The Impact of Political Marketing on Voting Behaviour of Cypriot Voters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has two major weaknesses.

The first weakness is the review of the state of the art. The authors are recommended to update the bibliographic discussion to the most recent contributions on political marketing and political communication.

On the other hand, it is considered that the conclusions are absolute for the applications of soft statistical techniques. The correlation analysis shows the association between two variables but not causality. For this reason, it is recommended to articulate multivariate analyzes such as logistic and linear regression models and introduce the factors as independent variables. It could be of interest to use participation through voting as dependent variables and observe the mediation of variables such as party identification.

Author Response

Please see attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Impact of political marketing on voting behavior of Cypriot voters

Abstract: I would suggest making the abstract more concise and specific to the research question, results, and implications. Most importantly, the results of the research should be presented here. As presented, the abstract is too vague and does not provide an adequate summation of the research.

Introduction: This section is likewise too vague. Here, the researchers should present the foundational context of the study, including the purpose, reasoning, and basis for inquiry. This should likewise include some indication and definitions provided by the extant literature. The following “Research Context” would make more sense if we knew prior what the purpose and focus of the study is. Also, what is the gap of inquiry being addressed? What is the contribution of the study to the existing literature and our current understanding of this topic?

Literature Review: The literature review is very comprehensive and provides a foundation for inquiry. However, this should be made more clear in the earlier parts of the manuscript (Introduction), including a specific context for the research question, as based within the existing literature (which the researchers have clearly explored).

Methodology: the methods section is thorough, descriptive, and supported.

The research results are interesting and comprehensive. Other than the extensive length, this section is very thorough in the presentation of results. One suggestion may be to make this section more concise, which may relate to the writing.

The research implications and future research sections integrate the findings with the literature and provide a substantive discussion of conclusions, limitations, and potential research.

There are issues here with the writing. Too many paragraphs begin with “In order to ..” and too much use of the phrase “it has been considered essential.” A lot of passive voice. “Might be necessary”, “try to clarify”, “aim to specify” – this needs to be corrected. As is, the writing detracts from main points of the study. I would suggest a thorough copy edit for more concise and appropriate writing, which would likewise help to make the manuscript overall more readable and accessible.

There are issues here with the writing. Too many paragraphs begin with “In order to ..” and too much use of the phrase “it has been considered essential.” A lot of passive voice. “Might be necessary”, “try to clarify”, “aim to specify” – this needs to be corrected. As is, the writing detracts from main points of the study. I would suggest a thorough copy edit for more concise and appropriate writing, which would likewise help to make the manuscript overall more readable and accessible.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is recommended to improve the image quality (resolution) of tables 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D.

Author Response

In response to your comment, Figures 1,2,3 and 4  (1A, 1B, 1C and 1D), have been replaced accordingly, with improved image quality (resolution).

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed many main concerns with the manuscript. I appreciate the authors' responses. The writing issues have certainly been improved, and the manuscript has been made more precise. I would still suggest further copy editing for more conciseness, however, as passive voice and redundancy of phrases (e.g., in order to, it has been considered) are still prevalent and detract from the content and scholarly contribution.

The authors have addressed many main concerns with the manuscript. I appreciate the authors' responses. The writing issues have certainly been improved, and the manuscript has been made more precise. I would still suggest further copy editing for more conciseness, however, as passive voice and redundancy of phrases (e.g., in order to, it has been considered) are still prevalent and detract from the content and scholarly contribution.

Author Response

In response to your comment, further copy editing took place, in an effrd to deal with te suggested points (passive voice and redundancy of phrases, e.g., in order to, it has been considered)

The manuscript has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal.