The Role of Push and Pull Motivations on Satisfaction and Consumer Loyalty to Agricultural Fairs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for sharing your research.  In my view the topic of the paper is interesting, however there are some issues that need to be addressed:

• Introduction: The scientific contribution has not been clarified in the introduction and in the conclusions. There is the need of identifying and emphasising the gap in the literature that authors are aiming to bridge, this should be emphasised in the introduction. In that context, the literature review should be up to date and critical.
• Methodology: The questionnaire design requires much more detail and justification. Where were the items sourced from? Which articles? My main concern lies in the fact that the survey was conducted back in 2010. indicating that the conclusions might be outdated. Much has changed in the last decade and I’m not sure how relevant are the findings obtained in this study.
• Conclusion: Stronger discussion of findings in the context of prior literature is required.
• Research limitations should be inserted and elaborated as well as recommendations for future research.

I hope that you find the above comments useful in revising your paper.

Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript (agriculture-1281835) entitled “The Role of Push and Pull Motivations on Satisfaction and Consumer Loyalty to Agricultural Fairs”.

 

The research question addressed in the manuscript could be of interest to the readers of the review. However, it needs to undergo some modifications and some aspects require clarifications before its potential can be realized.

 

1.- My first concern with the manuscript is related to the conceptual model (Fig. 1). It is very difficult to see if the conceptual model presented in the manuscript is (relatively) new or if it is an extension of an existing model. In addition, further information is needed on the elaboration of this model. For instance, on what basis the manifest variables (variables represented by the rectangles) are chosen? Why only 3 or 4 manifest variables per latent variable? I suggest the authors to be more precise on these aspects and present a consistent ground for their conceptual model.

 

2.- The manifest variables are mainly measured on a declarative basis using a five or seven-point scale. How did you control for declarative biases?  I would expect the authors to at least discuss this problem in light of their model application.

 

3.- The material and method section is incomplete. Nothing is said about the method used to estimate the SEM. In addition, how do you deal with non-normality issues?  I suggest the authors elaborate on the feasibility of the estimation method used.

 

4. The results need to be discussed in order to highlight their originality. For instance, what can you tell us about the originality of the results on page 9 lines 237-239 (“consumers' internal desires and the activities offered by agricultural fairs (fair attributes) play a crucial role in determining visitor satisfaction and loyalty”)?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your revisions.

Author Response

Thanks for your review

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have substantially improved the manuscript in the revised version. However, some minor aspects need to be further clarified:

 

1. Regarding my comment on the estimation procedure, the authors indicate that they “follow the estimation procedure outlined in the 2021 version of the LISREL Example Guide”. Could you please present this procedure succinctly?

 

2. Regarding my comment on the originality of the results, the authors have added some explanations. However, I expect that they discuss these results based on the existing literature.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf