Demystifying the Relationship between Restaurant Innovativeness, Customer Engagement, and Customer Willingness to Pay a Higher Price
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript fulfils the criteria of an academic paper. However, the literature review section should be more enriched with recent studies. Secondly, the findings of the studies should be compared with the existing studies in the field.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Comment 1: The manuscript fulfils the criteria of an academic paper. However, the literature review section should be more enriched with recent studies.
Author Response: I thank you for commending our efforts and for finding this study to be of some value. I also thank you for your time, effort and insight in offering constructive feedback, which has helped me improve the manuscript.
Respecting your comment, I have now enriched the literature of this manuscript with recent studies, as highlighted in blue colour throughout the content.
Comment 2: Secondly, the findings of the studies should be compared with the existing studies in the field.
Author Response: Respecting your comment, I have now strengthened the discussion and implications section of the manuscript to create a stronger linkage with the prior literature, as highlighted on pages 9 and 10 of the revised manuscript.
I once again thank you for your positive assessment of my work. I am confident that based on your guidance, the manuscript has improved substantially. I hope my revisions satisfy your remaining concerns and look forward to your positive decision on my revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
The author
Reviewer 3 Report
Research problem need further clarification espesifically in line with the theoretical issues.
Discussion section needs improvement while comparing and contrasting other work
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Comment 1: Research problem need further clarification especially in line with the theoretical issues.
Author Response: I thank you for your time, effort and insight in offering constructive feedback, which has helped me improve the manuscript.
Respecting your comment, I have now thoroughly revised the manuscript to incorporate your valuable suggestions. As suggested, the research problem has now been further elaborated upon, as highlighted in blue colour on Pages 2 and 3 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 2: Discussion section needs improvement while comparing and contrasting other work.
Author Response: Respecting your comment, I have now strengthened the discussion and implications section of the manuscript to create a stronger linkage with the prior literature, as highlighted on pages 9 and 10 of the revised manuscript.
I once again thank you for your positive assessment of my work. I am confident that based on your guidance, the manuscript has improved substantially. I hope my revisions satisfy your remaining concerns and look forward to your positive decision on my revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
The author
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank You for providing me this opportunity to read and revise this paper. It is generally well conceptualized. However, I have several suggestions for its improvement.
Introduction: I suggest to reformulate the sentences that are currently starting with: We next discuss…, We proceed further…, We conclude… It would be better to avoid using the construction of sentences that contains I, we, and similar. Here and further in the text.
Theoretical background: There is one extra space, before the sentence The SOR framework.
The same goes for the sentence in the Title 4.1. (before the one that starts with To collect data), 5.1. before Also, the “average variance extracted”
References within the text are not cited in line with the Journal’s technical instructions.
4.2. This title should be cited as the Instrument. Please add more information regarding the questionnaire, beside this: CPRI was assessed through items from Kim et al. (2018); customer engagement was measured through Hollebeek et al.’s (2014) scale and items from Netemeyer et al. (2004) were 190 used to assess customer’s WPHP, while this one This study used already developed scales of various constructs while rating those on 187 the “seven-point Likert scale” ranging from “1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree” might be put in the end of the paragraph or even moved into the data collecting procedure.
5.1. Could You provide the entire table for CFA? It is good for a better insight into the structure of identified factors. This is of exceptional importance.
6. There are empty brackets in the text () Lines 248, 249, 254
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revision has been improved. Please add more information regarding your responses to the reviewers in the revised manuscript. You not only respond the reviewers, but also the readers (the reviewers are also the readers; they merely represent the readers to address the questions).
Author Response
Respected Reviewer,
Greetings!
I am sorry but I don't understand what do you mean by adding more information regarding your responses to the reviewers in the revised manuscript.
I have already added the content to the revised manuscript and hughlighted just some parts of it in the response letter. Whatever is said in the response letter is almost all present in the revised manuscript and different places.
Kindly look into the revised manuscript in which all the changes are highlighted in blue color.
I hope that clarifies.
I look forward for your kind decision regarding already submitted revised manuscript.
Regards,
