Predictors Affecting Effects of Virtual Influencer Advertising among College Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study explores the para-social interaction effects between audiences and virtual influencers. I believe that the title should be more specific and the use of MZ generation should be changed to something more internationally recognizable.  More details about the study should be included in the abstract (e.g., methodology, research tools, sample, etc.). Although the topic could be interesting, its findings cannot really be described as novel.

The introduction sector must be reworked to include more references. Authors quote that “According to customer…”, yet there is no reference included. There are only two references that are from 2014 and 2017 in three paragraphs. Additionally, the need for such a study is not defined within the text. Once again, more details should be provided in the last paragraph regarding the study.

In reference to the theoretical framework section, recent studies have also provided definitions regarding the term influencer and virtual influencer. Hence, more recent studies should be mentioned. The hypotheses are supported by the literature cited but once again, more recent studies should be included. The authors should include the complete survey to present all the items used.

In the method section, more details regarding the sample must be included (e.g., department/university, gender, etc.). I believe it is crucial to include more details about the virtual influencer and the context of the images. The authors satisfactorily present the structure of their survey and provide the necessary information.

The “results” section clearly presents the information and the authors have used easy to understand tables and figures. Despite this fact, the analysis of the results seems superficial as the information presented in the tables and figures is just restated in the text. The authors must make connections to the literature and comment upon their results while taking the results of similar studies into account. The frequencies of the responses to each item should be included and commented upon.

The discussion section is really lacking. I believe that it should be reworked to include more related studies and make connections between the results and findings of this study with those of the literature. Due to the lack of comments about the results and connections and correlations with the literature, this section does not add real value to the manuscript.

A section with the conclusive remarks, limitations, and directions for future research is missing.

All in all, I believe that there are many things that can be improved in this manuscript. More related references from recent studies and a related work section that goes over related studies should be included. Only two references are from the last five years. I do wonder why the authors do not present the results of similar recent studies. The introduction section must be reworked and highlight the need for such a study and its novelty. The results and discussion section should be drastically extended and reworked. The authors should also include the complete survey and the frequencies of the responses to each question and comment upon the results. Finally, a conclusion section should be added.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough review of my paper. Your comments were crucial in helping me improve the quality of my research. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns, as detailed below. Please note that I have selected specific phrases from your review that highlight your concerns in order to better address these issues.

#1 This study explores the para-social interaction effects between audiences and virtual influencers. I believe that the title should be more specific and the use of MZ generation should be changed to something more internationally recognizable.  More details about the study should be included in the abstract (e.g., methodology, research tools, sample, etc.). Although the topic could be interesting, its findings cannot really be described as novel.

• Based on your comments, I revised the title of this research. I also added more details about the study.

#2 The introduction sector must be reworked to include more references. Authors quote that “According to customer…”, yet there is no reference included. There are only two references that are from 2014 and 2017 in three paragraphs. Additionally, the need for such a study is not defined within the text. Once again, more details should be provided in the last paragraph regarding the study.

• I included more references in the introduction section. In addition, I provided the need for this study in the revised manuscript.

#3 In reference to the theoretical framework section, recent studies have also provided definitions regarding the term influencer and virtual influencer. Hence, more recent studies should be mentioned. The hypotheses are supported by the literature cited but once again, more recent studies should be included. The authors should include the complete survey to present all the items used.

• In the revised manuscript I tried to include more recent studies. And as you suggested, I included all the items used in the current study.

#4 In the method section, more details regarding the sample must be included (e.g., department/university, gender, etc.). I believe it is crucial to include more details about the virtual influencer and the context of the images. The authors satisfactorily present the structure of their survey and provide the necessary information.

• More details regarding the sample have been included in the method section. I also added an image of the virtual influencer used in this study.

#5 The “results” section clearly presents the information and the authors have used easy to understand tables and figures. Despite this fact, the analysis of the results seems superficial as the information presented in the tables and figures is just restated in the text. The authors must make connections to the literature and comment upon their results while taking the results of similar studies into account. The frequencies of the responses to each item should be included and commented upon.

• In the revised manuscript of the discussion section I tried to make connections to the literature and comment upon study results. In addition, I added the frequencies of the responses to each item in the results section.

#6 The discussion section is really lacking. I believe that it should be reworked to include more related studies and make connections between the results and findings of this study with those of the literature. Due to the lack of comments about the results and connections and correlations with the literature, this section does not add real value to the manuscript.

• I admit that the current discussion section is lacking and needs improvement. Based on your comments, I added more related studies and make connections between the results and findings of this study.

#7 A section with the conclusive remarks, limitations, and directions for future research is missing.

• I added the conclusive remarks, study limitations, and directions for future research in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author

Manuscript develops an approach to predictors Affecting effects of virtual influencer advertising among mz generations, which has a limited interest in the scientific community, but the text has disabilities that it is important to be rectified.

1 - Abstract requires the question of investigation to be introduced in a more direct way.

2- The discussion of the results must be shown how the results obtained confront or compare with the review of the state of the literature of section 2.

3- Conclusions while section is omissive and it is important to be introduced into the text.

Additional Comments: 

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Is difficult to answer to this question since the title mention Predictors Affecting Effects of Virtual Influencer Advertising Among MZ Generations and the content try to expose something about the designed to examine the effects of para-social interaction as relationships between virtual influencer and audiences.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? No, the paper doesn't answered or field any gap of the scientific knowledge.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? The only thing we can find in the text is related with the statistical treatment of data, but this is not a relevant issue to be published.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? As I mention in my previous evaluation the method is missing, the authors describe data related with a survey with a sample that is not clear if is relevant to the research and if is, how is the selection to this approach. Also, how have be selected the measures options and the biography support to this selection. Also, is missing the balance between criteria and how them can answer to the missing research question.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? The paper doesn't have conclusions. Is presented a section with results were there aren't any discussion and confrontation or comparability to other researches already publish and mentioned on the section of literature review.

6. Are the references appropriate? The references can be increase and introduced more actual articles.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. The figure 1 can be improved in quality and also introduced the legend to the figure.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough review of my paper. Your comments were crucial in helping me improve the quality of my research. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns, as detailed below. Please note that I have selected specific phrases from your review that highlight your concerns in order to better address these issues.

#1 Abstract requires the question of investigation to be introduced in a more direct way.

• I added the questions of investigation in the abstract of the revised manuscript.

#2 The discussion of the results must be shown how the results obtained confront or compare with the review of the state of the literature of section 2.

• In the discussion section I compared study results with the literature of section 2 in the revised manuscript.

#3 Conclusions while section is omissive and it is important to be introduced into the text.

• I added a conclusion section with study limitations and areas for further research.

#5 Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? The paper doesn't have conclusions. Is presented a section with results were there aren't any discussion and confrontation or comparability to other researches already publish and mentioned on the section of literature review.

• In the conclusion section I added the conclusive remarks, limitations, and directions for future research.

6. Are the references appropriate? The references can be increase and introduced more actual articles

=> In the revised manuscript I added more actual articles to strengthen the literature review.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. The figure 1 can be improved in quality and also introduced the legend to the figure.

=> I added additional comments on the tables and provided the legend to the figure in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Many of my previous comments have been addressed. However, I believe that further improvements can be made to the manuscript. In the sample and data collection section, the author should also add the country and college in which the study took place and comment upon which the specific sample was selected. The result section must be further expanded with more constructive comments on the results and their implication. The specific section still only restates what the tables already present. Hence, more in depth analysis is required. I believe that the discussion section can still be enriched further with some comments from the author on the implications of the results. The statement “This finding is consistent with prior research” in line 343 must be supported by references. Finally, more details about the creation of the specific virtual influencer should be included so that the readers can have a better understanding.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer #1

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough review of my paper. Your comments were crucial in helping me improve the quality of my research. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns, as detailed below. Please note that I have selected specific phrases from your review that highlight your concerns in order to better address these issues.

#1 In the sample and data collection section, the author should also add the country and college in which the study took place and comment upon which the specific sample was selected.

• In the revised manuscript I added more specific information regarding the country and college.

#2 I believe that the discussion section can still be enriched further with some comments from the author on the implications of the results. The statement “This finding is consistent with prior research” in line 343 must be supported by references.

• Based on your comments, I tried to enrich this manuscript further in the discussion section. In addition, I added references for the statement “This finding is consistent with prior research”.

#3 Finally, more details about the creation of the specific virtual influencer should be included so that the readers can have a better understanding.

• Thank you for your comments. I elaborated on the creation of the virtual influencer used in this study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for improving your text, however I believe that two of the points indicated remain to be developed:

1 - Make explicit the methodology applied in research now in communication.

2 - The conclusions introduced are common sense knowledge and do not reflect the findings reached by the investigation, so they must be rewritten and adapted to what is expected to be conclusions.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer #2

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough review of my paper. Your comments were crucial in helping me improve the quality of my research. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns, as detailed below. Please note that I have selected specific phrases from your review that highlight your concerns in order to better address these issues.

#1 Make explicit the methodology applied in research now in communication.

• Based on your comments, I tried to make the methodology explicit in the revised manuscript.

#2 The conclusions introduced are common sense knowledge and do not reflect the findings reached by the investigation, so they must be rewritten and adapted to what is expected to be conclusions.

• I revised the conclusion section in order to reflect the findings reached by the investigation.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author

Thanks for the improvement made in your initial text.