The Dynamic Evolution Mechanism of Heterogeneous OWOM—An Improved Viral Marketing Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper approaches a very interesting topic, therefore it was my pleasure to review it. The article is generally well written, things are logically presented and from my perspective there are not that many serious improvement issues to be dealt with. However, I have a few suggestions for the authors. To begin with, the first suggestion is to pay a little more attention on details. For instance, starting with the title, where the correct way would be "An" Improved Virus Marketing... instead of "a" improved... Then, maybe instead of "Virus Marketing", a more appropriate word in the title would be "Viral Marketing". If the authors think it is mandatory to use "virus" instead of "viral", a brief explanation of the concept "virus marketing" in the abstract and introduction would be helpful.

Also in the introduction section, a brief and clearer mention of the elements of novelty of the research (what is the current status of the research in the field and what does this approach brings new?) is required to extend the value of the article.

Moving on to Figure 1 and Figure 2, on both of them the word "stisfaction" is miss-spelled, it should be: brand "satisfaction", customer "satisfaction".

In the conclusion section, one final synthesizing phrase to put more emphasize on the practical implications and value for the results of the research, can prove beneficial to enhance the overall quality of the article.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

The paper approaches a very interesting topic, therefore it was my pleasure to review it. The article is generally well written, things are logically presented and from my perspective there are not that many serious improvement issues to be dealt with. However, I have a few suggestions for the authors.

 

Point 1: To begin with, the first suggestion is to pay a little more attention on details. For instance, starting with the title, where the correct way would be "An" Improved Virus Marketing... instead of "a" improved... Then, maybe instead of "Virus Marketing", a more appropriate word in the title would be "Viral Marketing". If the authors think it is mandatory to use "virus" instead of "viral", a brief explanation of the concept "virus marketing" in the abstract and introduction would be helpful.

 

Response 1: Thanks for reminding us. We carefully checked those spelling mistakes and made corrections in the title and main body of the article.

 

Point 2: Also in the introduction section, a brief and clearer mention of the elements of novelty of the research (what is the current status of the research in the field and what does this approach brings new?) is required to extend the value of the article.

 

Response 2: We rewrote part of the introduction section to give a decearation of the noelty of the article in lines 72-90.

 

Point 3: Moving on to Figure 1 and Figure 2, on both of them the word "stisfaction" is miss-spelled, it should be: brand "satisfaction", customer "satisfaction".

 

Response 3: We checked those spelling mistakes and updated those 2 figures in main body.

 

Point 4: In the conclusion section, one final synthesizing phrase to put more emphasize on the practical implications and value for the results of the research, can prove beneficial to enhance the overall quality of the article.

 

Response 4: We rearranged the final part of the conclusion section and emphasized 3 practical implications in one paragraph in lines 600-609.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very thorough research study that explains the evolution process of the online word-of-mouth (OWOM) communication group of the social media brand network based on S-O-R theory of psychology. The results revealed that the ability of brand communicators to persuade has a direct impact on the persistence and breadth of brand communication. When the acceptance of the consumer market is high, the negative online OWOM of the brand has a relatively huge impact on consumers. I read the manuscript with great interest and believe its topic is important and relevant. The authors performed a careful and thorough review of the literature, as the section was very informative and substantial. Appropriate theoretical framework was applied. I found the methodological part to be well justified and reasonable for this type of analysis. Although the manuscript is overall well-written and structured, it might benefit from additional spell/language checking. However, I have some comments which I would like to be addressed before the acceptance of this paper.

Major comments

Mention the source of the figure 2 on page 4, line 131. After introduction add a new section about the background literature. Why author’s used Netlogo platform of the multi-agent-based modeling environment? Add the theoretical and managerial implications of your study in conclusions section. Make comparison of your study findings with the past studies in conclusions section. What are the limitations of the present study?

 

I look forward to read the final version.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

This is a very thorough research study that explains the evolution process of the online word-of-mouth (OWOM) communication group of the social media brand network based on S-O-R theory of psychology. The results revealed that the ability of brand communicators to persuade has a direct impact on the persistence and breadth of brand communication. When the acceptance of the consumer market is high, the negative online OWOM of the brand has a relatively huge impact on consumers. I read the manuscript with great interest and believe its topic is important and relevant. The authors performed a careful and thorough review of the literature, as the section was very informative and substantial. Appropriate theoretical framework was applied. I found the methodological part to be well justified and reasonable for this type of analysis. Although the manuscript is overall well-written and structured, it might benefit from additional spell/language checking. However, I have some comments which I would like to be addressed before the acceptance of this paper.

 

Point 1: Mention the source of the figure 2 on page 4, line 131.

 

Response 1: Thanks for taking time to review this article and reminding us the mistakes. We add the explaination of the figures’ source in line 263(figure 1) and 268(figure 2).

 

Point 2: After introduction add a new section about the background literature.

 

Response 2: We add section 2 ‘Literature Review’ in the main body and it consisted with 2 subsections.

 

Point 3: Why author’s used Netlogo platform of the multi-agent-based modeling environment?

 

Response 3: A brief illustration on the characteristics of Netlogo is added in section 5, line 387-392.

 

Point 4: Add the theoretical and managerial implications of your study in conclusions section.

 

Response 4: The conclusion section is our weakness. We try to rearranged the final part of this section. The theoretical value were added in lines 600-603. 3 practical implications emphasized in lines 600-609.

 

Point 5: Make comparison of your study findings with the past studies in conclusions section.

 

Response 5: The conclusion of this study confirms the viewpoint of literature [5-7], but for the first time this research reveals the quantitative relationship among the indexes and the OWOM communication effect which was not mentioned by previourd studies. We explained it in lines 600-603.

 

Point 6: What are the limitations of the present study?

 

Response 6: We add a paragraph on the limitation of this study in lines 610-617.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the authors response. Hence, manuscript is accepted.