Research on the Influence Mechanism of Organic Food Attributes on Customer Trust

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Research on the Influence Mechanism of Organic Food Attributes on Customer Trust

 

Comment to Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting and relevant to both study contextual setting and global. It is publishable. However, few matters need to be looked and add on. Below are some of the comments.

 

Topic:

Acceptable but it would be good if the word Research is deleted.

Suggestion: The Influence Mechanism of Organic Food Attributes and Mediating Effect of Perceived Quality on Customer Trust

Abstract

The abstract presented is acceptable as it comprises of issue, the main objective, methodology, results and implications. However, sentence in line 9 does not read through or flowing steadily. 

1.0 Introduction  

Looking at the overall scenario, authors in the introduction section started to emphasize on organic food and channeled it into consumer demand due to increasing concerns about food safety, ecological, pollution-free, safe for quality of life. The matters are further explained which relate to variables of interest of the study; search attributes, trust attributes, perceived quality and customer trust and highlighting the gaps of the study. All these are acceptable. Despite this, few matters need authors attention related to window dressing of the introduction section.

·         Lack of citations and mostly a single citation rather than multiple citations. Need more citations to show that a compressive work has been done on the topic of interest.   

·         Some paragraphs should be combined. Too short paragraphs do look good. 

·         Look back the sentences in line 37 to 38.

·         Consistent of using the word; example; this study, this paper, this research

2.0            Literature Review

Based on the framework of the study two independent variables (trust attributes and search attributes), one mediating variable (perceived quality) and one dependent variable (customer trust) are predictors and the criterion variable. All those variables were reviewed and lumped up together except on customer’s trust. From my point of view especially on the independent variables and mediating variable, it does not really demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field. Authors should have a separate heading of review of each independent variable and mediating variable. In other words, a mix kind of literature review presented in which did not really focus on the matter addressed. Besides that;

·         Sentences structure need to be correctly established. Example, line 88-89

·         Provide some latest citations  

3.0 Result

As this section is dealing with theoretical underpinning and study hypotheses development, thus, the heading should be named as study framework and hypotheses development. Few matters require authors intention for this section.

·         Need to explain further on Cue Utilization Theory (CUT)

·         Make a proper paragraph on the hypothesis’s development. If possible, using italic form on the proposed hypotheses. 

 

 

4.0 Research Design

 This section should be named as methodology which could be incorporated the elements research approach or research design, sampling, instrumentation or measurement, data collection process.  Hopefully, authors could address it accordingly to look more organized.  

5.0 Result and Analysis

The authors have taken the necessary steps in the analysis part to reach the deductive part of it. As Structure Equation Modeling (Covariance SEM) was the main statistical analysis, the pre- requite test of the proposed measurement model assessment was explicitly and initially performed using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The structural model produced a model fit through (DF; GFI; AGFI, CFI and RMSEA) and most importantly the relevant matters on the Covariance SEM test comprehended to the hypotheses of the study. All adequately reported and acceptable. The only thing, please make a proper paragraph between line 258-273 as will look better.

5.0 Discussion and conclusion

 

Looking at the overall outlook of this section, I have no major objection on the matters discussed as it relates to the findings obtained in the analysis section. Despite this, the discussion on the findings in sub-section 6.1 is still lacking as it is not connecting with the previous studies or literature. Authors also should create a conclusion section. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Twenty observed variables categorized into seven latent variables. Base for categorization of observed variables into latent variables not explained. Why only twenty factors are considered relevant to describe propercustomer trust model? Why are others not relevant? 

The information about the questionnaire's validation should be included. 

The references must be updated

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is well discussed and the author team worked hard to respond to the reviewers' comments. The theme is relevant for the journal and the developed analytical model is well thought out and the path diagram (Figure 2) is suggesting further discsssion points for the readers and researchers.  

Well done!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Final checking need to be done. Proofreading 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for attending my comments.

 

Best regards!!!