How Online Communities Affect Online Community Engagement and Word-of-Mouth Intention
, Abdel-Aziz Ahmad Sharabati 2, Hebatallah Hisham Al Khalili 1, Lana Laith Azar 1, Farah Waleed Ghabayen 1, Leen Mazen Jaber 1, Mariam Husam Ali 1 and Ra’ed Masa’deh 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study explores the influential mechanism of online communitites on WOM intention and the engagement of online community. The paper is well organized, and it can be published after minor revisions.
(1)The reserach gap and theoretical contributions should be addressed in the first section.
(2)There exists gender difference among the collected data smaple, where the female sample is 214, while the male sample is 123. Is the gender difference will affect the research conclusions?
(3）Another crucial indicator is the “education level”. Why this factor is not considered in this research?
(4) It will be better if the influential mechanism of hedonic value is discussed, and serveral reasons could be analyzed for better understanding the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Authors appreciate the great efforts made by the reviewers and editor. We have carefully compiled all the comments to rewrite and resubmit the paper. The details of the point-by-point revisions are described as follows. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have elevated the quality of this paper. Thank you all for your valuable comments. We appreciate your efforts and contributions.
This study explores the influential mechanism of online communitites on WOM intention and the engagement of online community. The paper is well organized, and it can be published after minor revisions.
(1) The reserach gap and theoretical contributions should be addressed in the first section. Done
(2) There exists gender difference among the collected data smaple, where the female sample is 214, while the male sample is 123. Is the gender difference will affect the research conclusions? No significant differences
(3）Another crucial indicator is the “education level”. Why this factor is not considered in this research? We did not feel it is important and it is very difficult to collect new data about the educational level from the same respondents.
(4) It will be better if the influential mechanism of hedonic value is discussed, and serveral reasons could be analyzed for better understanding the conclusions. Done
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Thank you for submitting your paper titled "How Online Communities Affect Online Community Engagement and Word of Mouth Intention". This paper has been thoroughly evaluated, and while its topic is relevant and timely, I suggest major revisions to increase the clarity and depth of your research findings. Please consider the following points as you revise your manuscript:
Introduction: The introduction appears a bit disjointed and hard to follow due to an abrupt switch between different ideas. Try to provide a smoother transition between concepts. Additionally, the introduction is densely packed with statistics and could benefit from some reorganization and streamlining.
Research Questions: Make sure your research questions (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3) are clearly defined and answerable with the research methods you are using. For example, RQ3 asks about the extent of influence of online communities on word-of-mouth intention, but it is unclear how you will measure "extent". Consider reframing this question for clarity and measurable outcomes.
Literature Review: This section reads more like a listing of various research papers rather than an organized review. Group similar findings together, contrast them with opposing views, and provide a comprehensive summary that identifies gaps in the existing literature. This approach will help position your research more effectively within the broader academic conversation.
Research Methodology: The methodology section needs expansion. While you mention a quantitative approach and an online survey, the specifics of this survey, such as the number of questions, the type of questions, and the expected response rate, are not provided. Moreover, an explanation of how you selected your sample and how the results will be analyzed would strengthen this section.
It recently came to my attention the issue of congeneric models. In detail, given that your study is based on survey research, it is of paramount importance, from a methodological perspective, to ensure the validity and reliability of your analysis by using congeneric approaches in estimating factor loadings and overall reliability. Employing congeneric approaches, as opposed to parallel approaches, allows for a more accurate representation of the relationships between items and latent constructs, as it accounts for unique loadings and error variances for each item (McNeish and Wolf, 2020).
As you can see from the article by McNeish and Wolf (2020), the issue of the latent construct representativity appears also you create the latent construct.
As you can see from McNeish and Wolf (2020), this could create a misalignment in the representativity of the construct.
To effectively assess the validity of latent variables, it is highly recommended to utilize free tools such as the CLC estimator, which has been specifically designed for this purpose (Marzi et al., 2023).
The CLC Estimator is designed to address the problem of estimating unidimensional latent constructs using congeneric approaches, providing more rigorous results than suboptimal parallel-based scoring methods.
Documentation and tutorial on how to use the estimator is available here: https://www.clcestimator.com/
Explicitly referring to congeneric approaches in your study not only addresses potential concerns related to the reliability of sum scores (McNeish & Wolf, 2020), but also aligns with the original validation processes of the scales you are using. This helps ensure that your findings are consistent with the theoretical and methodological assumptions of prior research.
As such it would be helpful to confirm the reliability of your study and latent variables calculation by using a congeneric approach, in this case, eventually by the use of the free app suggested above.
Structure and Organization: Overall, the structure of the paper could be improved. While you provide a broad range of references and cover numerous aspects of online communities, there seems to be a lack of a clear narrative thread guiding the reader through your argument. Try to make sure that each paragraph has a clear point and connects logically to the next.
Grammar and Punctuation: Please review your manuscript for grammar, punctuation, and typographical errors. These can distract from the content and make the paper harder to read.
I believe your study has the potential to contribute valuable insights to our understanding of online communities and their influence on user engagement and word-of-mouth intentions. However, these revisions are essential to improving the clarity, depth, and impact of your research.
References
Marzi, G., Balzano, M., Edigi, L., & Magrini, A. (2023). CLC Estimator: A tool for latent construct estimation via congeneric approaches in survey research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2023.2193718
McNeish, D. M., & Wolf, M. G. (2020). Thinking twice about sum scores. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6), 2287-2305. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01398-0
Proofreading suggested
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Authors appreciate the great efforts made by the reviewers and editor. We have carefully compiled all the comments to rewrite and resubmit the paper. The details of the point-by-point revisions are described as follows. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have elevated the quality of this paper. Thank you all for your valuable comments. We appreciate your efforts and contributions.
Thank you for submitting your paper titled "How Online Communities Affect Online Community Engagement and Word of Mouth Intention". This paper has been thoroughly evaluated, and while its topic is relevant and timely, I suggest major revisions to increase the clarity and depth of your research findings. Please consider the following points as you revise your manuscript:
Introduction: The introduction appears a bit disjointed and hard to follow due to an abrupt switch between different ideas. Try to provide a smoother transition between concepts. Additionally, the introduction is densely packed with statistics and could benefit from some reorganization and streamlining. Reorganized
Research Questions: Make sure your research questions (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3) are clearly defined and answerable with the research methods you are using. For example, RQ3 asks about the extent of influence of online communities on word-of-mouth intention, but it is unclear how you will measure "extent". Consider reframing this question for clarity and measurable outcomes. Questions changed
Literature Review: This section reads more like a listing of various research papers rather than an organized review. Group similar findings together, contrast them with opposing views, and provide a comprehensive summary that identifies gaps in the existing literature. This approach will help position your research more effectively within the broader academic conversation. Summary done
Research Methodology: The methodology section needs expansion. While you mention a quantitative approach and an online survey, the specifics of this survey, such as the number of questions, the type of questions, and the expected response rate, are not provided. Moreover, an explanation of how you selected your sample and how the results will be analyzed would strengthen this section. Questionnaire development has been added as Appendix 1
It recently came to my attention the issue of congeneric models. In detail, given that your study is based on survey research, it is of paramount importance, from a methodological perspective, to ensure the validity and reliability of your analysis by using congeneric approaches in estimating factor loadings and overall reliability. Employing congeneric approaches, as opposed to parallel approaches, allows for a more accurate representation of the relationships between items and latent constructs, as it accounts for unique loadings and error variances for each item (McNeish and Wolf, 2020). Reference used
As you can see from the article by McNeish and Wolf (2020), the issue of the latent construct representativity appears also you create the latent construct. Reference used
As you can see from McNeish and Wolf (2020), this could create a misalignment in the representativity of the construct.
To effectively assess the validity of latent variables, it is highly recommended to utilize free tools such as the CLC estimator, which has been specifically designed for this purpose (Marzi et al., 2023).
The CLC Estimator is designed to address the problem of estimating unidimensional latent constructs using congeneric approaches, providing more rigorous results than suboptimal parallel-based scoring methods.
Documentation and tutorial on how to use the estimator is available here: https://www.clcestimator.com/
Explicitly referring to congeneric approaches in your study not only addresses potential concerns related to the reliability of sum scores (McNeish & Wolf, 2020), but also aligns with the original validation processes of the scales you are using. This helps ensure that your findings are consistent with the theoretical and methodological assumptions of prior research.
As such it would be helpful to confirm the reliability of your study and latent variables calculation by using a congeneric approach, in this case, eventually by the use of the free app suggested above.
Structure and Organization: Overall, the structure of the paper could be improved. While you provide a broad range of references and cover numerous aspects of online communities, there seems to be a lack of a clear narrative thread guiding the reader through your argument. Try to make sure that each paragraph has a clear point and connects logically to the next.
Grammar and Punctuation: Please review your manuscript for grammar, punctuation, and typographical errors. These can distract from the content and make the paper harder to read.
I believe your study has the potential to contribute valuable insights to our understanding of online communities and their influence on user engagement and word-of-mouth intentions. However, these revisions are essential to improving the clarity, depth, and impact of your research.
References
Marzi, G., Balzano, M., Edigi, L., & Magrini, A. (2023). CLC Estimator: A tool for latent construct estimation via congeneric approaches in survey research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2023.2193718 Used
McNeish, D. M., & Wolf, M. G. (2020). Thinking twice about sum scores. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6), 2287-2305. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01398-0 Used
Reviewer 3 Report
In the Introduction part it is mentioned that "this study aims to explore the variables that influence online communities through social media networks in Jordan". That's very good way of underline the aim of the study. Please clearly identify the research gap you intend to fill in. Please update the literature to 2023. Double check if all the figures and tables are explained clearly in the main text.
Quality of English Language is good.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Authors appreciate the great efforts made by the reviewers and editor. We have carefully compiled all the comments to rewrite and resubmit the paper. The details of the point-by-point revisions are described as follows. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have elevated the quality of this paper. Thank you all for your valuable comments. We appreciate your efforts and contributions.
In the Introduction part it is mentioned that "this study aims to explore the variables that influence online communities through social media networks in Jordan". That's very good way of underline the aim of the study. Please clearly identify the research gap you intend to fill in. Please update the literature to 2023. Double check if all the figures and tables are explained clearly in the main text. Done few previous studies have been added as suggested.
Pang, H.; Wang, J.; Hu, X. Understanding the Potential Influence of WeChat Engagement on Bonding Capital, Bridging Capital, and Electronic Word-of-Mouth Intention. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8489. doi: 10.3390/su13158489 Used
Guerreiro, J.; Pacheco, M. How Green Trust, Consumer Brand Engagement and Green Word-of-Mouth Mediate Purchasing Intentions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7877. doi: 10.3390/su13147877 Used
