Using the B/S Model to Design and Implement Online Shopping System for Gulf Brands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Main comments

This paper reports on the design and implementation of an online commerce system. The topic of e-commerce and m-commerce is interesting. Nevertheless, this paper suffers from several shortcomings. First, the association between e-commerce/m-commerce and sustainability is not explored. Given that this journal is about sustainability, the relevance of this paper is hard to justify. Second, the technology employed is rather trivial by todays’ standards. Surprisingly, very few studies are discussed about the design and implementation of a browser-server architecture. Third, we know nothing about the survey items used and their sources. The authors state that this paper proposes a model for assessing the usability of a mobile app, but I could not find such model. Furthermore, research hypotheses are missing. Fourth, the contribution of this research to the theory and practice of sustainability is not mentioned. All in all, the application reported may be of practical use, but the contribution to the theory of e-commerce/m-commerce is absent.

Other comments

The English needs significant improvements, as some parts of the text are difficult to read.

A reference to the original survey items needs to be mentioned.

Some of the statistics mentioned in the introduction are quite outdated. For example, the authors mentioned forecasts for the year 2020, but we are in 2022!!

Author Response

Response Sheet

Comment 1: First, the association between e-commerce/m-commerce and sustainability is not explored. Given that this journal is about sustainability, the relevance of this paper is hard to justify.

Comment 2: Second, the technology employed is rather trivial by todays’ standards. Surprisingly, very few studies are discussed about the design and implementation of a browser-server architecture.

Comment 3: Third, we know nothing about the survey items used and their sources. The authors state that this paper proposes a model for assessing the usability of a mobile app, but I could not find such model. Furthermore, research hypotheses are missing.

Comment 4: Fourth, the contribution of this research to the theory and practice of sustainability is not mentioned. All in all, the application reported may be of practical use, but the contribution to the theory of e-commerce/m-commerce is absent.

Comment 5: The English needs significant improvements, as some parts of the text are difficult to read.

Comment 6: A reference to the original survey items needs to be mentioned.

Comment 7: Some of the statistics mentioned in the introduction are quite outdated. For example, the authors mentioned forecasts for the year 2020, but we are in 2022!!

Reviewer 2 Report

Author Response

Response Sheet

Comment 1: I would not like to sign my review report.

Comment 2: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The problem presented in the paper is interesting and crucial.

The research methods used were appropriately selected for the issue under analysis, which is the design of websites in such a way that they effectively meet the needs of customers in terms of online shopping.

However, the article seems chaotic, the literature review is not relevant to the research presented.

The title states “...for Gulf Brands” while the objectives of the paper are reduced to one shop - GhazzawiGowns. This company is highlighted in the abstract (line 16) while in the paper it is only given in lines 118-119 as "... implementation concerning the case of GhazzawiGowns" and in Conclusion, suggesting that the application is designed for this particular store GhazzawiGowes. Nowhere is it explained what GhazzawiGowns is, although it is unclear to a reader outside Saudi Arabia. From the objectives of the article and after a Goggle check, it appears that this is the shop for which the website was designed. So are the objectives of the paper general, or do they only apply to solutions designed for a specific shop? If the article is to be a case study of some kind, it should be clearly stated in its title and content from the very beginning.

The article deals with the UK in a marginal way, while in the abstract the authors promise to present an analysis of two markets.

In line 30-32 the authors state "Ijaz and Rhee [3] noted that online shopping would continue to thrive with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of above 19 percent until 2020". Compare the Ijaz and Rhee forecast to actual growth.

In line 55-58 "As a result of double-digit worldwide growth in sales and order by 15% and 13%, respectively, e-commerce constitutes an approximately 2.29 trillion-dollar market [13] that is likely to increase to 4 trillion dollars by 2020 [14]. " the authors should state the period of time this increase of 15% and 13% applies to. They should also update data for 2020.

Why in the introduction, the authors mainly discuss the clothing industry and tailoring, while the goals concern artist agency and artists?

In Introduction, the authors refer to the entire e-commerce industry, they also discuss companies such as Hockey, iTailor, which allow the selection of sizes and tailor-made garments. In the literature review, they focus on second-hand luxury clothing platforms, which in turn have a specific group of customers.

The study implication and conclusion lacks a structured presentation of the realised objectives of the article and the research results as an answer to the set research questions.

The clarity of the scientific argument requires a juxtaposition of aims and research questions/hypotheses with the evidence of their achievement, verification.

Author Response

Response Sheet

Comment 1: The title states “...for Gulf Brands” while the objectives of the paper are reduced to one shop - GhazzawiGowns. This company is highlighted in the abstract (line 16) while in the paper it is only given in lines 118-119 as "... implementation concerning the case of GhazzawiGowns" and in Conclusion, suggesting that the application is designed for this particular store GhazzawiGowes. Nowhere is it explained what GhazzawiGowns is, although it is unclear to a reader outside Saudi Arabia. From the objectives of the article and after a Goggle check, it appears that this is the shop for which the website was designed. So are the objectives of the paper general, or do they only apply to solutions designed for a specific shop? If the article is to be a case study of some kind, it should be clearly stated in its title and content from the very beginning.

