Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The present article examines the relationships between users' knowledge anxiety, cognitive processing bias, and brand avoidance and illustrates the impacts of herding behavior and attachment anxiety on these relationships. Data were collected through an online survey, and partial least squares path modeling was used to test the proposed paths on a sample of 530 consumers. The findings revealed that user knowledge anxiety affects brand avoidance behavior directly and indirectly through cognitive processing biases. It was also evident that attachment anxiety moderates the pathway between cognitive processing bias and user knowledge anxiety. But the

herding behavior is not obvious in online knowledge-sharing communities. 

 I have some critical comments should be made:

The article sounds good and has value, however some comments are necessary.

 

First, the introduction and literature should be more precise.

 

 

 

New relevant references should be included.

 

 

 

In the beginning, a single paragraph should be inserted saying

 

 

 

Describes the paper's key contribution and originality. What is new 

what Is the differences between your study and other published ones?

 

 

 

The English should be improved. I discovered some flows

 

 

 

The conclusion could be more precise, and significant discoveries should be included.

After making the aforementioned comments, the document may be approved.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments, I will explain the specific changes in a word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author(s)

 

Thanks for chance to read your work. In our opinion you id a good job. However,  discussion part should be extend including how the independent variables influence dependent variable. Furthermore, the author(s) also need compared the recent study with preliminary studies. 

 

Sincerely

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments, I will explain the specific changes in a word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting and overall well written. However, some concerns I think need improvement are listed below.

1.       The hypotheses have a good background but need to be strengthened at some points.

2.       The basis for research hypotheses from Cognitive Appraisal Theory and Social identity theory still needs to be stronger.

3.       The background of the moderating and mediating hypotheses should be revised more simply and understandably.

4.       The methodology part started directly with scale information, which is not very typical. Instead, first of all, the authors should explain the data collection procedure in a transparent and detailed way. These explanations should be presented in more detail under a separate heading, not in the demographic information section. In addition, sharing scales under a separate heading and in more detail (including sample items) would be more reader-friendly.

5.       It would be appropriate to present reliability and validity information in a much more concise manner.

6.       In the discussion section, it would be appropriate to strengthen future research suggestions and practical implications.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review comments, I will explain the specific changes in a word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been updated and deserves publication 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. Your suggestions were really helpful, and I've made the changes accordingly. I've also added a description of the modifications in the document, which I hope will be helpful for you. Please feel free to take a look!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx