Examining the Sustainable Impact of the Relationship Among the Variables Influencing Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake on Sugar Tax

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"(P)rimary data collected from participants of Gauteng Province of South Africa" (lines 150-151). The participants need to be better described (demographics) along with how they were selected, approached & given the questions/questionnaire (logistics). Where did the questions and questionnaire come from? Did the beta study lead to the questionnaire used in the second phase? How was CFA performed on non-quantitative data? How was the qualitative data transformed into the quantitative data. So much is left out of the process description in the methodology before heading straight to data analysis. Needs a great deal of work to help us believe in the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editing needs to be done to correct spelling, word choice errors, grammar, etc. For example, lines 28-30, "significant reduction of intake, contributes in creating negative" is part of a very awkwardly worded sentence; line 38, "Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is among the most traded commodities globally", "is" should be "are"; line 108 "There is evident that disposable income of individuals", "evident" should be "evidence". There are errors such as these throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

The reviewers’ comments and the author’s corrections

Open Review 1

(x) I would not like to sign my review report

( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

( ) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Is the article adequately referenced?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"(P)rimary data collected from participants of Gauteng Province of South Africa" (lines 150-151). The participants need to be better described (demographics) along with how they were selected, approached & given the questions/questionnaire (logistics). Where did the questions and questionnaire come from? Did the beta study lead to the questionnaire used in the second phase? How was CFA performed on non-quantitative data? How was the qualitative data transformed into the quantitative data. So much is left out of the process description in the methodology before heading straight to data analysis. Needs a great deal of work to help us believe in the results.

 

 

 

This study adopted the mixed research methods. The formulation of both the structural interview questions and the questionnaire were adopted from [68,69,70,71]. Furthermore, the specific selection and formulation of the questionnaire was guided and informed by the gaps found in  the qualitative data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The structural interview of the participants was conducted on six grocery shop owners or managers, six households/families, and thirteen individuals at the residential areas of Gauteng province, meanwhile, the questionnaire were administered to a minimum of 418 individuals at shopping centres at Gauteng province.

In the event of introducing a sugar tax policy in South Africa, the Policymaker(s) neglected the critical role of the factors that influence the intake of SSB and the role of other stakeholders in the build-up an effective sugar tax. To date, revenue generated from the sales and consumption of SSBs is on the increase (SARS, 2019). It should be noted however that a tax on sweetened beverages and mineral water was previously introduced in South Africa in 1994 and scrapped from legislation in 2002. The tax was abandoned in 2002 after lobbying efforts by the concerned industry.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editing needs to be done to correct spelling, word choice errors, grammar, etc. For example, lines 28-30, "significant reduction of intake, contributes in creating negative" is part of a very awkwardly worded sentence; line 38, "Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) is among the most traded commodities globally", "is" should be "are"; line 108 "There is evident that disposable income of individuals", "evident" should be "evidence". There are errors such as these throughout the manuscript.

Author

The spelling errors habe been corrected as recommended by the reviewers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper does not follow a rigorous social‐science research methodology; much of its content appears unfounded.

In the Research Methods section, the author’s discussion is extremely brief, leaving no way to know the detailed procedures: how participants were selected, what survey instruments were used, how subjective factors or common‐method bias were controlled, or how the validity of the analyses was ensured.

The Data Analysis section is equally puzzling. Beginning at line 161, the author claims to have got many codes, but provides no specifics, and Figure 1 does not reflect any such content. How were the interview results used to generate Figure 1? How were the relationships in Figure 1 established? All the information seems fragmented and unsupported—apparently the author’s personal preferences randomly arranged.

The Statistical Analysis section is also odd. The author asserts that an exploratory factor analysis was conducted, yet there are obvious cross‐loadings among items in Figure 2, and no new factors were successfully extracted.

Figure 2 conveys no valuable information; it appears the author merely took a screenshot of the analysis setup without actually performing any calculations.

The basis for the results shown in Figure 4 is unclear, as the author omits several mandatory steps for confirmatory factor analysis and reports none of the necessary statistical parameters. Under these conditions, the author seems to have gone straight to computing path coefficients between items, which is obviously unsound.

 

Author Response

 

Open Review 2

(x) I would not like to sign my review report

( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Is the article adequately referenced?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper does not follow a rigorous social‐science research methodology; much of its content appears unfounded.