Comment 2: The article deals with the UK in a marginal way, while in the abstract the authors promise to present an analysis of two markets.

Comment 3: In line 30-32 the authors state "Ijaz and Rhee [3] noted that online shopping would continue to thrive with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of above 19 percent until 2020". Compare the Ijaz and Rhee forecast to actual growth.

Comment 4: In line 55-58 "As a result of double-digit worldwide growth in sales and order by 15% and 13%, respectively, e-commerce constitutes an approximately 2.29 trillion-dollar market [13] that is likely to increase to 4 trillion dollars by 2020 [14]. " the authors should state the period of time this increase of 15% and 13% applies to. They should also update data for 2020.

Comment 5: Why in the introduction, the authors mainly discuss the clothing industry and tailoring, while the goals concern artist agency and artists?

Comment 6: In Introduction, the authors refer to the entire e-commerce industry, they also discuss companies such as Hockey, iTailor, which allow the selection of sizes and tailor-made garments. In the literature review, they focus on second-hand luxury clothing platforms, which in turn have a specific group of customers.

Comment 7: The study implication and conclusion lacks a structured presentation of the realised objectives of the article and the research results as an answer to the set research questions.

Comment 8: The clarity of the scientific argument requires a juxtaposition of aims and research questions/hypotheses with the evidence of their achievement, verification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This can be an interesting paper related to designing online shopping systems during the era of the digital revolution. I have some points the authors should consider and address for enhancing your work:
- We are in the COVID-19 era with the substantial adoption of e-activities, particularly virtual purchasing. This context, however, was not discussed in your paper. 
- In Section 1, you had sub-section 1.1 but not 1.2, 1.3 etc. Please correct it.
- You had 4 secondary objectives and 3 research questions. In my view, from the overall objective, you can propose directly the research questions. Secondary objectives may be indicated as the benefits your study adds to the literature and/or practice. I also recommend you highlight your major contributions at the end of Section 1. In this way, readers may have more motivation for reading the rest of your paper.
- Please add the full terminologies before using abbreviations, such as for TAM, B2C, etc.
- A conceptual framework formed based on TAM is always empirically tested using SEM. For your work, why did not you use this method? Instead of this, you only used regression (i.e., direct effects). It would be better and easier to follow your findings if you present the results of Table 4 in a diagram including paths between constructs.
- While all of the constructs are significant (Table 4), you should discuss the extent of effects of such constructs on online shopping intention.
- I am not persuaded by Section 5 (Implications). Please better clarify the theoretical and practical contributions of your work. 

Author Response

Response Sheet

Comment 1: We are in the COVID-19 era with the substantial adoption of e-activities, particularly virtual purchasing. This context, however, was not discussed in your paper. 

Comment 2: In Section 1, you had sub-section 1.1 but not 1.2, 1.3 etc. Please correct it.

Comment 3: You had 4 secondary objectives and 3 research questions. In my view, from the overall objective, you can propose directly the research questions. Secondary objectives may be indicated as the benefits your study adds to the literature and/or practice. I also recommend you highlight your major contributions at the end of Section 1. In this way, readers may have more motivation for reading the rest of your paper.

Comment 4: Please add the full terminologies before using abbreviations, such as for TAM, B2C, etc.

Comment 5: A conceptual framework formed based on TAM is always empirically tested using SEM. For your work, why did not you use this method? Instead of this, you only used regression (i.e., direct effects). It would be better and easier to follow your findings if you present the results of Table 4 in a diagram including paths between constructs.

Comment 6: While all of the constructs are significant (Table 4), you should discuss the extent of effects of such constructs on online shopping intention.

Comment 7: I am not persuaded by Section 5 (Implications). Please better clarify the theoretical and practical contributions of your work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although improvements were made, some comments remain to be addressed:

• Regarding the relevance of this paper to the Sustainability journal, I would like to point out that user-friendliness and accessibility is little related with sustainability. Please see aims and scope of the Sustainability journal.
• The contribution stated in the introduction is very narrow-focused (GhazzawiGowns). A significant contribution needs to add value to the theory and practice of a field. Furthermore, you need to provide more background information about GhazzawiGowns.
• Very few studies are discussed about the design and implementation of an online e-commerce system with a browser-server architecture.
• No research hypotheses were presented.
• In the final section entitled “theoretical implications”, you need to relate your contribution to existing research.

Author Response

Response sheet as attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the article in line with the reviewer's comments.

I recommend accepting the article for publication.

Author Response

response sheet as attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revisions in accordance with my comments.

I am pleased to recommend an acceptance for your work.

Regards,

The reviewer.

Author Response

thanks for the acceptance of my article