How Is Alumni Giving Affected by Satisfactory Campus Experience? Analysis of an Industry-Research-Oriented University in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The study presents an interesting topic and the sample of participants is ample, which guarantees solidity in the results of the article. The part of this study that could be improved is the theoretical framework, as it is too brief and I think it could go into more depth on the relevant issues of this study.
Best regards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research method section needs to show the statistical population and introduce a formula for selecting the sample volume.
Overall, this research has been written well but doesn't have standards of the international journal, especially in both the research method and contribution sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study refers to an important topic, and understanding alumni context is necessary nowadays. While the paper focuses on economic issues, I think the manuscript comprises the Sustainability scope (economy is one aspect of sustainability).
Below, I provide some suggestions.
Abstract
It is not clear how the method was used to analyze the 238 alumni in China. I suggest describing it as a quantitative or qualitative study (or both).
Also is necessary to provide more details on the main contributions from the findings.
Introduction
The introduction is well-written. The authors start to show the China context, and I suggest starting by showing a general context, that is, describing information about others countries. I think this should be interesting for readers from other regions.
Only at the end of the introduction do the authors reveal the use of structural equation models. This information needs to appear in the abstract. Furthermore, the authors need to describe the main contributions of this work, that is, which are the academic and managerial implications?
Hypothesis
This section is well presented. The authors provide relevant information to sustain the hypothesis.
Method
Line 201: Please, cite some literature used to develop the questionnaire.
Explain how the respondents were found. Explain the nature of the sample; that is, is it a convenience sample? It is not clear.
Explain in a better way why almost 100 questionnaires were discarded.
Define RMB and explain its value compared to dollars.
I strongly recommend explaining the use of a 6-point Likert scale. Generally, SEM studies analyze items based on five or seven-point Likert scales.
In Table 2, I suggest including one more column to include the study's source (authors' name) where the authors found the items analyzed.
Results
The authors provide general information showing the main tests for performing SEM. This section provides the necessary information to visualize the reliability of data.
Discussion
This part is weak. The authors should include more discussion. For instance, see line 333; it is not clear how understanding the mediator effect opens the "black boxes" of how campus experience satisfaction affects alumni donor behavioral intention. There are several "boxes" to be analyzed. In this case, the authors analyze a single model.
Furthermore, it is necessary to include in the discussion more details on the role of alumni in the "economic sustainability" of universities. Therefore, the authors need to describe how this model improves this "sustainability situation." This discussion is crucial to publish in this journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you to the journal for the review possibility of the article and compliments to the authors for their efforts to write the paper.
The topic of the paper is promising, dealing with issues related to campus experience satisfaction and donation willingness. I have some remarks, two I consider to be major.
- The first major aspect is the connection between the paper´s topic and the topic of sustainability. You need to explain in the introduction, and discussions (throughout the paper) the theoretical connections between the paper´s topic and the topic of sustainability, one suggestion would be that the focus of the article may be related to the university education ecosystem.
Education is essential for economic development and for a sustainable future. You may find valuable ideas about education ecosystems in previous articles:
Institutions, organizations, industries, communities, and other external elements, which are independent of the university, are also included in the scope of the ecosystem (Jongbloed, B.; Enders, J.; Salerno, C. Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. High. Educ. 2008, 56, 303–324.) „For sustainability, suggestions on a solid foundation, continuous investment, and constant monitoring are provided to university administrators and policymakers to advance higher education's contribution to social and economic development” (Liu, H.; Kulturel-Konak, S.; Konak, A. Key Elements and Their Roles in Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem: Comparative Review and Suggestions for Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910648) . One aspect that you may also consider is that universities do give back and contribute while encouraging socially responsible investing and industry-research-oriented interventions. Sustainability considerations influence investment choices, and vote proxies along with Socially Responsible Investing, Smith, J. K., & Smith, R. L. (2016). Socially Responsible Investing by Universities and Colleges. Financial Management, 45(4), 877–922. doi:10.1111/fima.12125
- The second aspect is related to the structure. In the introduction, you propose the opportunity and need of the study, but without placing it in the sustainable development context. Continuing from sustainability it is important considering addressing and explaining the structure. The introduction has to announce the paper line, indicating the paper structure at the end of the introduction.
- The third aspect, also major is the development of the questionnaires and the validation of the constructs, why it was chosen a Likert 6-item scale. How did you come up with these items? For instance, the items in the foundation trust do not contain trust dimensions, transparency maybe but what about the others? (such as reliability, competence, integrity, benevolence etc). For instance, Mayer et al. (1995, p. 712), define trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”. This construct should be renamed.
Hope my comments are helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The conclusion section needs improving and more explanation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for your effort in integrating the review suggestions. Great work!
Author Response
We appreciate the insightful comments and constructive suggestions. Our manuscript has been further improved and enriched through modification. Thank you！
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.
