To Green or Not to Green: The E-Commerce-Delivery Question
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract:
The abstract provides a concise summary of the research; however, it could be further improved to provide a more comprehensive overview. Consider the following suggestions:
Clearly state the objective of the research, which is to determine e-commerce consumers' willingness to pay extra for guaranteed green deliveries and identify the sustainable measures they consider most efficient.
Highlight the significance of the research in addressing sustainability issues related to e-commerce delivery and the increasing importance of delivery in the online shopping experience.
Briefly mention the methodology used, specifically the survey of e-consumers.
Summarize the key findings regarding consumers' willingness to pay for green delivery, their preferences for sustainable measures, and any notable gender and generational differences.
Emphasize the implications of the findings for stakeholders in the e-commerce industry and the potential for promoting sustainable delivery practices.
Introduction:
The introduction provides a general overview of the importance of delivery in e-commerce, but it lacks some essential elements. Consider the following improvements:
Clearly explain the significance of addressing sustainable issues in e-commerce delivery and the potential environmental impacts associated with current delivery practices.
Provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on sustainable delivery in e-commerce, highlighting the current gaps or challenges in this area.
Clearly state the research objectives, which include assessing consumers' willingness to pay for green deliveries and identifying the sustainable measures they prioritize.
Literature Review:
The literature review is missing from the paper. It is crucial to provide a thorough review of existing studies on sustainable delivery in e-commerce. This should include discussions on consumer preferences, barriers to implementing green delivery, and best practices in sustainable delivery strategies. Consider adding the following manuscripts:
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIKE58312.2023.10131684
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081256
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-07-2022-0271
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116651
Methodology:
The methodology section should provide sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility and validity. Consider the following improvements:
Provide a clear description of the survey design, including the target respondents, sample size, and data collection procedures.
Elaborate on the questionnaire used in the survey, including the specific questions related to consumers' willingness to pay for green delivery and their preferences for sustainable measures.
Discuss any limitations or potential biases in the survey design and data collection process.
Results:
The results section should present the key findings from the survey in a clear and organized manner. Consider the following suggestions:
Clearly present the findings related to consumers' willingness to pay for green deliveries and their preferences for sustainable measures, using tables or figures where appropriate.
Provide an analysis of any gender and generational differences identified in the survey results.
Discuss the significance of the findings and their implications for promoting sustainable delivery practices in e-commerce.
Discussion and Analysis:
The discussion and analysis section should interpret the results and relate them to the broader context. Consider the following improvements:
Discuss the implications of consumers' willingness to pay for green delivery, highlighting the potential for promoting sustainable practices in e-commerce.
Analyze the key predictors of consumers' willingness to pay for green delivery using multivariate logistic regression, providing a detailed explanation of the findings.
Compare and contrast the findings with existing literature, identifying any consistencies or discrepancies.
Discuss the limitations of the study, such as the generalizability of the findings and potential biases in the survey responses.
Conclusion:
The conclusion should summarize the main findings and their implications. Consider the following suggestions:
Recap the key findings related to consumers' willingness to pay for green delivery and their preferences for sustainable measures.
Emphasize the significance of the research in promoting sustainable practices in e-commerce delivery.
Provide recommendations for stakeholders in the e-commerce industry, including strategies for promoting green delivery and addressing consumer preferences.
Highlight the need for further research in this area to address any remaining gaps or challenges
First and foremost, the intrigue and captivation provided by your work is undeniable, reflecting the immense dedication and fervor with which it has been undertaken. Nevertheless, there exists scope for enhancing the usage of the English language to guarantee a more lucid and efficacious transmission of your intended message. The manuscript, in its present state, necessitates rigorous editing to establish grammatical precision, seamless continuity, and the rectification of typographical errors. The importance of such modifications is paramount in retaining the reader's interest, upholding the credibility of the work, and projecting an aura of professionalism.
Furthermore, instances of convoluted sentence structure detract from the clarity of the narrative. Decomposing these sentences and adopting a more straightforward language will undoubtedly contribute to a lucid and coherent narrative thread throughout your manuscript. When it comes to the choice of vocabulary, it is advisable to reconsider certain terms and phrases to make sure they align with the understanding level of the targeted audience. The use of specialized jargon or excessively complex terminologies risks alienating readers, thus limiting the reach of your work. Strive to make your work as inclusive as possible, ensuring that the breadth of your audience isn't compromised by the depth of your research.
In addition, some portions of the manuscript could use better consolidation of ideas for improved cohesion. Adhering to a more linear narrative flow would amplify the accuracy and comprehensibility of your content, making it easier to follow for readers. While these linguistic concerns need to be addressed, it cannot be overemphasized that the core of your work is genuinely enthralling. Upon rectification of these issues, your manuscript will manifest its potential as a stronger, more engaging piece of scholarly work.
To this end, I would urge you to seek the assistance of a professional English language editor or proofreader who can help elevate the language, readability, and overall quality of your manuscript to the desired level. This investment will undeniably bear fruit in presenting your compelling research in the most effective and eloquent manner.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done an interesting research. With the increase in online sales and the growing awareness of the importance of environmental protection, the questions they research will be asked more and more often. The literature review is appropriate, not excessive, and contains current and relevant sources. Perhaps, in addition to the data on online shopping from the USA (Statista), we could also add data on the prevalence in Spain, considering that 90% of the study respondents come from there. Methodologically, the research is also adequately designed. The final impression is marred somewhat by several typographical errors, which may have resulted from the layout in the journal. Many words are split even though they lie on the same line, e.g. percent-ages, l. 29; delivery, line 41; Serv-ice, l. 57; de-livery, l 60; custom-er, l. 66, etc.
moderate quality of English language
Author Response
I am writing to express my sincere thanks for your time and effort in reviewing our article entitled "To Green or Not to Green: The e-commerce delivery Question". Your comments are very welcome.
Data related to the Spanish e-commerce market has been added to the paper.
The document has been further revised to correct typographical errors. Thank you for your comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The paper is interesting as it deals with a timely topic. Nevertheless, it needs to be improved to become a winning paper. Then, in my opinion, the following comments can help you reach that point:
First of all, please make your abstract attractive to readers (simple sentences without any repetition) and include 2-3 sentences ready to be cited exactly as they are. In 1 paragraph, your abstract should tell the readers why the study is important (maximum 25% of the text), what you did, i.e. your methodology (maximum 25% of the text), and what you found, i.e. main research results and their major implications (50% of the text). This is very important to promote your work because of the growing trend that authors use Google search to find and cite papers based on the abstract (instead of reading the full paper).
What is the specific research stream you have found in the Sustainability journal that can include your contribution? how does the paper push the research forward? please, be more explicit on this issue.
The research gap, theoretical contribution, necessity, and importance are not discussed well. Tell your own story based on your own understanding of the extant literature and refer to relevant references. The following references might be useful:
It is always good to be a Barn Builder and not a Barn Destroyer (see, Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2020). Simple rules, templates, and heuristics! An attempt to deconstruct the craft of writing an entrepreneurship paper. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3), 371-390.). Please provide a wider discussion of the contradictory views, both cons and pros. Adding a table will be very useful.
Please add the sources of the tables. I reckon that you have borrowed some of them from other sources. Please make sure that you have the permission to use them. e.g., Figure 5 or Figure 6.
Please go to the details. For instance, you have mentioned that "Based on a comprehensive literature review, ...". How? Was that a Systematic Literature Review? A bibliometric analysis? If yes, please explain. You might refer to a set of SLRs to reach that point, instead. But, anyway, the logic is very critical.
The distribution is very unbalanced! What could you grasp from a very small sample? Or the generations? Or the demographics? Table 1.
Compare your findings with those of the others. The authors need to draw substantive conclusions from their results, suggest implications for theory and practice, and, perhaps, develop recommendations for further research in more detail.
Best of luck!
Needs English language proofreading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Author(s),
When I began to write this report review, I tried to check some formal aspects of your article entitled "To green or not to green: the ecommerce delivery question" sent to Sustainability Journal. During this check, I found that your article is 100% similar to a material submitted to University of Primorska. Together with the editor of the journal, please clarify this aspect. Is a repository with your article? Does the material from University of Primorska belongs to you?
Regarding the article itself, I have the following recommendations:
1. In the Introduction chapter, under the "Figure 1. Models for delivery in the distribution of e-commerce orders", please specify the source of the image.
2. In the sub-chapter "1.3. Research Goal and Research Hypothesis", at the rows 225 - 232 you define 5 research hypotheses. I recommend you to improve this sub-chapter because at this moment it seems that the proposed research hypotheses are based on the authors' own experience. Normally, in a scientific article, the research hypotheses should be based on previous records from the extant scientific literature.
3. At the row 233 you say: "The structure of this paper is as follows: description of the research methodology...", but the next chapter is entitled "2. Materials & Methods", not "Methodology". Please syncronize the description from the row 233 with the title of the chapters.
4. I recommend you to also add the following resources in your article: https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040058, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12132857, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10090318, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020036. These useful resources will improve the context of your research proposal.
5. At the rows 238 - 239 you say: "In order to answer the research questions, this research is divided into six stages, following the methodology outlined in Figure 2." But you didn't define and describe the research questions before! So, the readers don't know which are the research questions. Please revise this issue.
6. At the rows 242 - 244 you say: "Based on a comprehensive literature review, both the critical success factors of e-commerce delivery and the leading possible sustainable solutions from the perspective of the online consumer were defined." But which "comprehensive literature review"? Because you don't even have a Literature Review chapter in your article.
7. In the Abstract, at the rows 19 - 20, you say: "multivariate logistic regression is performed, detailing the main predictors of willingness to pay for guaranteed green delivery." But at the row 422, in the title of the table 7, you say about "Results of multiple regression analysis". For the readers it is not clear if you used logistic regression or multiple regression. Please revise and clarify this issue.
Dear Author(s),
Please consider all the above remarks as being constructive recommendations in order to improve the general quality of your manuscript proposal.
Kind Regards!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In an era where e-commerce has become an integral facet of our lives, the delivery process has evolved into an incredibly vital part of online shopping. As the sole tangible interaction in an otherwise digital undertaking, it forms a decisive aspect of consumers' e-commerce experience. In the face of the ever-growing prevalence of e-commerce, the ecological footprint left by delivery practices has emerged as a pressing concern. This focus is attributed not only to the environmental externalities resulting from e-commerce delivery but also due to the system's inherent inefficiencies. As the primary beneficiaries of e-commerce, consumers form a pivotal force in driving sustainable delivery initiatives.
This study embarks on an exploration of consumers' attitudes toward environmentally-friendly e-commerce delivery practices. We aim to investigate whether consumers are willing to bear additional costs for assured green deliveries and identify which sustainable practices they perceive as most effective. A survey was conducted among e-commerce users to show their readiness to incur higher costs for green delivery and accept delayed deliveries if they support sustainability.
However, our findings reveal a conflicting scenario. While consumers display a readiness to opt for green deliveries, the price and speed of delivery emerged as more critical considerations. The study also uncovers significant discrepancies in attitudes towards green delivery based on demographic factors such as gender and generation. Utilizing multivariate logistic regression, the study outlines the main factors that predict a willingness to pay for guaranteed green delivery.
Furthermore, we acknowledge that the references utilized in this research need to be updated. In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the topic, future revisions of this paper will aim to incorporate the latest research in the field of e-commerce and green practices.
This study's findings stress the need to balance the drive for speed and cost-effectiveness in e-commerce delivery with the urgency to adopt sustainable practices. It underscores the necessity for e-commerce platforms and logistics partners to take the lead in crafting and implementing innovative green delivery solutions while educating and incentivizing consumers to choose sustainable delivery options.
