Understanding Customer Preferences of Delivery Services for Online Grocery Retailing in South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study examines customer preferences for delivery services in online grocery shopping. Specifically, the author conducted an in-depth analysis of the delivery type preferred by customers using one-way ANOVA and conjoint analysis. Considering that competition among online grocery shopping malls is intensifying after the COVID-19 pandemic and companies are trying to expand the market through delivery innovation, the topic of this study is considered very timely. This study has the following merits:

1) Timely research topic (as mentioned earlier)

2) Rigorous data collection and analysis procedures

3) In-depth discussion of the research findings

So, this paper has sufficient quality to be published in an academic journal. However, I have found some minor things that the author could improve during the review process. Therefore, please address your efforts to the following comments:

1.     In 1. Introduction and 5. Conclusion:
Since one of the major topics of this study is 'delivery packaging,' which has high relevance to the environment, this study is highly related to sustainability issues. Nonetheless, it needs to be clarified in the text how the subject of this study refers to sustainability, the central theme of the journal. Thus, I recommend the author highlight the study's contribution in terms of sustainability.

2.     In Line #35 on page 1 (Minor typo error):
(Statistics, 2022) -> (Statistics Korea, 2022)

3.     In 1. Introduction on page 3:
When describing the purpose of the study, it would be better if the author presents the research gap, i.e., what this study is trying to address that prior studies still need to fulfill. The author gave the research gap in Section 2(Literature Review). However, it is also necessary to outline how this study differs from other related prior studies in the Introduction section.

Primarily, it is strongly recommended to specify in the introduction how this study differs from the author's previous study (Ref. [29]), which deals with a similar topic.

4.     In Line #214 on page 5 (Minor typo error / Check):
- Packaging type of LiviriFresh: Market cooler bag -> Market cooler box
- Reusability of LiviriFresh: 20 times or less -> 75 times or less

5.     In 5. Conclusion:
Please describe the significance of the research in detail by dividing it into academic and practical implications. Also, I hope the author supplements the description of research limitations and future research directions.

 

Finally, I recommend ‘acceptance with minor revision’.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study investigated customer preferences for delivery services of online grocery shopping in South Korea. The research questions, methods, and results are clearly stated.

- The subtitle of the manuscript is "focusing on dawn delivery and a personal icebox." Even if most respondents preferred dawn delivery with personal iceboxes, it could not be said that this study focused on the delivery type in the first place.

- Please explain the background of the online groceries market and why they were chosen for your research questions. 

- Some keywords in Appendix A could significantly impact the answers of respondents: "buy fresh food", "a refrigerated vehicle", and "Ice packs". Please explain this is a usual setting for delivery services of online groceries in South Korea in the Step 1 section on p. 9. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Well done. The manuscript is written well and for improvement, I suggest some changes. They are given below:  

Manuscript title: Understanding Customer Preferences of delivery services for online grocery shopping: Focusing on dawn delivery and a personal icebox

Journal: Sustainability

Abstract/Method

Page 1, lines 18 and 19: “To answer these questions, a survey was conducted in July 2020 with 218 consumers who regularly buy fresh food online.”

The data collection period is slightly outdated and the authors are honest in admitting the period. My question is “anyway to overcome” possibly by doing an additional intervention such as an in-depth interview. The additional study is to establish the empirical results.   

Introduction

In the intro section, what type of research has been performed so far? What is new in this study, that can be considered a contribution? I want to see the contribution of the study in the intro section.

Further, in the intro discuss your broad findings to hook the readers.

Develop a section on “Managerial Implications”.

Important observation: I want the authors to develop a section titled “Theoretical contribution” and thereby how this research contributes to theory. At the same time, I appreciate the practical applications of the paper. The author can suggest when they apply the study results to improve the performance of the corporate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper.  At first glance, I feel that it is well-built and well based article both in theoretical, methodological and practical aspects. 

Some minor changes are recommended:

-        In the abstract, it is not recommended to write research questions. If necessary, research questions can be written in the introduction section.

-        The methodology looks acceptable.  The only part that needs to be revised is the discussion of the findings. I suggest the author discuss these findings in relation to the references.  Through this way, you can highlight the contribution of your study to the current body of empirical and theoretical knowledge on understanding the customer preferences of delivery services for online grocery shopping.

-        Conclusion chapter should be broadened with some referred literature sources related to the results. Also discuss about the novelty of this study and discussion part needs to be more elaborated and critically analyzed.

 

After these minor changes I highly recommend the publication of the manuscript.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations! Keep it up.