Do Social Media Platforms Control the Sustainable Purchase Intentions of Younger People?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. To improve the quality of the manuscript, require professional improvement of the manuscript format, such as (Table 1: Summary of previous related literature), because it takes up space, and the presentation of the body text, and also the references.
2. The study looks fine, just needs (The English could be improved to more clearly express the research). For example, in the Abstract and other parts 

3. Research Methodology  

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection (didn't provide enough explanation, which made it unclear and lacked references)

3.2. Data Collection and Procedure (didn't provide enough explanation, which made it unclear, made up with the results, and lacked references)

In this part 3.5. Assessing R2, Q2, and f2  ( supposed to write in the results of the study report).

2025/5/1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The meet the standards of the publication, the manuscript improvements 

Below for the Authors to improve their manuscript.

1. To improve the quality of the manuscript, require professional improvement of the manuscript format, such as (Table 1: Summary of previous related literature), because it takes up space, and the presentation of the body text, and also the references.
2. The study looks fine, just needs (The English could be improved to more clearly express the research). For example, in the Abstract and other parts 

3. Research Methodology  

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection (didn't provide enough explanation, which made it unclear and lacked references)

3.2. Data Collection and Procedure (didn't provide enough explanation, which made it unclear, made up with the results, and lacked references)

In this part 3.5. Assessing R2, Q2, and f2  ( supposed to write in the results of the study report).

2025/5/1

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

1- To improve the quality of the manuscript, require professional improvement of the manuscript format, such as (Table 1: Summary of previous related literature), because it takes up space, and the presentation of the body text, and also the references.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully reviewed and made adjustments. The table could be seen in the Appendix 1.

2- The study looks fine, just needs (The English could be improved to more clearly express the research). For example, in the Abstract and other parts

Response:

Thank for drawing our attention to this issue. We have revised the manuscript and improved the English.

3- Sampling and Data Collection (didn't provide enough explanation, which made it unclear and lacked references)

Response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. All necessary adjustments have been made in the manuscript under the "sampling and data collection" section. For instance, we have added ‘The sample size for this study was determined using the rule-of-thumb method to ensure adequate representation of the target population for accurate analysis. Established research guidelines recommend multiplying the number of survey items by 5 or 10, which is generally deemed sufficient for rigorous statistical analysis. The survey consisted of 15 items, resulting in a total of 450 responses, which exceeds the necessary number. This sample size was chosen to enhance the reliability and validity of the findings, allowing for significant insights while minimizing potential biases associated with smaller samples.’ Please refer to page 6 lines 248-271 and page 7 276-282.

4- Data Collection and Procedure (didn't provide enough explanation, which made it unclear, made up with the results, and lacked references)

Response:

Thank you for your insightful comment. We have revised and added the relevant information as recommended by the reviewer. For instance, ‘the authors developed structured questionnaires and sought the evaluation of their validity from three experts. The authors revised particular questions in light of their feedback. They then conducted a pilot study involving thirty participants, utilising the collected data to evaluate reliability and validity measures. The results indicated robust validity and reliability metrics, which indicates that the research tool is highly reliable and stable, making it suitable for the study (i.e., Cronbach's alpha > 0.70; AVE > 0.50). Data were obtained from respondents possessing experience with social media platforms via an online questionnaire. The survey was up-loaded to Microsoft Forms, and a shareable link was generated. This link was disseminated via social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook, facilitating effective data collection and broad accessibility’. Please refer to page 7, lines 285-313

5- in this part 3.5. Assessing R2, Q2, and f2 (supposed to write in the results of the study report).

Response:

We appreciate your suggestion and we have adjusted and added the R2, Q2, and f2 reports.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses a timely and relevant topic concerning the influence of social media on sustainable purchase intentions among younger people. The findings contribute to the understanding of consumer behavior in the digital age, particularly within the context of sustainability. However, to further enhance the clarity and impact of the manuscript, I believe some revisions are needed.

Major comments

1. The specific survey items used to measure each construct (Sustainable Purchase Intention, Social Media Marketing, Behavioural Engagement, and Content Quality) are not provided in the manuscript. While the sources for these items are referenced, including the full list of items, perhaps in an appendix or a dedicated table, would significantly enhance the transparency and replicability of the study. This would allow readers to fully evaluate the operationalization of the variables.
2. The study's empirical analysis relies solely on PLS-SEM. While this method is suitable for the stated objectives, the absence of robustness checks could raise questions about the stability of the findings. Conducting additional analyses, such as testing the model using alternative estimation strategies (if appropriate) or examining the sensitivity of the results to potential outliers, could enhance confidence in the conclusions. If such checks were not performed, this should be acknowledged as a limitation, perhaps with a brief explanation of the constraints.
3. Regarding the assessment of R² values, the authors state that the reported values (0.159 for BE, 0.068 for CQ, and 0.403 for SPI) are 'satisfactory'. While the R² for SPI (0.403) indicates a moderate to substantial effect, the R² values for BE (0.159) and particularly for CQ (0.068) are relatively low, suggesting that Social Media Marketing explains only a small proportion of the variance in Behavioural Engagement and a very limited amount of variance in Content Quality. Providing context for the interpretation of R² values in social science (e.g., weak, moderate, substantial) would be helpful, and acknowledging the implications of the lower R² values for BE and CQ in the discussion might be warranted.
4. Similarly, the interpretation of the f² effect sizes requires clarification. The paper states that f² 'demonstrates a substantial impact' and reports a range of values from 0.014 to 0.189. However, most of the reported values fall into the small to medium range, not consistently indicating a “substantial” impact. The interpretation should be aligned with these benchmarks, and the impact size should be discussed for each relevant path.
5. Furthermore, a more comprehensive interpretation of the R², Q², and f² values collectively, explaining what they indicate about the model's explanatory power and predictive relevance in the context of sustainable purchase intentions, would be beneficial.
6. In the 'Discussion and Conclusion' section (Section 5), particularly from lines 412 to 440, there is a tendency to repeat the detailed statistical results (beta values, t-statistics, and p-values) that are already presented in the Results section (Section 4.2.1 and Table 7). The primary function of the Discussion section is to interpret these results in relation to the research questions, hypotheses, theoretical framework, and existing literature, rather than to re-present the numerical findings. It is recommended to minimize the repetition of specific statistical values in the discussion, referring readers to the results section instead, and focus on a deeper interpretation and synthesis of what the findings mean.
7. The limitations section acknowledges biases associated with self-reported data, such as social desirability bias. However, given that all variables were measured using a single questionnaire administered to the same respondents at one point in time, the potential for Common Method Bias (CMB) is a significant methodological concern. CMB can artificially influence the relationships between constructs. It is recommended that the authors explicitly discuss the potential for CMB as a limitation.

 

Minor comments

1. Table 1, which provides a summary of previous related literature, is quite extensive and is currently placed within the Introduction section. While valuable, its size disrupts the flow of the introductory narrative. It is recommended that this table be moved to an appendix.
2. On line 384, there appears to be a typo: 'aa' should be corrected to 'as'

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

1. The specific survey items used to measure each construct (Sustainable Purchase Intention, Social Media Marketing, Behavioral Engagement, and Content Quality) are not provided in the manuscript. While the sources for these items are referenced, including the full list of items, perhaps in an appendix or a dedicated table, would significantly enhance the transparency and replicability of the study. This would allow readers to fully evaluate the operationalization of the variables.

Response:

We are grateful for your suggestion. We have added the survey items in the appendix section.

 

2. The study's empirical analysis relies solely on PLS-SEM. While this method is suitable for the stated objectives, the absence of robustness checks could raise questions about the stability of the findings. Conducting additional analyses, such as testing the model using alternative estimation strategies (if appropriate) or examining the sensitivity of the results to potential outliers, could enhance confidence in the conclusions. If such checks were not performed, this should be acknowledged as a limitation, perhaps with a brief explanation of the constraints.

Response:

Thank you for your insightful comment. We have acknowledged this limitation. For instance, we stated that ‘Although PLS-SEM is an effective tool for examining complex interactions, it possesses significant limitations that render it inadequate as a fully autonomous tool. A significant limitation is the absence of robustness checks, which could trigger concerns regarding the reliability and validity of the results. Furthermore, PLS-SEM exhibits considerable sensitivity to sample size, indicating that outcomes may fluctuate markedly based on the dataset employed. It also employs bootstrapping for significance testing, which may not consistently produce the most accurate estimates in comparison to conventional parametric methods. To strengthen the trustworthiness and broader application of the results, researchers might consider using other methods, like CB-SEM or different evaluations, to confirm their findings and improve analysis accuracy. This study is limited by potential cultural bias stemming from a single-region sample. The results may not be entirely applicable to various geographic locations because of cultural norms, economic conditions, and regional trends. Subsequent study may address this constraint by carrying out cross-regional comparisons or broadening the sample to encompass an extensive range of subjects.’ Please refer to page 17, lines 707-721.