 

In the Research Methods section, the author’s discussion is extremely brief, leaving no way to know the detailed procedures: how participants were selected, what survey instruments were used, how subjective factors or common‐method bias were controlled, or how the validity of the analyses was ensured.

Author

Revision of the methodology section corrected as recommended by reviwer 1 (see above on page 1 of this report).

 

The Data Analysis section is equally puzzling. Beginning at line 161, the author claims to have got many codes, but provides no specifics, and Figure 1 does not reflect any such content. How were the interview results used to generate Figure 1? How were the relationships in Figure 1 established? All the information seems fragmented and unsupported—apparently the author’s personal preferences randomly arranged.

Author

The six themes and sub-themes are presented in figure 1.Theme one was developed to assesse consumers’ knowledge on the causes of the changes in prices of SSB, the impact of prices on consumption, and the consumer behavioural change due to the introduction of sugar tax. Theme two examined the effects of the sweete taste on consumption and the impact of the reformulation initiative on consumer behaviour partern relating to SSB intake. Theme three examined the influence of advertisement on participants’ intake of the SSB, and their opinion of the impact of sugar tax on production and sales of the SSB, and employment within the sweetened beverage industry. Theme four analysed consumers’ perception and awareness of the sugar tax, meanwhile theme five examined the influnce of consumer’s age, social and household background on the intake of SSB. Finally, theme six, evaluated the effectiveness of the current sugar tax, by examining the sugar strategy, the reformulation initiative on intake, and the use of education of the public on the adverse effects of over consumption of the SSB.

 

The Statistical Analysis section is also odd. The author asserts that an exploratory factor analysis was conducted, yet there are obvious cross‐loadings among items in Figure 2, and no new factors were successfully extracted.

 

Figure 2 conveys no valuable information; it appears the author merely took a screenshot of the analysis setup without actually performing any calculations.

Author

GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES; the model demonstrated satisfactory fit based on the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) value of 0.9982, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.9 [85,86], and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.048, which was below the threshold of 0.07, indicating a high level of fit for the model.

Table 4 Model Fit Summary for The Measurement Model

Fit Index	Recommended Value (Hair, 2006)	Model
χ 2	Non-significant at p <0.05	760.110
Degrees of freedom (df)	n/a	(465 - 81): = 384
χ 2 /df (Cmin/df)	< 2.0	1.979
Goodness-of-fit index (GFI)	>0.90	0.890
Adjusted Goodness-of-fit index (AGFI)	>0.80	0.867
Comparative fit index (CFI)	>0.90	0.9982
Root means square residuals (RMSR)	<0.10	0.130
Root means square error of approximation (RMSEA)	<0.07	0.048
Normed fit index (NFI)	>0.90	0.740
Parsimony normed fit index (PNFI)	>0.60	0.653

Source: Hair et al. (2006) and Anderson and Gerbing (1988)

The above model indicates that if a GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.80, NFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.90 and above, and RMSR = 0.10 and RMSEA = 0.07 and less, these are within the acceptable limits. The model values in this study are deemed satisfactory, even though with minor shortfalls.

The Chi-square test statistic is not significant at 0.05, which suggest that the model fitting is only just acceptable. The result indicated that five determiners are ratio of cmin-df, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The model fit indices are all within specifications. All parameter estimates were significant at the 0.01 level. The p-value of the Chi-square value is satisfactory.

Therefore, Cmin/df is 1.979 (spec. < 2.0), GFI = 0.890 (spec. > 0.95), NFI = 0.740 (spec. > 0.95), CFI = 0.849 (spec. > 0.95), and RMSEA = 0.048 (spec. < 0.080).  The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.03202 and since it is less than 0.05, it indicates a good fit. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) are larger than 0.9 which again reflects a good fit, although GFI and AGFI may not be as informative as the Chi-square test statistics and RMSEA. The model provided an acceptable fit for CFI (0.9982 > 0.9) and RMSEA (0.048 < 0.07).  Therefore, the model was retained due to its simplicity, alignment with the observed data, and theoretical coherence.

The basis for the results shown in Figure 4 is unclear, as the author omits several mandatory steps for confirmatory factor analysis and reports none of the necessary statistical parameters. Under these conditions, the author seems to have gone straight to computing path coefficients between items, which is obviously unsound.

Author

See table 4 above

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the relationship between the influencing factors of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and the sustainability of sugar tax policies in South Africa by integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence, providing in-depth insights for understanding the effective implementation of sugar tax policies. Some detailed issues need to be addressed before resubmitting it for review. Existing literature predominantly focuses on the burden of sugar-sweetened beverages on chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), as well as the effectiveness of sugar taxes in reducing consumption, their direct impacts, and their preventive role against related NCDs. In contrast, this study investigates the complex interplay between consumer behavior, socioeconomic contexts, and sugar tax policies, offering novel insights for policymakers to refine such fiscal measures. However, limitations persist, particularly regarding data confined to South Africa’s Gauteng Province and insufficient consideration of factors beyond taxation influencing sugary beverage consumption. Future research should broaden geographic scope and conduct in-depth analyses of multifactorial interactions to strengthen evidence-based policy design. My section-specific comments are listed below.

Abstract

- Line9: “Sugar-sweetened beverages (SBB)” should be changed to “Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB)”. It is recommended to maintain consistency throughout the full text.

- Line16, 17: “A mixed research method was” should be changed to “A mixed research methods were”

- Line29: “contributes in” should be changed to “contributes to”

- In the abstract, the summary of research methods, results, and conclusions is not clear and specific enough.

- It is recommended to revise and polish the structure and content of the abstract.

Introduction

- Line40: “accounts” should be changed to “account”

- Line66, 69: This description is too brief. Please supplement specific background information about sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) and sugar tax policies in South Africa.

- Please elaborate on the gaps in existing research and the research motivation to highlight the main innovations of this study.

Literature review

- Line86: “it has resulted to decrease intake” should be changed to “it has resulted in a decrease in intake”

- Line87: “The hurdle” should be changed to “The obstacle”

- Line88: Add the definite article “the” before “increasing prices of SSB”.

Study Methodology

- Line150: Please explain the reasons for obtaining data from Gauteng Province, South Africa.

- Please elaborate and supplement all relevant methodological details and quality control measures.

Conclusion

- Line416, 417: “indicates” should be changed to “indicate”

- The conclusions are not comprehensive and specific enough.

Limitations

- The summary of limitations is not comprehensive enough.

Author Response

Open Review 3

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

( ) (x) ( ) ( )

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Is the article adequately referenced?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the relationship between the influencing factors of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and the sustainability of sugar tax policies in South Africa by integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence, providing in-depth insights for understanding the effective implementation of sugar tax policies. Some detailed issues need to be addressed before resubmitting it for review.

Existing literature predominantly focuses on the burden of sugar-sweetened beverages on chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), as well as the effectiveness of sugar taxes in reducing consumption, their direct impacts, and their preventive role against related NCDs. In contrast, this study investigates the complex interplay between consumer behavior, socioeconomic contexts, and sugar tax policies, offering novel insights for policymakers to refine such fiscal measures. However, limitations persist, particularly regarding data confined to South Africa’s Gauteng Province and insufficient consideration of factors beyond taxation influencing sugary beverage consumption. Future research should broaden geographic scope and conduct in-depth analyses of multifactorial interactions to strengthen evidence-based policy design. My section-specific comments are listed below.

 

Abstract

- Line9: “Sugar-sweetened beverages (SBB)” should be changed to “Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB)”. It is recommended to maintain consistency throughout the full text.

Author

Error of SBB correct to SSB as recommended by the reviewer

- Line16, 17: “A mixed research method was” should be changed to “A mixed research methods were”

Author

Corrected to; A mixed research methods were…..

 

- Line29: “contributes in” should be changed to “contributes to”

Author

Corrected to; contributes to…..

- In the abstract, the summary of research methods, results, and conclusions is not clear and specific enough.

- It is recommended to revise and polish the structure and content of the abstract.

Author

The abstract has been revised as requested by the reviewer

Introduction

- Line40: “accounts” should be changed to “account”

Author

Changed to; account

- Line66, 69: This description is too brief. Please supplement specific background information about sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) and sugar tax policies in South Africa.

Author

 In the event of introducing a sugar tax policy in South Africa, the Policymaker(s) neglected the critical role of the factors that influence the intake of SSB and the role of other stakeholders in the build-up an effective sugar tax. To date, revenue generated from the sales and consumption of SSBs is on the increase [22]. It should be noted however that a tax on sweetened beverages and mineral water was previously introduced in South Africa in 1994 and scrapped from legislation in 2002. The tax was abandoned in 2002 after lobbying efforts by the concerned industry.

