Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1)      The title does not fully reflect manuscript content.

2)      Specify the primary research objective, the hyposethis and research questions in the introduction section

3)      Please check an error (line 401-402, 532, 566, )

 

The article under review is devoted to an urgent and rather original topic – the relationship between some behavioral characteristics of the Filipinos aged 15 to 42 and their investment intentions in the real estate market. The idea and background of the research are clearly presented by the authors in the introduction section, the research is theoretically distinctive as it adds to the understanding and further implications of the theory of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior, which is shown in the 2.1. Theoretical Framework section and further reconsidered in 4.1. Theoretical Implications section. The reference list reveals a great deal of work made by the authors who have cited 182 sources, all of them are relevant to the research.

The empirical part of the article is also well-done: the research hypothesis are clearly presented and developed from the previous research, the research design is appropriate to the primary goal of the article, its results are clearly presented.

Though I generally liked the research idea itself and its realization in the article, I have some comments and suggestions that, I hope, could improve the presentation of the research results.

First, the abstract should be extended so that it could give a reader a clear understanding of what is the research idea, where (what kind of practical situation) it comes from, what kind of way the authors use to solve the scientific problem and what results they obtain.

Second, the authors should introduce the research objective and research questions in the introduction section.

Then, please check an error (line 401-402, 532, 566, )

Finally, I think the title does not fully reflect its content and should be changed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript applies the theory of planned behavior model to study the relationship between personal attitude, subjective norm,  perceived behavioral control, risk tolerance, perceived property value aversion from illegal practice, and investment intentions in the real estate market.

There are some suggestions and concerns:

1. Describe more clearly how the current study distinguishes from the previous ones? why the current study is better?

2. why the case of the Philippines is interesting or important in literature?

3. When illegal practice is involved in the model, the availability of the information for the illegal practice is limited? would the results be unfavorably affected?  

4. from the demographic profile, it is found that the respondents in areas of residence vary significantly, would it affect the results of the study? 

 5. In the manuscript, the advantages of the methodology adopted were mentioned. What are the disadvantages of it? would the disadvantages of the method significantly affect the results of the study? 

6. From empirical results, there are implications such as fraud prevention implication in which the manuscript mentioned the cases in Mainland China. Why the literature of the case in Mainland China is relevant to the case the Philippines when China is considered in the manuscript as a developed country? 

The quality of English languages is fine. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a generally well-written paper. A few comments for possible improvement.

First, the Introduction section could be shortened. It is expected to clearly and succinctly introduce the research topic, background, and potential contributions to relevant literature.

Second, some of the analysis in the Discussion section should be incorporated into the Result part, as I found the discussion is also too long, and some of the analyses are redundant. Discussion should only present how the results of this paper respond to the previous debate(s), rather than the repetition of the whole research process.

Third, again, the limitations are also too detailed and too long.  It is expected to be one paragraph.

Some typos should be addressed, such as L566.

 

 

 

 

 

Minor revision and proofreading are necessary. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf