Unveiling the Motivational Factors behind Generation Z’s Conference Attendance for Sustaining Future Participation
, Adam B. Carmer 2, Miroslav D. Vujičić 1, Marija Cimbaljević 1 and Uglješa Stankov 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Despite being a theme already studied by different authors and in different contexts, the authors focus the study on the “Z” generation.
As there are already several scales to analyze the motivations and factors that influence the decision to participate in conferences, it would make sense that, instead of “research questions”, the authors present hypotheses.
On the other hand, it would be relevant if, before the methodology section, authors presented the conceptual model, exploring the determinants of the decision to participate in events (conferences) and the consequences (e.g. intention to return, recommendation, ...).
I also believe that the inclusion of the “conference reputation” indicator could be a dimension to be explored.
Author Response
Please find our responses attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have the following two main comments: 1) In my opinion, the manuscript should be extended with a broader literature review. 28 items are definitely not enough for a publication in a journal of this level. 2) It is worth justifying the relationship of the research with the subject of the journal in more detail.Author Response
Please find our responses attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the article titled, "Unveiling the Motivational Factors behind Generation Z's Conference Attendance for Sustaining Future Participation," which was submitted to the Sustainability journal. Below, I present my feedback.
The authors address two research questions: what are the dimensions of Generation Z's conference attendance motivations? and are there any differences in relation to respondents' socio-economic variables? The text is based on the results of an online questionnaire.
The article is clearly written, well-structured, well-referenced, and supported by the authors' own research. I consider the article to be interesting and significant from an academic standpoint. However, I identified some issues that need to be addressed before publication. These issues are listed in bullet points below:
-The article lacks a clear and concise presentation of Generation Z on the basis of literature. There is a brief annotation about this at the end of the text. However, I find it insufficient and misplaced. As the article is devoted to Generation Z, a brief introduction to this demographic should be included in the initial part of the article.
-The text needs a short introduction to the concept of events, defining what an event is, the different types of events that exist, and where conferences fit within these types of events. This could be added to the literature review section wit the use of additional references.
-The literature review section discussing the different motives driving attendees' motivations to attend conferences would benefit from a table where types of motives are presented alongside their corresponding references.
-The detailed procedure of sampling should be presented in Section 3. Currently, we only know that the respondents were students from Serbia who were asked online and via social media. The selection process of the students, the university they attended, the type of social media used, and whether the research was representative should be clearly explained in the methodology section.
-I couldn't locate Table 3 (page 7), even though it is referenced in the text. This needs to be supplemented.
In summary, the article has clear aims, is interesting, well-written, and already well-referenced. After the correction of aforementioned issues, the article should be worth publishing in a scientific journal.
Author Response
Please find our responses attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors responded positively to the recommendations presented in the first review of the article. They included the hypotheses and the conceptual model at the end of the literature review section, before the methodology section.
In the same way, they present the justification for the extraction of the item “conference reputation”.
Thus, I consider that the paper meets the necessary conditions to be published.
Congratulations
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for considering my comments and suggestions.Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript, entitled 'Unveiling the Motivational Factors behind Generation Z's Conference Attendance for Sustaining Future Participation,' has been significantly improved based on my review. I find the text suitable for publication in an international scientific journal.