 

- Please elaborate on the gaps in existing research and the research motivation to highlight the main innovations of this study.

Author

In a quest to draft an inclusive and sustainable sugar tax policy, more studies are required to add to the limited body of knowledge regarding the consumption and the relationship among the factors that influence the intake of the SSB in South Africa. The use of fiscal policy alone has proven to be ineffective in reducing the intake and obesity; therefore, a need for a wider intervention initiative.

 

 

Literature review

 

- Line86: “it has resulted to decrease intake” should be changed to “it has resulted in a decrease in intake”

Author

Changed to; it has resulted in a decrease in intake…

- Line87: “The hurdle” should be changed to “The obstacle”

Author

Changed to; the obstacle

- Line88: Add the definite article “the” before “increasing prices of SSB”.

Author

Corrected as requested

Study Methodology

 

- Line150: Please explain the reasons for obtaining data from Gauteng Province, South Africa.

 Author

The Province was selected because of its inherently diverse nature, and it has the highest population of inhabitants. Approximately 11.18% of the household income is spent on food, beverages, and other consumables. The province is made of a mix of different races groups and cultural, social, and economic backgrounds, and various consumption habits or behaviours, which offers the prospect of a rich data collection site.

 

- Please elaborate and supplement all relevant methodological details and quality control measures.

See page 2 of the report. 

Conclusion

- Line416, 417: “indicates” should be changed to “indicate”

Author

Changed to indicate…..

- The conclusions are not comprehensive and specific enough.

Author 

More information was incorporated into the conclusion.

Limitations

- The summary of limitations is not comprehensive enough.

Author

Furthermore, data was collected from Gauteng province only. This may limit the generalizability and almost certainly result in fewer statistically significantly better results than would have been the case if data were collected from more provinces.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting  Manuscript: "Examining the Sustainable Impact of the Relationship among the Variables Influencing Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake on Sugar Tax"

This manuscript apart from being very interesting has several strong points, (I did not analyse the quality of the English):

Robust mixed-methods design: The study uses an exploratory sequential design, effectively combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to gain comprehensive insights into a complex behavioral and policy issue.

Contextual relevance with global implications: Although the study is situated in South Africa, the findings and policy reflections are relevant to other low- and middle-income countries considering the implementation of sugar taxes.

Up-to-date theoretical framework: The manuscript integrates recent literature on sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption, behavioral economics, and public health taxation, grounding the study in a current and relevant context.

Rich qualitative Depth: The semi-structured interviews provide valuable insights into consumer and stakeholder perceptions, capturing cultural and social nuances that quantitative data alone could miss.

As an improvement: they should check the editing of the references, I have the idea that a different format is used.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no coments

Author Response

Open Review 4

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

( ) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Is the article adequately referenced?

( ) (x) ( ) ( )

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting  Manuscript: "Examining the Sustainable Impact of the Relationship among the Variables Influencing Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake on Sugar Tax"

 

This manuscript apart from being very interesting has several strong points, (I did not analyse the quality of the English):

 

Robust mixed-methods design: The study uses an exploratory sequential design, effectively combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to gain comprehensive insights into a complex behavioral and policy issue.

 

Contextual relevance with global implications: Although the study is situated in South Africa, the findings and policy reflections are relevant to other low- and middle-income countries considering the implementation of sugar taxes.

 

Up-to-date theoretical framework: The manuscript integrates recent literature on sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption, behavioral economics, and public health taxation, grounding the study in a current and relevant context.

 

Rich qualitative Depth: The semi-structured interviews provide valuable insights into consumer and stakeholder perceptions, capturing cultural and social nuances that quantitative data alone could miss.

 

As an improvement: they should check the editing of the references, I have the idea that a different format is used.

Author

The intext citation and references sections are updated as recommended.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revisions

Author Response

Open Review 2

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

Methodology

The gender section of the participants was deliberately left out of the data collection at the request of the faculty ethics committee of the University. This request was based on the fact that accessing the consumption behaviour of individuals is sensitive, and participants may be reluctant to take part in the study if their gender were to be analysed.

Additional informattion has been included on the methodology section to explain the estimates of the number of participants involved in the quantitative data collection (page 6).

