Perception of Innovative Usage of AI in Optimizing Customer Purchasing Experience within the Sustainable Fashion Industry
, Milica Popović Stijačić 3, Avi Bhargavi Keswani 4,5 and Nebojša Brkljač 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
|
I appreciated the authors’ effort to write this manuscript. This paper is timely and there is an originality and contribution in this paper within the subject matter. However, there are some critical shortcomings. I believe that there is still so much to do for this paper. I outlined the lacking areas and the problems each sections of the paper in detail below. The research question and method section are not clear. Literature review has a great coverage of the study objectives and has an extensive background and review within the subject matter. Two things I would like to mention here. I suggest authors to provide a comprehensive table explaining what has been done within the subject matter with author citations on the topic. Also, streamline this section as it is somewhat hard to read as is. The authors need to extend the limitation and implications of the study. For a paper like this, the authors specifically need to discuss the future research avenues in detail based on the review critique they provided. Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability. I suggest updating the reference list with the following bibliography: ELMO G.M., ARCESE G., VALERI M., POPONI S., PACCHERA, F. (2020), “Sustainability in tourism as innovation driver: an analysis of family business reality”, Sustainability, 12(15), 6149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156149
|
Author Response
REVISION Sustainability / Answers to reviewers
First of all, authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewer and valuable inputs given on improving the paper.
We have gone through the list of suggestions and we are confirming we have:
- Incorporated some of references that reviewers suggested
- We have redesigned entire paper to connect research area in the more sensible way with current literature overview,
- We have extended our discussion on limitations and implications,
- We have improved the wording, grammar and language in general.
REVIEW 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: The research question and method section are not clear.
Answer: We made our goals and research question more clear, as well as method section
Comment: Literature review has a great coverage of the study objectives and has an extensive background and review within the subject matter. Two things I would like to mention here. I suggest authors to provide a comprehensive table explaining what has been done within the subject matter with author citations on the topic. Also, streamline this section as it is somewhat hard to read as is.
The authors need to extend the limitation and implications of the study. For a paper like this, the authors specifically need to discuss the future research avenues in detail based on the review critique they provided. Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability.
Answer: We have restructured both the Literature Review and the discussion and added the section “limitations of the study”, after the discussion section.
Comment: I suggest updating the reference list with the following bibliography:
VALERI M., BAGGIO R. (2020a), Social network analysis: organizational implications in tourism management, International Journal of Organizational Analisys, DOI: 1108/IJOA-12-2019-1971
VALERI M., BAGGIO R. (2020b), Italian tourism intermediaries: a social network analysis exploration, Current Issues in Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1777950
ELMO G.M., ARCESE G., VALERI M., POPONI S., PACCHERA, F. (2020), “Sustainability in tourism as innovation driver: an analysis of family business reality”, Sustainability, 12(15), 6149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156149
Answer: Although your suggestions of the above mentioned articles were very directional and interesting and the papers are of the high quality, we found that “Sustainability in tourism as innovation driver: an analysis of family business reality” (reference 32) was a perfect match for us and we have incorporated the findings from it. However, we incorporated another article that was suggested by reviewer 2, as well as two more references (referenced by numbers 29 and 30):
Casanueva, A., Herrera, S., Fernández, J. et al. Towards a fair comparison of statistical and dynamical downscaling in the framework of the EURO-CORDEX initiative. Clim. Change. 2016; 137, pp. 411–426 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1683-4
Provenzano, D, Baggio, R. A complex network analysis of inbound tourism in Sicily. Int J Tourism Res. 2020; 22: 391– 402. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2343
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors should have addressed all the following comments for the possible publication.
1. The article represents the role of AI or ML in the fashion industry. But the article needs an extensive restructuring. Likewise, the paper should contain sections such as Introduction, Literature review, Materials and Methodology, Analysis (or Experimentation), Results and Discussion, and Conclusion with Future Scope.
2. The information flow for the abstract is not in-line. The abstract information flow should be Introduction (Background of study, Facts, and figures), Methodology, Results, and conclusion. Restructure the abstract accordingly.
Refer to the following articles but the scope should not be limited to these only
a. Lee, Y.K. Transformation of the Innovative and Sustainable Supply Chain with Upcoming Real-Time Fashion Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1081. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13031081.
3. Also, in the present era of Machine learning and Deep Learning, why do the Authors only perform the analysis using traditional AI Approaches. Since they can also use the hybrid approaches such as Design of Experiments through the AI approaches (statistical analysis, Sampling, ANOVA) and later for predictions they can use tools like NLP. Justify?
4. Article needs a major grammar and spell-check.
5. Table titles and contents are too wordy it is difficult to read and understand. Make it concise and more informative. May use pictorial or graphical representations wherever possible.
6. Section headings are also wordy such as the heading of section 3. Restructure it accordingly.
Author Response
First of all, authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewer and valuable inputs given on improving the paper.
We have gone through the list of suggestions and we are confirming we have:
- Incorporated some of references that reviewers suggested
- We have redesigned entire paper to connect research area in the more sensible way with current literature overview,
- REVISION Sustainability / Answers to reviewers
- We have extended our discussion on limitations and implications,
- We have improved the wording, grammar and language in general.
REVIEW 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors should have addressed all the following comments for the possible publication.
- The article represents the role of AI or ML in the fashion industry. But the article needs an extensive restructuring. Likewise, the paper should contain sections such as Introduction, Literature review, Materials and Methodology, Analysis (or Experimentation), Results and Discussion, and Conclusion with Future Scope.
Answer: We restructured our manuscript as suggested
- The information flow for the abstract is not in-line. The abstract information flow should be Introduction (Background of study, Facts, and figures), Methodology, Results, and conclusion. Restructure the abstract accordingly.
Answer: We restructured the abstract
- Refer to the following articles but the scope should not be limited to these only
- Lee, Y.K. Transformation of the Innovative and Sustainable Supply Chain with Upcoming Real-Time Fashion Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1081. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13031081.
Answer: We added above mentioned reference, and added two more (numbered as 29, 30 and 32)
- Also, in the present era of Machine learning and Deep Learning, why do the Authors only perform the analysis using traditional AI Approaches. Since they can also use the hybrid approaches such as Design of Experiments through the AI approaches (statistical analysis, Sampling, ANOVA) and later for predictions they can use tools like NLP. Justify?
Answer: This research was explorative in its nature, thus we firstly wanted to explore participant’s attitudes via questionnaire. We are aware that we could use more sophisticated statistical approach, however, with this questionnaire; we did traditional and low level analyses. We are planning to expand our future research with different methodology, in which we could be more oriented towards data science approach. Group of authors has already pipelined an idea on how to proceed thanks to your suggestions.
- Article needs a major grammar and spell-check.
Answer: We have corrected grammar and spelling errors and improved the wording in general.
- Table titles and contents are too wordy it is difficult to read and understand. Make it concise and more informative. May use pictorial or graphical representations wherever possible.
Answer: We added graphs instead of tables for most of the analyses and shortened tables’ and figures’ tittles.
- Section headings are also wordy such as the heading of section 3. Restructure it accordingly.
Answer: Corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper investigates the usage of IA in the fashion industry using a questionnaire sent to respondents of the fashion industry. There are items that make the paper less suitable for publication.
- The literature discussion should be more focused on the specific topic of the manuscript.
- The paper's title indicates "Perception of Innovative Usage of AI in Optimizing Customer 2 Purchasing Experience". However, this specific topic is not actually analyzed thoroughly.
- The hypotheses should be supported by a robust discussion of the theoretical arguments. However, it is not clear how the hypotheses derive from the theory.
- For instance, hypothesis 1 states that " Employees employed by companies with revenue more significant than 10 million euros are more aware of global sustainability efforts." How was the threshold of 10 million euros defined?
- Since the research gathered data from different countries, perhaps the size of companies should not be defined by revenue.
- I am not sure whether hypotheses 3 and 5 "Usage of AI in fashion can optimize production of fashion garments perception", "Usage of AI and intelligent apps can optimize purchasing behavior" are really hypotheses that can be analyzed solely on respondent answers to a questionnaire.
- There is no robust theoretical background to support the questionnaire's items.
- For instance, how were the items validated, what theoretical argument does support the questions?
- The method is exposed to common method bias. It doesn't seem to be addressed.
- In this context, the method is compromised and results may be biased.
- The statistical analysis is simple, primarily based on the comparison of means of answers.
Author Response
REVISION Sustainability / Answers to reviewers
First of all, authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewer and valuable inputs given on improving the paper.
We have gone through the list of suggestions and we are confirming we have:
- Incorporated some of references that reviewers suggested
- We have redesigned entire paper to connect research area in the more sensible way with current literature overview,
- We have extended our discussion on limitations and implications,
- We have improved the wording, grammar and language in general.
REVIEW 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper investigates the usage of IA in the fashion industry using a questionnaire sent to respondents of the fashion industry. There are items that make the paper less suitable for publication.
- The literature discussion should be more focused on the specific topic of the manuscript.
Answer: We rewrote most of the introduction section and added some parts after the discussion. We have redesigned entire paper to connect research area in the more sensible way with current literature overview, title and now it runs in a smoother direction. We have dropped certain parts of the paper as they did not contribute in general to the value of the paper.
- The paper's title indicates "Perception of Innovative Usage of AI in Optimizing Customer Purchasing Experience". However, this specific topic is not actually analyzed thoroughly.
Answer: Title of the paper should suggest that we did not utilized data science approach to AI, but exploration of participants’ perception and attitudes toward the usage of AI
- The hypotheses should be supported by a robust discussion of the theoretical arguments. However, it is not clear how the hypotheses derive from the theory.
- For instance, hypothesis 1 states that "Employees employed by companies with revenue more significant than 10 million euros are more aware of global sustainability efforts." How was the threshold of 10 million euros defined?
Although used as a usual business value measure, we were not able to find this split in theory or in papers. So, we stated that there could have been other variables taken into account like revenue per shopper, revenue per purchase, revenue per kilo production, etc.
- Since the research gathered data from different countries, perhaps the size of companies should not be defined by revenue.
Again agreed. We did acknowledge that in the paper now.
- I am not sure whether hypotheses 3 and 5 "Usage of AI in fashion can optimize production of fashion garments perception", "Usage of AI and intelligent apps can optimize purchasing behavior" are really hypotheses that can be analyzed solely on respondent answers to a questionnaire.
Answer: Accordingly, we added that those hypotheses are referring to the participants’ beliefs and have transparently questioned the results and creating ground for further work.
- There is no robust theoretical background to support the questionnaire's items.
- Answer: We hope that this is clearer now, since we rewrote some parts of the introduction.
- For instance, how were the items validated, what theoretical argument does support the questions?
We have corrected and restated limitations, challenged our own hypothesis and made sure we acknowledge limited theoretical arguments on the questionnaire.
- The method is exposed to common method bias. It doesn't seem to be addressed.
- In this context, the method is compromised and results may be biased.
Answer: We added study limitations. We have corrected and restated limitations, challenged our own hypothesis and made sure we acknowledge limited theoretical arguments on the questionnaire.
- The statistical analysis is simple, primarily based on the comparison of means of answers.
Answer: Authors agree that the statistical analysis is simple. However, with the questionnaire that was administred we obtained nominal or ordinal data. Accordingly, we applied non/parametric statistics.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made the changes as per the suggestions. But, the graphs which are newly incorporated can be made more attractive if possible. Kindly refer to the following paper for the graph.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810139
Henceforth, the manuscript can be accepted in the present form