3. Regarding the assessment of R² values, the authors state that the reported values (0.159 for BE, 0.068 for CQ, and 0.403 for SPI) are 'satisfactory'. While the R² for SPI (0.403) indicates a moderate to substantial effect, the R² values for BE (0.159) and particularly for CQ (0.068) are relatively low, suggesting that social media Marketing explains only a small proportion of the variance in Behavioural Engagement and a very limited amount of variance in Content Quality. Providing context for the interpretation of R² values in social science (e.g., weak, moderate, substantial) would be helpful, and acknowledging the implications of the lower R² values for BE and CQ in the discussion might be warranted.

Response:

We appreciate your kind suggestion. We have provided the relevant information. For instance, ‘While there is no universally accepted criterion, existing standards suggest the following classifications: Weak relationship: R² < 0.19; Moderate relationship: R² between 0.20 and 0.49; Substantial relationship: R² ≥ 0.50. According to the results, the R² value of 0.159 for BE indicates a weak association, implying that while social media marketing has some influence, other factors significantly impact engagement. In a similar vein, the R² value of 0.068 for CQ is extremely weak, indicating that social media marketing has minimal explanatory power regarding improvements in content quality.’ Please refer to page 9, lines 364-383.

4. Similarly, the interpretation of the f² effect sizes requires clarification. The paper states that f² 'demonstrates a substantial impact' and reports a range of values from 0.014 to 0.189. However, most of the reported values fall into the small to medium range, not consistently indicating a “substantial” impact. The interpretation should be aligned with these benchmarks, and the impact size should be discussed for each relevant path.

Response:

We appreciate your suggestion. We have revised and added the relevant interpretation. For instance, ‘The f2 demonstrates a substantial impact of the exogenous variable on the endogenous variable (83). In PLS-SEM, f² values are used to assess the effect size of exogenous factors on endogenous factors. The standard thresholds for interpreting f² values found in the literature are as follows: Small effect: 0.02–0.14, moderate effect: 0.15–0.34, and high effect: ≥ 0.35. The relationships BE → SPI (0.160) and SMM → SPI (0.158) show moderate effect sizes, indicating that behavioural engagement and social media marketing significantly influence sustainable purchase intention. The relationship SMM → BE (0.189) also indicates a moderate effect, underscoring the impact of SMM on BE. In contrast, SMM → CQ (0.073) falls within the small effect range, suggesting a minimal influence of social media marketing on content quality. Furthermore, CQ → SPI (0.014) demonstrates a minimal effect of content quality on sustainable purchase intention.’ Please refer to page 9, lines 388-396.

 

5. Furthermore, a more comprehensive interpretation of the R², Q², and f² values collectively, explaining what they indicate about the model's explanatory power and predictive relevance in the context of sustainable purchase intentions, would be beneficial.

Response:

Thank you for your comments: we have explained what the results indicate about the explanatory power. For instance, ‘Furthermore, CQ → SPI (0.014) demonstrates a minimal effect of content quality on sustainable purchase intention. These findings imply that while social media marketing and behavioural engagement notably affect customer purchasing decisions, their influence on content quality remains minimal, indicating a need for further exploration of additional influencing factors.’ Please refer to page 9, lines 396-401.

 

6. In the 'Discussion and Conclusion' section (Section 5), particularly from lines 412 to 440, there is a tendency to repeat the detailed statistical results (beta values, t-statistics, and p-values) that are already presented in the Results section (Section 4.2.1 and Table 7). The primary function of the Discussion section is to interpret these results in relation to the research questions, hypotheses, theoretical framework, and existing literature, rather than to re-present the numerical findings. It is recommended to minimize the repetition of specific statistical values in the discussion, referring readers to the results section instead, and focus on a deeper interpretation and synthesis of what the findings mean.