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

In conjuction with the study promoters and extenal examiners, the arguments and discusion of findings are coherent and balanced.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

As indicated by the study promoters and external examiners, the results are clearly presented.

Is the article adequately referenced?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

Some intext citation and references have been revised.

 

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

The conclusion has been revised

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript does not follow rigorous social science research methodology, and the statistical techniques employed do not comply with the standards of quantitative research. In the revised version, the author has not addressed any substantive issues—for example, there are clear cross-loadings, no tests for convergent or discriminant validity, no examination of common method bias, and the establishment of the structural equation model lacks solid statistical justification. Additionally, the writing is quite poor and does not conform to the style of rigorous academic writing. Overall, I believe this manuscript is of low quality. While I understand that, as a thesis, the author may lack experience and exhibit some immaturity in research ability, it still falls significantly short of the standards required for high-level publications.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript does not follow rigorous social science research methodology, and the statistical techniques employed do not comply with the standards of quantitative research. In the revised version, the author has not addressed any substantive issues—for example, there are clear cross-loadings, no tests for convergent or discriminant validity, no examination of common method bias, and the establishment of the structural equation model lacks solid statistical justification. Additionally, the writing is quite poor and does not conform to the style of rigorous academic writing. Overall, I believe this manuscript is of low quality. While I understand that, as a thesis, the author may lack experience and exhibit some immaturity in research ability, it still falls significantly short of the standards required for high-level publications.

Author Response

Open Review 2

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

Methodology

The gender section of the participants was deliberately left out of the data collection at the request of the faculty ethics committee of the University. This request was based on the fact that accessing the consumption behaviour of individuals is sensitive, and participants may be reluctant to take part in the study if their gender were to be analysed.

Additional informattion has been included on the methodology section to explain the estimates of the number of participants involved in the quantitative data collection (page 6).

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

In conjuction with the study promoters and extenal examiners, the arguments and discusion of findings are coherent and balanced.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

As indicated by the study promoters and external examiners, the results are clearly presented.

Is the article adequately referenced?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

Some intext citation and references have been revised.

 

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

The conclusion has been revised

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript does not follow rigorous social science research methodology, and the statistical techniques employed do not comply with the standards of quantitative research. In the revised version, the author has not addressed any substantive issues—for example, there are clear cross-loadings, no tests for convergent or discriminant validity, no examination of common method bias, and the establishment of the structural equation model lacks solid statistical justification. Additionally, the writing is quite poor and does not conform to the style of rigorous academic writing. Overall, I believe this manuscript is of low quality. While I understand that, as a thesis, the author may lack experience and exhibit some immaturity in research ability, it still falls significantly short of the standards required for high-level publications.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded carefully to my comments, and have revised the manuscript accordingly, now the article is ready to be accepted.

Author Response

Open Review 2

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

Methodology

The gender section of the participants was deliberately left out of the data collection at the request of the faculty ethics committee of the University. This request was based on the fact that accessing the consumption behaviour of individuals is sensitive, and participants may be reluctant to take part in the study if their gender were to be analysed.

Additional informattion has been included on the methodology section to explain the estimates of the number of participants involved in the quantitative data collection (page 6).

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

In conjuction with the study promoters and extenal examiners, the arguments and discusion of findings are coherent and balanced.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

As indicated by the study promoters and external examiners, the results are clearly presented.

Is the article adequately referenced?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

Some intext citation and references have been revised.

 

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

( ) ( ) (x) ( )

Author

The conclusion has been revised

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript does not follow rigorous social science research methodology, and the statistical techniques employed do not comply with the standards of quantitative research. In the revised version, the author has not addressed any substantive issues—for example, there are clear cross-loadings, no tests for convergent or discriminant validity, no examination of common method bias, and the establishment of the structural equation model lacks solid statistical justification. Additionally, the writing is quite poor and does not conform to the style of rigorous academic writing. Overall, I believe this manuscript is of low quality. While I understand that, as a thesis, the author may lack experience and exhibit some immaturity in research ability, it still falls significantly short of the standards required for high-level publications.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research methodology in this paper is not rigorous, and the statistical analysis deviates significantly from established academic standards. Moreover, the writing style does not align with that of scholarly journals. Overall, I still find it difficult to recommend this paper for publication.