Driving Innovation Through Customer Relationship Management—A Data-Driven Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The language of the paper needs to be simplified and some sentences are too long.
2. There are some inconsistent terms in this paper, such as the mixed use of "DDCRM" and "data-driven CRM".
3. The description of the research background is too much, so it is necessary to strengthen the analysis of the shortcomings of previous studies, and explain the innovation and necessity of this research more clearly.
4. The 14th paper is old and not convincing, and it is recommended to replace the latest research results.
5. The results of reliability and validity test were not specified in the questionnaire design, which needs to be supplemented to prove the reliability of the data.
6. Additional prerequisite verification conditions for Chi-square test.
7. The suggestions are more macroscopic, and more targeted and operable suggestions can be further put forward according to the specific problems in the research conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language needs to be further simplified, some sentences are too long, and the language needs to be modified to make it more concise.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Greetings. Please see attachment, our Reply to Reviewer 1. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the article and I have a few suggestions for the authors:
1. What is the novelty of the study? 
2. What is the size of the population from which the sample of 413 respondents was drawn? Is this sample representative? On the basis of which formula was its representativeness determined? 
3. The methodology does not clearly describe how statistical algorithms are used to test each hypothesis and answer each research question. I suggest the authors to further develop the presentation part of the research methodology. 
4. The article is very difficult to read. Practically each research question and hypothesis is treated as a separate research, separate application. I suggest the authors to give up this situation and to combine all the research as a whole. I do not consider it necessary to have a separate section or subsection with the name of the hypothesis.
5. Lines 826-829 are very general. I suggest to present more clearly, with examples, how what the authors state can be realized. 
6. I suggest the authors to enrich the list of references with articles related to their research from the main stream of international journals, from the last 5 years because the topic is an actual one.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Greetings. Please see attachment, our Reply to Reviewer 2. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an interesting study; however, it requires significant improvements before it can be considered for publication. Below are the major concerns that must be addressed:

1. Introduction Revision: The introduction needs to be rewritten with recent references including five paragraphs. A suggested structure includes:

   • Overview of the topic
   • Significance and importance of the study
   • Research questions and objectives
   • Novelty and contribution to the literature
   • Structure of the paper

2. Mixed Methodology Clarification: The authors mention applying a mixed-methods approach in the introduction but fail to elaborate on how it was implemented. The introduction section should clearly state how both qualitative and quantitative methods were integrated even in a sentence.

3. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development: These two sections should be combined into one, structured as follows:

   • Theoretical Background – Discuss the main theories relevant to the study.
   • Previous Studies and Hypothesis Development – Critically review past literature and justify the hypotheses with references.

4. Lack of In-Text Referencing for Theories: The authors discuss four theories but do not cite any sources. This is not acceptable. Each theory must begin with seminal papers and conclude with recent references to demonstrate its continued relevance.

5. Conceptual Framework Weakness: The conceptual framework lacks in-text references, making it appear weak. The authors must cite previous studies that have used similar proxies to strengthen their model. Additionally, Figure 1 is provided without a clear reference—authors must clarify whether it is their original work or adapted from existing research.

6. Issues with Table 1: The results in Table 1 are inaccurate as the total of a factor does not sum to 100%. The authors should recheck their calculations and ensure the results are consistent and reliable.

7. Restructuring the Analysis and Interpretation Section: The current structure is based on research questions, which is not ideal. The section should be organized around dimensions or factors rather than individual questions to provide a more coherent and meaningful analysis.

8. Lack of Conclusion: The paper does not include a conclusion. The authors should summarize key findings, discuss their implications, and provide directions for future research.

9. Need for Recent References: Throughout the paper, there is a lack of recent references to support claims, arguments, and discussions. The authors must ensure that all sections include up-to-date literature to strengthen their analysis and findings.

In conclusion, while the paper has potential, significant revisions are required to improve its clarity, structure, and scholarly rigor. I recommend Major Revisions before reconsideration for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Greetings. Please see attachment, our Reply to Reviewer 3. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted in the present form. 

Author Response

Please see our reply as uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly addressed all the comments and suggestions provided in the previous review round, and I commend them for their efforts in enhancing the overall quality of the manuscript. The revised version demonstrates substantial improvements in clarity, structure, and academic rigor, and the study now offers a more comprehensive and detailed analysis of the research topic. The authors have effectively refined the theoretical grounding, expanded on the methodology, and strengthened the discussion and interpretation of the results. The manuscript now presents a well-organized and insightful exploration of the research questions, and the depth of analysis reflects a commendable level of effort and scholarly engagement.

However, one notable point that remains is the writing style and presentation of the analysis, which still reads more like a technical report rather than an academic essay. The narrative often leans toward descriptive reporting of the findings instead of offering critical, cohesive, and interpretive analysis in line with academic writing standards. To further improve the manuscript, I recommend that the authors revise the tone and style of the results and discussion sections to reflect a more essay-like, analytical format. This would involve creating findings more fluidly, making explicit links to theory, and avoiding overly segmented or list-like descriptions.

Author Response

Please see our reply as uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc