Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discusses an interesting topic about the effect of social media on a sustainable green life style

The topic matches the journal's scope and readers' expectations. 

Kindly revise the abstract section to better explain the research method. Also, it is recommended to add some empirical values to support your results.

 

The keywords are properly selected

In the method section, please add more information about the surveyees in terms of how often they used social media, for what purposes, how do they receive information about sustainability, is it for products, materials, systems, is it for building materials or domestic products…etc, , is in the form of adds or videos…etc, how participants were influenced by social media, did it affect their purchasing patter, choices, mental model or others..

Also please add information about the survey design, time period of collecting responses

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revision required

Author Response

Responses to Comments from R1:

Comment #1: This paper discusses an interesting topic about the effect of social media on a sustainable green lifestyle. The topic matches the journal’s scope and readers’ expectations. 

Response: Thank you for your positive comment. We understand that we do not have anything to follow up on regarding this comment.

Comment #2: Kindly revise the abstract section to better explain the research method. Also, it is recommended to add some empirical values to support your results.

Response: We have revised our abstract and included the empirical values to support our results. 

Comment #3: The keywords are properly selected.

Response: Thank you for your positive comment. We understand that we do not have anything to follow up on regarding this comment.

Comment #4: In the method section, please add more information about the surveyees in terms of how often they used social media, for what purposes, how do they receive information about sustainability, is it for products, materials, systems, is it for building materials or domestic products…etc., is in the form of adds or videos…etc., how participants were influenced by social media, did it affect their purchasing pattern, choices, mental model or others.

Response: Sorry for the previous confusing presentation. Most of the information requested has already been presented in Table 5, while the remaining had not been collected in our survey. 

Comment #5: Also, please add information about the survey design, and the time period of collecting responses.

Response: The design of the survey items has already been described in the first paragraph of our Methodology Section and is detailed in Appendix A. The data were collected in the 1st half of 2022 (added there). 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

your submission titled "The Use of Social Media in Sustainable Green Lifestyle Adoption: Social Media Influencers and Value Co-creation" presents interesting results about the perception of sustainable tree lifestyles mediated by social media, and it is of general interest for people interested in the topic. 

My opinion is that your work is worth of publication after some minor revisions, which I have highlighted in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some sentences too long, which create some problems to be followed logically. Please adopt more punctuation or split long sentences in two parts.

Author Response

Responses to Comments from R2:

[comments marked in the file]
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have already followed your instructions and updated our files, e.g., added some citations, reorganization, etc.

There are some sentences too long, which create some problems to be followed logically. Please adopt more punctuation or split long sentences in two parts.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The paper has been further edited and proofread according to the journal’s editing requirements. We also used the paid version of Grammarly to double-check.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is of sound quality on a subject deserving the Journal's attention. This study deals with a conceptual model for using social media as a value co-creation platform to encourage and motivate people to adopt a sustainable green lifestyle. Mapping the process of green lifestyle adoption from the actual social media user behaviors, research results identified , positive association between social 19

media contact and a sustainable green lifestyle, mediation impacts of value-creation on the relationship between social media contact and a sustainable green lifestyle, and so on. Overall, it is easy to follow and builds a clear conclusion from the data. But requires some editing and revision before publication.

 

Author need updating to Abstract is too detailed. An abstract is a paragraph that provides readers with a quick overview of your essay or report and its organization. It would express your central idea and your key points; it should also suggest any implications or applications of the research you discuss in the paper, clearly and briefly.

 

At first, in abstract, Findings are too detailed Findings also have to clearly describe the results of this study including the results of the analysis. I recommend clearly describing research design/methodology, findings and implications in abstract.

 

Second, in introduction, the authors have to describe research designs, methodology including, for example, data collection periods and data source, and the method to analyze aims etc…. in addition, the overview of the study have to presented.

 

Third, In terms of data quality issues,

 

Missing: Bias check (ex: Non-response and common method bias)

Reliability and validity of the overall measurement model

 

fourth, this study clearly presented the finding of this study, but research implication part is weak. Research conclusion (implication) part is weak, focusing on data analysis results (enumerating bits of information). Additional explanations incorporating theoretical and practical are required.

 

In addition, possibility to adopt AMOS or PLS software instead of Regression analyses via SPSS.

 

Lastly, this paper requires English proofreading, and some editing and revision of the manuscript according to Journal editing regulations.

Author Response

Responses to Comments from R3:

 

Comment #1: This paper is of sound quality on a subject deserving the Journal’s attention. This study deals with a conceptual model for using social media as a value co-creation platform to encourage and motivate people to adopt a sustainable green lifestyle. Mapping the process of green lifestyle adoption from the actual social media user behaviors, research results identified, positive association between social media contact and a sustainable green lifestyle, mediation impacts of value-creation on the relationship between social media contact and a sustainable green lifestyle, and so on. Overall, it is easy to follow and builds a clear conclusion from the data. But requires some editing and revision before publication.

 

Response: Thank you for your comments. We understand that we do not have anything to follow up on regarding this comment.

 

Comment #2: Abstract is too detailed. An abstract is a paragraph that provides readers with a quick overview of your essay or report and its organization. It would express your central idea and your key points; it should also suggest any implications or applications of the research you discuss in the paper, clearly and briefly. At first, in the abstract, findings are too detailed. Findings also have to clearly describe the results of this study, including the results of the analysis. I recommend clearly describing the research design/methodology, findings and implications in the abstract.

 

Response: The abstract has been improved based on multiple reviewers’ suggestions.

 

Comment #3: Second, in the introduction, the authors have to describe research designs, methodology including, for example, data collection periods and data source, and the method to analyze aims etc. In addition, the overview of the study has to be presented.

 

Response: We now include a summary paragraph at the end of the “Introduction” to explain the problem identified and our approach to investigating our RQs. To avoid replication of information and the flow of the paper, we put more details of the research designs and methodology information in the relevant sections/sub-sections.

 

Comment #4: Third, In terms of data quality issues: Missing: Bias check (ex: Non-response and common method bias); reliability and validity of the overall measurement model.

 

Response: As the data collection process of this study is based on an online survey, for which the invitation was sent and posted on various social media, we only recorded the number of subjects who participated in our survey.

Concerning the concern of common method bias, reliability, and validity issues, indeed, we have already reported the results of various tests, such as the Harman One-Factor Test under the “Validity of Survey Instrument” sub-section of the previous version of our paper (now highlighted in light blue).

 

Comment #5: Fourth, this study clearly presented the finding of this study, but research implication part is weak. Research conclusion (implication) part is weak, focusing on data analysis results (enumerating bits of information). Additional explanations incorporating theoretical and practical are required.

 

Response: We have now expanded our discussion on future research and possible policy directions in the conclusion part of our paper, and we hope this addresses your concerns.

 

Comment #6: In addition, possibility to adopt AMOS or PLS software instead of Regression analyses via SPSS.

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. We consider this comment to be a suggestion and is not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, we decided to continue using regression as our method in this study, especially due to the short period allowed for this revision.

 

Comment #7: Lastly, this paper requires English proofreading, and some editing and revision of the manuscript according to Journal editing regulations.

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The paper has been further edited and proofread according to the journal’s editing requirements. We also used the paid version of Grammarly to double-check.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Topic

The topic is current and interesting.

 

Introduction

There is a framework for the study based on the literature.

However, the study's justification does not derive from the literature. What problem identified in the literature justifies the study?

 

There are initial research questions guiding the study.

 

Literature Review

The research hypotheses should align with the literature review in their respective subsections.

 

Results

The reader should be guided to understand the connection between the initial research questions and the research hypotheses. What is their relationship, how do they interconnect?

 

Conclusions

The suggested future research should be more developed.

Author Response

Responses to Comments from R4:

 

Comment #1: Topic: The topic is current and interesting.

 

Response: Thank you for your positive comment. We understand that we do not have anything to follow up on regarding this comment.

 

Comment #2: Introduction: There is a framework for the study based on the literature. However, the study’s justification does not derive from the literature. What problem identified in the literature justifies the study?

 

Response: We now include a summary paragraph at the end of the “Introduction” to explain the problem identified and our approach to investigating our RQs.

 

Comment #3: There are initial research questions guiding the study.

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. We understand that we do not have anything to follow up on regarding this comment.

 

Comment #4: Literature Review: The research hypotheses should align with the literature review in their respective subsections.

 

Response: We now align the hypotheses with the relevant paragraphs under the “Research model” sub-section.

 

Comment #5: Results: The reader should be guided to understand the connection between the initial research questions and the research hypotheses. What is their relationship, how do they interconnect?

 

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have improved the data analysis section of our paper to address your concerns.

 

Comment #6: Conclusions: The suggested future research should be more developed.

 

Response: We have now expanded our discussion on future research and possible policy directions in the conclusion part of our paper, and we hope this addresses your concerns.