Following the second round of review for the manuscript, it is evident that further extensive editing of the English language is required. While improvements were noted from the first revision, several areas still require attention to meet academic writing standards. These include grammatical errors, syntax inconsistencies, and punctuation mistakes that can hinder clear comprehension. Additionally, enhancements in the organization and structure of the manuscript, as well as refining the academic tone and style, are needed. Undertaking these modifications will not only improve the manuscript's readability but will also ensure that the valuable insights from the study are effectively and accurately communicated to the readership.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
In view of my reading of your paper, I invite you to address all issues noted below. I consider these issues to be major in nature, requiring more than a superficial or minor revision. In particular, (i) engagement with extant literature, i.e. many relevant references are overlooked or not mentioned, (ii) your theoretical contribution needs further clarification, and (iii) limitations and implications need further revision.
Best of luck!
Dear authors,
Please check the grammatical issues one more time.
Best of luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Author(s),
The revised version of your manuscript proposal still needs some major improvements.
Please carefully address the below recommendations, one by one:
- in "Figure 2. Research methodology" at the row 268, the 3rd step is entitled "Pre-text". Could you ellaborate a bit and explain what "pre-text" means?
- I don't understand the meaning of the values from "Table 5. Correlation matrix between critical delivery factors in e-commerce." For example, could you explain the value 0.271 between "Delivery options" and "Free delivery"? If you have to present that value in some words, what does it represent? Free delivery is not a delivery option? How cand they be correlated?
- as I aleady recommended you during the previous round of review, you should include the following useful resources: https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040058, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12132857, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10090318, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020036. Thus your work will be more relevant to the readers.
- for the "Table 8. Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis for the explained feature and predictors", please explain the symbols from the header: OR, ES.
- at the row 454 you say that "The logistic regression model is significant overall...", but in the table 9, on the column "P", you have some p-values greater than 0.05 (Generation, Fast delivery, Free-returns). Please revise this aspect.
- in the Conclusions, you should also present the theoretical implications of your research results.
Kind Regards!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommend publishing the manuscript in its current format.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your input in revising the manuscript. I honestly believe that they have helped to improve the quality of the paper and make it more attractive to readers.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am satisfied with the revisions carried out based on earlier feedback. Therefore, I recommend your paper for acceptance, subject to the usual final formatting checks required by the editorial office.
Needs final proofreading.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your input in revising the manuscript. I honestly believe that they have helped to improve the quality of the paper and make it more attractive to readers.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Author(s),
Although this is the third round of review, the manuscript still has some major issues.
Please carefully address them one by one:
- according to the Turnitin report, more than 70% of your manuscript is similar to a material from Primorska University. Please clarify this very important issue together with the editor of the journal.
- the Introduction chapter should be improved. I recommend you to clearly define and describe the following elements: the research gap, the research goal, the research question(s). At this moment, these elements are very diffuse and the readers don't see them in a clear manner.
- as I aleady recommended you during the previous round of review, I recommend you to include the following useful resources: https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16040058, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12132857, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020036. Thus your work will be more relevant to the readers.
- at the rows 270 - 271 you say that "The following research hypotheses were formulated based on the contributions of the literature review to the main questions addressed in Section 1.2.". I tried to find the section 1.2, but I couldn't. I recommend you to revise this issue and to correct it by synchronizing the numbers of the (sub)chapters.
- at the rows 93 - 95 you have the "Figure 1. Models for delivery in the distribution of e-commerce orders". Before the figure, at the rows 74 - 92, you present different models (push, pull, hybrid). I don't understand the relationship between these models and your research hypotheses. Please update the manuscript so that you present that relationship (if exists).
- please avoid ending a chapter with a figure (Figure 1 at the end of the Introduction). I recommend you to add a new short text paragraph after the figure.
- the row 668 is empty. Please revise.
- at the end of the article you should present the questionnaire in an appendix. Or, you can include it in a public repository.
- somewhere in the sequence from the rows 630 - 635 you should include a Data Availability Statement and here it is recommended to include the link to a public repository containing the raw data.
Kind Regards!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I received the revised version of your manuscript and I consider it was improved.
Kind regards!