Response:

Thank you for your comments and contribution. We are grateful for your suggestion, as we overlooked adding this part. However, we have revised this section as follows:

We found a weak significant relationship between CQ and SPI. A possible reason CQ has less impact is that purchasing decisions are often influenced more by emotions and interpersonal interactions, such as social connections and personal interests, rather than solely by the factual quality of information. Even high-quality content may lack persuasive power if it does not actively engage consumers, making behavioral engagement a key factor in determining purchase intention (94). This finding is consistent with (60), which established a significant relationship between CQ and SPI. The study further emphasizes that high-quality content effectively communicates the benefits, values, and impacts of sustainable practices, building trust and enhancing brand credibility. It encourages consumers to align their purchasing behaviours with eco-conscious values, highlighting the importance of effective content strategies. The results highlight the importance of interaction-driven marketing strategies, emphasizing that while content quality plays a vital role, its effectiveness is limited unless it is combined with strong engagement dynamics to enhance customer purchasing behavior.

7. The limitations section acknowledges biases associated with self-reported data, such as social desirability bias. However, given that all variables were measured using a single questionnaire administered to the same respondents at one point in time, the potential for Common Method Bias (CMB) is a significant methodological concern. CMB can artificially influence the relationships between constructs. It is recommended that the authors explicitly discuss the potential for CMB as a limitation.

Response:

Thank you so much for this insightful comment. We have addressed this concern by acknowledging the stated limitation. ‘A notable constraint of this study is the possibility of common method bias (CMB), as all variables were assessed by a single questionnaire at a single time point. CMB arises when systematic measurement errors erroneously enhance or distort the relationships within constructs, leading to biased results. This bias may arise from variables such as social desirability, consistency themes, or common rater effects, wherein respondents unintentionally conform their answers to prior responses instead of offering independent assessments. Thus, the identified connections may exaggerate or distort the true as-sociations between variables. To mitigate this constraint, forthcoming research may employ diverse data sources, implement temporal separation of measurements, or leverage statistical methodologies such as Harman’s single-factor test or marker variables to evaluate and manage CMB.’ Please refer to page 16, lines 669-679.

Minor comments

1. Table 1, which provides a summary of previous related literature, is quite extensive and is currently placed within the Introduction section. While valuable, its size disrupts the flow of the introductory narrative. It is recommended that this table be moved to an appendix.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. We have taken Table 1 to the appendix as recommended.

2. On line 384, there appears to be a typo: 'aa' should be corrected to 'as'

Response:

We appreciate your kind comment. We have made the typo correction accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a relevant and timely investigation into the influence of social media marketing (SMM) on sustainable purchase intentions among youth, using TPB and UGT as theoretical foundations. While the introduction (pp. 2–3) outlines the research context well, the articulation of the research gap could be clearer and more concise, with a sharper focus on what this study uniquely contributes. The literature review in Table 1 (pp. 4–5) is extensive, but grouping studies by variables or theory and clarifying abbreviations would improve clarity. In Section 2.1 (p. 6), the explanation of TPB constructs is solid, but adding specific examples from the study context would enhance relevance. Figure 1 (p. 8) effectively depicts the conceptual model, but the control variable (social media platforms) should also be integrated visually to reflect its role in the analysis.

The description of survey items (pp. 9–10) would benefit from the inclusion of sample items or a summary table to aid transparency. Discriminant validity results (p. 12) are clearly presented, but a brief interpretation of their implications would help reinforce construct distinctiveness. While the hypothesis testing in Table 7 (p. 13) is statistically robust, the discussion of results would be stronger with more reflection on practical significance—particularly the relatively weaker effect of content quality compared to behavioral engagement. The discussion (pp. 14–15) is coherent, though the insignificant moderating role of social media platforms warrants deeper analysis. In the practical implications (p. 16), distinguishing strategies for different industries could add value. Lastly, while the limitations section (p. 17) is thorough, acknowledging potential cultural bias due to the single-region sample would enhance the study’s generalizability and transparency.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable; however, the quality of English could be improved to enhance clarity, precision, and academic tone. Some sentences are grammatically correct but awkward or redundant, which may hinder reader comprehension. For example:

• On page 2, the sentence:
  “Social media platforms have established innovative means of contact, communication, and engagement, while also impacting sustainable consumption behaviour.”
  could be revised for clarity as:
  “Social media platforms offer innovative ways to communicate and engage, significantly influencing sustainable consumption behavior.”

• On page 6, the phrase:
  “individual’s perception of their capability to engage with social media marketing content and complete a purchase”
  is repetitive. A clearer version could be:
  “individual’s perceived ability to interact with social media marketing content and make a purchase.”

• On page 14, the sentence:
  “The findings in-dicate that behavioural engagement significantly influences purchase intention.”
  has a typo ("in-dicate") and can be better phrased as:
  “The findings indicate that behavioral engagement has a significant impact on purchase intention.”

We recommend a thorough language edit by a native English speaker or professional proofreading service to improve fluency, remove redundancy, and ensure academic style throughout.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The manuscript presents a relevant and timely investigation into the influence of social media marketing (SMM) on sustainable purchase intentions among youth, using TPB and UGT as theoretical foundations.

1- While the introduction (pp. 2–3) outlines the research context well, the articulation of the research gap could be clearer and more concise, with a sharper focus on what this study uniquely contributes.

Response:

We appreciate your comments. We have clearly articulated the research gap in the introduction section. Please refer to page 3, lines 95-108.

2- The literature review in Table 1 (pp. 4–5) is extensive, but grouping studies by variables or theory and clarifying abbreviations would improve clarity.

Response:

Thank for your comments. We have taken the Table 1 to the appendix section.

3- In Section 2.1 (p. 6), the explanation of TPB constructs is solid, but adding specific examples from the study context would enhance relevance.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We have revised section 2.1 as recommended.

4- Figure 1 (p. 8) effectively depicts the conceptual model, but the control variable (social media platforms) should also be integrated visually to reflect its role in the analysis.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We have redrawn Figure 1 to indicate the controlling role of social media platforms.

5- The description of survey items (pp. 9–10) would benefit from the inclusion of sample items or a summary table to aid transparency.

Response:

We appreciate your comment. The description of survey items have been provided.

6- Discriminant validity results (p. 12) are clearly presented, but a brief interpretation of their implications would help reinforce construct distinctiveness.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We have briefly provided the interpretation and implications of the discriminant validity results. Please refer to pages 10-11, lines 421-440.

7- While the hypothesis testing in Table 7 (p. 13) is statistically robust, the discussion of results would be stronger with more reflection on practical significance—particularly the relatively weaker effect of content quality compared to behavioural engagement.

Response:

Thank you for these insightful comments. We have provided the practical significance with specific focus on the weaker effect of content quality compared to behavioural engagement. Please refer to page 13, lines 526-531.

8. The discussion (pp. 14–15) is coherent, though the insignificant moderating role of social media platforms warrants deeper analysis. In the practical implications (p. 16), distinguishing strategies for different industries could add value.

Response:

Thank you for your comment. The strategies for different industries have been provided in the practical implication section.

9- Lastly, while the limitations section (p. 17) is thorough, acknowledging potential cultural bias due to the single-region sample would enhance the study’s generalizability and transparency.

Response:

Thak you for your comments. The potential cultural bias due to the single-region sample has been acknowledged in the limitation section. Please refer to page 15, lines 622-637 and page 17, lines 714-721.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable; however, the quality of English could be improved to enhance clarity, precision, and academic tone. Some sentences are grammatically correct but awkward or redundant, which may hinder reader comprehension. For example:

• On page 2, the sentence:

“Social media platforms have established innovative means of contact, communication, and engagement, while also impacting sustainable consumption behaviour.”

could be revised for clarity as:

“Social media platforms offer innovative ways to communicate and engage, significantly influencing sustainable consumption behavior.”

• On page 6, the phrase:

“individual’s perception of their capability to engage with social media marketing content and complete a purchase”

is repetitive. A clearer version could be:

“individual’s perceived ability to interact with social media marketing content and make a purchase.”

On page 14, the sentence:

“The findings in-dicate that behavioural engagement significantly influences purchase intention.”

has a typo ("in-dicate") and can be better phrased as:

“The findings indicate that behavioural engagement has a significant impact on purchase intention.”

Due to the lines, spaces, and the journal format, some words are separated not because of typographical errors but automatically following the sentence structure dictated by the lines and spaces format.

Response:

All the suggested recommendations have been taken into consideration in the manuscript highlighted in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Methodology

3.3. Ethics

Ethical considerations were integral to the study. Explicit and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement. They were informed about the study’s aims, methodology, and potential effects, allowing them to make an informed decision about participation. Data collected was kept confidential, ensuring individual responses could not be 348 traced back to participants. They were also made aware that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without negative consequences. This approach respected their rights and aligned with ethical principles.

This part Pg 8, LR343-350 could write in page 6, 3.1. Sampling and Data Collection

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection and 3.2. Data Collection and Procedure – make the reader confused.

I suggesting you to write clearer regarding, data collection and procedure otherwise 3.1. Sampling and Data Collection and 3.2. Data Collection and Procedure and your explanation mess-up.

In data collection – how you collect your data including, how many questionnaires you distribute and how many return, if the return less then than the distribution of the data return you need to explaining the problem. In procedures what mean you use to collect your data.

3.4. Data Analysis – this part also confused, your method and the results of study – mess-up

I suggest to you read more paper, what you need to write in the method and in the results of the study, otherwise will mess up and confusing the reader.

Note: when see the results of study in the all of table is alright but you didn’t write according the standards of publication procedure. It’s meant the presentation of your manuscript still mess-up, that made confusion

Such as : Table 2 Demographic information – suppose to after data collection and data analysis approach,

The format also still mess-up – need professional format of your manuscript

2025/5/22

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The presentation manuscript need professional format and report of results study still mees-up in the method, should be in order.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3624489

Title: Do Social Media Platforms Control the Sustainable Purchase Intentions of Younger People?

Dear Editor

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript “Do Social Media Platforms Control the Sustainable Purchase Intentions of Younger People?” for publication in Sustainability Journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please also refer to the following text, for a point-by-point clarification provided for the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

* All added/rewritten sentences have been highlighted in blue to indicate changes made based on reviewer’s feedback.

Reviewer 1:

This part Pg 8, LR343-350 could write in page 6, 3.1. Sampling and Data Collection

Response:

Thank for drawing our attention to this crucial issue. We have written LR343-350 in 3.1 under sampling.

Reviewer 1:

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection and 3.2. Data Collection and Procedure – make the reader confused.

I suggesting you to write clearer regarding, data collection and procedure otherwise 3.1. Sampling and Data Collection and 3.2. Data Collection and Procedure and your explanation mess-up.

In data collection – how you collect your data including, how many questionnaires you distribute and how many return, if the return less then than the distribution of the data return you need to explaining the problem. In procedures what mean you use to collect your data.

Response:

Thank you for these insightful comments. We have clarified the 3.2 Data collection and procedure.

Reviewer 1:

 

3.4. Data Analysis – this part also confused, your method and the results of study – mess-up

I suggest to you read more paper, what you need to write in the method and in the results of the study, otherwise will mess up and confusing the reader.

Note: when see the results of study in the all of table is alright but you didn’t write according the standards of publication procedure. It’s meant the presentation of your manuscript still mess-up, that made confusion.

Such as : Table 2 Demographic information – suppose to after data collection and data analysis approach.

Response:

Thank you for bringing this critical issue to our attention. After reviewing published papers and adhering to the sustainability format, we have carefully revised the manuscript.

Reviewer 1:

The format also still mess-up – need professional format of your manuscript

Response:

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We have revised and enhanced the format.

All the suggested recommendations have been taken into consideration in the manuscript highlighted in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for thoroughly addressing my comments. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, effort, and contributions to our study.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have comments and suggested but didn't any change 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. To improve the quality of the manuscript, require professional improvement of the manuscript format, such as (Table 1: Summary of previous related literature), because it takes up space, and the presentation of the body text, and also the references.
2. The study looks fine, just needs (The English could be improved to more clearly express the research). For example, in the Abstract and other parts 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We extend our sincere gratitude for permitting us to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript. We genuinely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to offering feedback on our manuscript, and we are thankful for the insightful comments and valuable enhancements to our paper. We have integrated all suggested revisions with the changes highlighted within the manuscript. Please refer to the following text for a detailed clarification addressing your insightful comments and concerns.

Reviewer 1:

To improve the quality of the manuscript, require professional improvement of the manuscript format, such as (Table 1: Summary of previous related literature), because it takes up space, and the presentation of the body text, and also the references.

Response:

Thank you for drawing our attention to this crucial issue. We have summarised Table 1 and shortened it to save space. Kindly refer to section 2.6, lines 109-142.

Reviewer 1:

The study looks fine, just needs (The English could be improved to more clearly express the research). For example, in the Abstract and other parts

Response:

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. Based on your suggestion we have enhanced the quality of the English in the manuscript, particularly in the abstract.

Reviewer 1:

Section 3.4 is currently in the Methods section, even though it should normally be in the Results section.

Response:

We sincerely appreciate your insightful suggestion and thank you for bringing this significant issue to our attention. We have transitioned and integrated Section 3.4 into Section 4.3.1, subsequently relocating it to the analysis section, which is located on page 7, lines 437-478.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx