Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for this interesting article, which I enjoyed reading. You deal with sectors and business models that are very much in the focus of sustainability research and your article therefore fits well thematically into the journal.

I was impressed by the introductory chapter. The derivation of the research questions is comprehensible and there is also a good link to the scientific debate. I also like the structured overview of the relevant literature in the second chapter. The theoretical background of the study is well elaborated. The hypothesis derivation is likewise comprehensible to me. I therefore have no critical comments. I was also particularly impressed by the empirical part. All relevant statistical information on the sample, model estimation and the general quality of the analysis was provided. The procedure also seems plausible to me, so I have no critical comments here either. Overall, I also agree with the discussion and derivation of the implications.

In view of the well-conducted study, I can recommend the publication without reservation. In my view, there are only minor points that should be addressed at the outset: At some points in the text, the researcher is referred to in the singular (e.g. on page 3, line 121), although several authors were obviously involved in writing the study. This needs to be adjusted linguistically.  I would also recommend revising the heading of chapter 3.1.

Many thanks again for this great contribution!

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have completed the review of your manuscript entitled "Conceptual Models of Franchisee Behaviors in the Dietary Supplements and Cosmetics to Imply the Business Investments" and I am pleased to provide you with feedback on your work.

 Abstract: The abstract effectively summarizes the main findings of the study, providing a clear overview of the research objectives, methodology, and results. However, it could be improved by including a brief mention of the limitations of the study.

Introduction: The introduction provides a good background to the research problem and clearly outlines the objectives of the study. However, it would be beneficial to include more specific details about the importance of understanding franchisee behaviors in the dietary supplements and cosmetics industry.

 Literature Review: The literature review provides a comprehensive overview of previous research on franchisee behaviors, which is essential for understanding the context of the current study. However, it would be helpful to include more recent references to ensure that the review is up-to-date.

 Hypothesis: The hypotheses are clearly stated and are logically derived from the literature review. However, it would be beneficial to provide more justification for the selection of the variables included in the proposed research model.

 Methodology: The methodology section provides a clear description of the research design, data collection, and analysis procedures. However, it would be helpful to include more details about the sampling technique and the characteristics of the sample population.

 Data: The data section provides a clear overview of the sample size and data analysis techniques used in the study. However, it would be beneficial to include more information about the reliability and validity of the research instruments used to collect data.

 Results: The results section provides a detailed presentation of the findings of the study, including the results of hypothesis testing and model fit analysis. However, it would be helpful to include more discussion about the practical implications of the findings for franchise owners and suggestions for future research.

 Discussion: The discussion section provides a thorough analysis of the research findings and their implications for theory and practice. However, it would be beneficial to include more discussion about the limitations of the study and potential avenues for future research.

 Conclusion: The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings of the study and highlights the implications for theory and practice.

 Overall, I believe that this manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature on franchisee behaviors in the dietary supplements and cosmetics industry. However, I recommend making the revisions outlined above to strengthen the clarity, rigor, and relevance of the study.

 

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is important to note the choice of the topic at the beginning —the franchise business is now strongly developing. The introduction is very good; it outlines the subject matter to the reader and explains why it was undertaken. The article is very well thought out and very well written. The results obtained were properly discussed. The Chapter References are comprehensive, and the literature is well-chosen, mostly new literature items. The article presented for review contains only minor shortcomings that do not significantly affect its quality. A big plus for reporting the study to an ethics committee - many researchers unfortunately don't do this with surveys.

Some detailed comments are below:

-        Editor's note - the font appears to be different from that required by the journal

-        I suggest placing Table 1 earlier so that it is closer to the text in which it is referenced or remove the sentence from lines 78-79

-        Line 118 - what does [x] mean? There seems to be a simple lack of citation here.

-        Line 485 - The citation number should appear in parentheses instead of the year of publication.

-        Line 502 – “Persson, 2010” - citation is incorrect and should be corrected.

-        Line 657 – “(Cochran, 1953)” - place a citation

-        Line 746 -  Figure 2 - remove hyperlink

-        Table 10 - there is an error in the signature

-        Figure 3 - remove the "Ctrl" sign from the figure

 

-        Line 757: “Figure 3 – 5” - There are only 3 figures in the article, not 5.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the language is understandable and correct, only minor stylistic corrections can be made.

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf