also confusion.
Response11
Thank you for your interest in hypothetical effects analysis.
We take this very seriously and have had a series of discussions. In the end, we came to the following conclusions.
This paper is an empirical study of the structural equation modeling paradigm, using Mplus 7.0 moderating effects for the analysis. This is different from previous ordinary analyses. Moreover, the analysis of the moderating paradigm in this study is a hot method in the international arena. Compared with the previous traditional analysis methods, the analysis method in this study, is a more advanced method.
Furthermore, the analysis of the moderating effect in this study is based on the practice of top international journals. The top journals we referenced are the following. Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Consumer Research.
Therefore, we have reasons to believe that the analysis of the moderating effect in this study is correct.
Finally, this study did not analyze the mediating effect and did not propose the hypothesis of the mediating effect. In this study, the hypothesis of moderating effect was proposed and the moderating effect was analyzed. Therefore, there is also no big confusion between the mediating and moderating effects.
Section 5.1. Research results? writing this way? Or Section 5.1. Discussion
Response12
Thank you for your interest in the results of this study. In this study, Section 5.1 is the research results and is intended to be a discussion of the results of the data analysis.
Regarding the design of the paper structure, we refer to some top journals (SSCI, JCR-Q1) and our approach is consistent with them. The top journals we referenced are the following. Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Consumer Research.
Therefore, we have good reasons to believe that such writing is in line with the usual paradigm of empirical research.
Finally, thank you very much for your kind suggestions.
5.2. Theoretical contributions
L603-604 In the hypothesis and results of study where is mediating?
Response13
Thank you for your concern about the mediating role, but in this study, we did not propose the hypothesis of a mediating role.
L 600-609 how this study made difference from previous study? That could be contributions on this study.
Response14
Thanks to your friendly advice, we have rewritten the research contribution (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal)..
5.3. Practical implications
L612 Similar problem In the hypothesis and results of study where is mediating?
Response14
We did not formulate a hypothesis about the mediating role. We have rewritten this section to make it more accurately expressed so as to avoid misunderstandings.
L680-681 ……. couldn’t understand the sentence.
Response15
We have rewritten these sentences to make the expressions clearer (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestion to the Author
The title of the Article
Accessing the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention in livestream e-commerce scenario: developing country perspective
After reviewing again and again some of explanation in the body text still didn’t match to the proposed model and the title of the article.
If the author didn’t report the mediating effect, then how the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention?
- There is no any direct influence of relational bonds on continuance intention
- And also, there no any moderating influence between relational bonds and continuance intention.
How study could approve the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention?
Such example the author wrote page 2 of 21, L 89-92 (…..Obviously, the relationship between user's relational bonds and continuance intention is under studied in present livestream e-commerce scenario, and the intermediate mechanisms by which user's relational bonds influence their continuous use remain to be explored, which may lead to a lack of clarity in the mechanism for generating sustained intention.
Suggested to the Author The title of the Article
- Please check again the sentence that on the body text that can match the proposed model.
- Accessing the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention in livestream e-commerce scenario: developing country perspective – my suggesting to - Accessing the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention in livestream e-commerce scenario: relational bonds and moderating perspective
3.2 Sample and data collection
L359-361 and L371-373, Isn’t same things?
Table 1 Cumulative %
How the Author analysis data that results on table 1 and get Cumulative 100%?, such as Unmarried Cumulative 100%? And others similar through on the table 1
Suggested to Author to check the results again on that table 1, especially in Cumulative %
Figure 2. Privacy concern moderating the relationship between social attachment and information value - social attachment and information value, Is it moderating variable?
Page 14 of 21, L 526, and hypothesis H5? please check again
15 of 21 L 580 ……. tend to trust? service providers more….
L 584 Similar problem ………affective commitment lack trust in….
Is trust being your variable? Please revise that can match the moderating effects
2022/4/13
Author Response
Question 1:
The title of the Article
Accessing the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention in livestream e-commerce scenario: developing country perspective
After reviewing again and again some of explanation in the body text still didn’t match to the proposed model and the title of the article.
If the author didn’t report the mediating effect, then how the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention?
There is no any direct influence of relational bonds on continuance intention
And also, there no any moderating influence between relational bonds and continuance intention.
How study could approve the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention?
Such example the author wrote page 2 of 21, L 89-92 (…..Obviously, the relationship between user's relational bonds and continuance intention is under studied in present livestream e-commerce scenario, and the intermediate mechanisms by which user's relational bonds influence their continuous use remain to be explored, which may lead to a lack of clarity in the mechanism for generating sustained intention.
Suggested to the Author The title of the Article
Please check again the sentence that on the body text that can match the proposed model.
Accessing the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention in livestream e-commerce scenario: developing country perspective – my suggesting to - Accessing the influence of user relationship bonds on continuance intention in livestream e-commerce scenario: relational bonds and moderating perspective
Response to Question 1:
Thank you very much for your concern about the title of the Article. We attach great importance to the fact that the model presented in this paper matches the title of the article. After your inspiration and a series of discussions, we have redefined the title of the article. The title is as follows.
Accessing the antecedents and consequence of cumulative satisfaction in livestream e-commerce scenario: developing country perspective
In this way, we will directly answer your concern. That is, the purpose of this study is to explore the antecedents and consequence of cumulative satisfaction, not to discuss the mediating role of cumulative satisfaction or the effect of relational bonds on continuance intention.
In this study, relational bonds are the antecedent variable of cumulative satisfaction and continuance intention is the outcome variable of cumulative satisfaction.
Therefore, the revised title of the paper matches the research model perfectly and there is no ambiguity.
In addition, we modified some explanations in the text so that the content description matched the study model and the title of the article.
Finally, Thank you very much for your encouraging and inspiring feedback on our work and for your constructive and helpful comments that have definitely improved the paper a great deal.
Question 2:
3.2 Sample and data collection
L359-361 and L371-373, Isn’t same things?
Table 1 Cumulative %
How the Author analysis data that results on table 1 and get Cumulative 100%?, such as Unmarried Cumulative 100%? And others similar through on the table 1
Suggested to Author to check the results again on that table 1, especially in Cumulative %
Response to Question 2:
Thank you very much for your encouraging and inspiring feedback on our work and for your constructive and helpful comments that have definitely improved the paper a great deal.
We have carefully studied all your comments and those of other reviewers and have rewritten 3.2 Sample and data collection.
We have also reworked Table 1. Descriptive statistical analysis based on your comments. We used SPSS 24.0 software to perform statistical analysis of the collected data to ensure the correctness of the descriptive statistical analysis (major changes in the article are highlighted in yellow for your quick perusal).
Question 3:
Figure 2. Privacy concern moderating the relationship between social attachment and information value - social attachment and information value, Is it moderating variable?
Response to Question 3:
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Thank you very much for the reminder. We apologize for this. Based on your suggestion, we have rewritten the title of Figure 2. The revised title of Figure 2 is as follows.
Figure 2. Affective commitment moderating the relationship between cumulative satisfaction and continuance intention
Question 4:
Page 14 of 21, L 526, and hypothesis H5? please check again
15 of 21 L 580 ……. tend to trust? service providers more….
L 584 Similar problem ………affective commitment lack trust in….
Is trust being your variable? Please revise that can match the moderating effects
Response to Question 4:
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Based on your suggestions, we have corrected these minor errors and checked the entire text to prevent similar problems.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
While I find the overall research question interesting, I fear that I have several rather severe concerns related to this paper’s poor quality of English, communication, analysis, and contribution. Let me be specific.
Firstly, there are lots of grammatical errors throughout the paper. The manuscript requires to be edited and proof read by a professional proof-reader. I suggest author(s) pay more attention to grammar, typos, and other styling issues. In addition, the paper needs to be improved with regard to the coherence of its structure and organization.
Please see the following errors which I found in the manuscript...
cf.
Line 20. by financial?
Line 45. what is the persistent behavior of livestream e-commerce users
Line 51. e- commerce's
Line 54. many of those with livestream e-commerce experience are reluctant to consistently use the livestream e-commerce for livestream e-commerce,
=> What does it mean?
Line 61. livestream
=> It should be upper case.
Line 63. making profits is more of a small probability
Line 64. Moreover, many livestream e-commerce operators rely heavily on discounts to maintain subscribers, a problem that needs to be urgently addressed [5, 10].
Line 72. According to behavioral theory, "Intention is a necessary condition for the occurrence of behavior, if users do not have continuance intention, it is difficult to have continuance behavior", therefore, it is important to study the key factors and mechanisms that influence users' continuance intention of using livestream e-commerce [11].
=>The above sentence is hardly understand...
There are too many sentences which are hardly understand...
139-143 From the above table, it can be concluded that although researchers have made many explorations of relational ties, there are still limitations in the extant literature, firstly, the studies have been conducted mainly in traditional contexts and less in online scenarios [21, 22], and even less in livestream e-commerce contexts. and even less in the context of livestream e-commerce.
=> There isn’t the above table in the manuscript.
144-146 Therefore, this study applies relational ties to the livestream e-commerce field context to investigate the mechanism of relational ties on users' willingness to use consistently.
The deeper mechanisms of influence are yet to be explored.
=>The above sentences are also hardly understand...
175-179 Moreover, the discounts or offers offered by livestream e-commerce are not one-time but continuous and institutional, and financial incentives accompany the generation of transactions, i.e., systematic financial bonds can facilitate the generation of cumulative satisfaction.
=>The above sentence is hardly understand...
102-106 According to relationship marketing theory, companies can develop three types of relationship ties with customers, namely financial ties, social ties and structural ties, which form a hierarchical model based on their contribution to sustainable competitive advantage [16, 17].
=> ties or bonds ??
In addition, authors didn’t present enough information how to collect data.
The study only explained which platform was used in the study, so it couldn't meet the external validity of the data.
349-350 this study used back-translation method to translate and validate mature scales from SSCI journals. =>What are the ssci journals?
352 social software research =>What is the social software research?
355-379 Authors should present the measurement items which were used in the study, so that reviewer can see whether the items were appropriately adopted and revised in the study.
397-398 Immediately after that, structural model fit analysis is performed to test whether the structural model has good fit and to test the underlying assumptions.
=>The above sentence is hardly understand...
Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black (1998), Nunnally & Bernstein (1994), Fornell & Larcker(1981) [52-54]
=>Please check the editorial format of SUSTAINABILITY.
What is that?
440-443 SEM 樣本數過大會導致卡方值過大，因此 p 值容易被拒絕（張偉豪、2011）。此 Bollen 與 Stine(1992)提出 Bootstrap 修正。Bollen stine p correction 卡方值為178.700 而原卡方值為 599.859，由於卡方值變小，需要重新估計所有配適度指標，計算結果如表 4。
538 livestream e-commerce Operators
551 Fourth, Validated the relationship
=> You should be check the usage of uppercase and lowercase letters in the throughout the manuscript.
Taken together, I think these concerns are quite severe. Thus I am sorry that I have decided that this manuscript cannot be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper.
I think the topic of the paper is up to date. It is the right time to publish the paper. I like the practical contribution. However, I have to recommend a major revision due to these reasons:
- Abstract: I don’t see a clear research gap in the abstract. It says, “lacks sufficient exploration”. What does it lack? Why relational bonds?
- Introduction: The focus of the paper is on the bonds, however, I found the introduction to the bonds rather late in the introduction. The information provided in the first three paragraphs is not focused and straightforward forward explaining the gap in the literature and why the authors need to explore bonds in the paper. It seems like the authors are wandering around before saying what they want to say. In the end, they say what they want to say, unfortunately, it is too short and further convincing explanation is needed. For example, why did the authors propose bonds as important factors explaining the mechanism in Livestream e-commerce? It seems like bonds are the only factor that the authors know, and that is why they propose bonds.
The gap is not convincing enough (“the relationship between users' relational bonds and continuance intention is less studied nowadays, and the intermediate mechanisms by which users' relational bonds influence their continuous use remain to be explored”). Please explain more. How come the authors know that it is less studied. Some studies have explored the relationship between bonds and continuance intention such as:
- Gong, Xiuyuan, et al. "Examining the role of tie strength in users’ continuance intention of second-generation mobile instant messaging services." Information Systems Frontiers 22.1 (2020): 149-170.
- Ifinedo, Princely. "Determinants of students’ continuance intention to use blogs to learn: An empirical investigation." Behaviour & Information Technology 37.4 (2018): 381-392.
- Kang, Kai, et al. "The dynamic effect of interactivity on customer engagement behavior through tie strength: Evidence from live streaming commerce platforms." International Journal of Information Management 56 (2021): 102251.
The contribution is not clear. For example, what is “local social media practices”? I am confused, about why it contributes to social media, while the paper is about Livestream e-commerce.
- Research method: I don’t see a report about data distribution, particularly normality. I still read Chinese writing in the model fit degree section. Is it intentional?
I hope the authors find my review useful.
