Quality Evaluation and Optimization of Idle Goods Swap Platform Based on Grounded Theory and Importance–Performance Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the study is to provide guidelines for improving platforms that facilitate the swapping of idle goods. Specifically, the study sought to analyze consumer characteristics and motivations to create a user profile for better market positioning of swap platforms. The study also aimed to develop a quality evaluation model for these platforms to identify areas needing improvement and to offer practical suggestions based on consumer analysis and the evaluation model. The paper is well-written. The research questions are clearly formulated. Extensive conclusions are also a strong part of the paper.

Minor comments:

1. The choice of a swap platform is not motivated.

2. The references almost do not include the studies of recent 2-3 years.

3. Section 2.2.3. How did you choose the persons for an interview?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I suggest that the author reconsider the "three key questions" because these questions could potentially be addressed through work experience or a few dozen data. Why should these three questions become research questions for a study? I recommend the author re-evaluate the research objectives, gaps, and motivations.

2. What is the relationship between the research objectives and the chosen research methods?

3. How was the core user data for the start-up swap platform obtained? How was the representativeness of the 23 male and 157 female participants ensured? What sampling method was used in the study?

4. What tools were used to collect the 203 data? How was it determined that thematic saturation was achieved? Please explain the concept of thematic saturation according to Hennink. How was subjectivity avoided in the coding process?

5. The study should be supplemented with the following sections: literature review, theoretical implications (contributions), practical implications, and data discussion.

6. Please carefully check the English grammar and vocabulary, as well as the use of capitalization, which has several issues, for example in the keywords section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please carefully check the English grammar and vocabulary, as well as the use of capitalization, which has many issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors discuss an interesting and innovative subject. They provide guidelines for improving idle goods swap platforms through an analysis of consumer characteristics and motivations. The paper is well-written, however, some aspects, especially the Mnauscript´s Structure and the Research Questions must be improved.

Abstract: Please clarify the scientific gap and novelty of the paper and, reduce it to 200 words (actually 207) according to the Sustainability template.

Introduction: Please, demonstrate how your work fills a gap in current knowledge. The survey questions are vague and generic. These research questions do not address, for example, the quality, categories, and quantity of goods, which were evaluated in the manuscript. Please, consider the factors presented in Table 2.

Informed Consent Statement (according to the Sustainability template): The authors conducted interviews and applied questionnaires. Please add “Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study” or justify why it´s not necessary.

Section 2 should be called Materials and Methods according to the Sustainability template.

Subsections 2.1. Procedure , 2.2. Materials and Data Collection: Please, improve the scientific soundness by citing academic references (peer-reviewed papers or books) for the methods.

Please show a RMB x US dollar exchange rate to show the reader an income comparison pattern.

Please, clarify “pursue sustainability” and how respondents relate swap to sustainability.

There is no Discussion section for the results presented.

In the Conclusion section, please clearly answer the answer to the research question presented in the Introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the uploaded file does not address the comments of this reviewer (probably the authors made a mistake when uploading) this reviewer sought changes in the text regarding my comments made in the previous round.

The authors modified the article, but, in some cases, comments were not solved, and modifications are still necessary, mainly in the Conclusion section.

Lines 485-481. This paragraph is better in the Conclusion section.

 

Comments not solved

Regarding the abstract, reduce it to 200 words (actually 202) according to the Sustainability template.

The Conclusion section should be improved. Please clearly answer the 3 research questions presented in the Introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made all the requested modifications.