Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very well written. I would suggest at the 4.2 paragraph (EFA) to refer the percentage of variable explanation. 

Overall the metrics of the model are above the thresholds and the number of responders is quite satisfactory. Both conditions support the reliability of the outcomes. 

Figure 2 reveals the correlations between variables and I would like to suggest re-evaluating the findings given the fact that the association seems to be weak to moderate.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

First of all, congratulations for your work. However, manuscript should be modified following considerations described as follows:

Please do not use acronyms in title, subtitles, abstract and keywords.

Please state in abstract and keywords that you are developed a Structural equation modeling (SEM) in your research.

Line 1. Please consider shorten the title up to 15 words maximum.

Lines 60-90. The paragraph is excessively long, please making shorter paragraphs to ease reading. Paragraphs has usually around 12 lines.

Lines 91-125. The paragraph is excessively long, please making shorter paragraphs to ease reading.

Lines 147-184. The paragraph is excessively long, please making shorter paragraphs to ease reading.

Line 185. There are no paragraphs in all 2.2 section!

Line 189 and 191. Please state what AIDA and ADIMA means. Do not use acronyms without its complete version.

 Line 246. Italics left in 2.3 section subtitle.

Lines 268-304. The paragraph is excessively long, please making shorter paragraphs to ease reading.

Line 322. Figure 1 is not cited in the manuscript body. Please refer to it before its appearance.

Line 345. There is a strange blank space, please correct.

Line 394. Sometimes you remove the “0” in the figures, as in .88 (KMO value). Please be consistent. All figures must appear equal, with or without first zero, but always same criterion.

Line 410. Indent left, please add.

Line 427. Hair et al., 2013 citation is not consistent with the Sustainability citation style, please correct.

Lines 447 and 448 appears blank please correct.

Line 498 please do not use first person “our study”.

Line 568. Indent left, please add. Please do not use first person “we”.

Line 577. Indent left, please add.

Line 588 please do not use first person “our”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please add also AIDAS model

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing the manuscript. As you suggested, the AIDAS model description has been added.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper seems as interest topic for wider auditory. Regarding originality, the presented idea is not so new, although is well structured and topic is by itself is accurate.
Although the clarity of expression is at high level, there are few syntax errors, which should be corrected.  The paper is build on relevant base of theory. Consistency of text and adequacy of applied methodology are  well, the results are logically and clearly presented  at the paper end.

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing the manuscript and your comments were helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and edited.