Analysis of the Awareness and Popularity of the Brand of a Selected Education and Research Library in the Czech Republic: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper describes an interesting case study, though it looks still like a consulting report. The introduction should be better focused, avoiding a style of back and forth from literature review to description of the setting. Here for example, the authors go from literature "The differences between the two types of libraries are dealt with in detail in the research and article by
60 Saunders and Jordan [5].".... to describing the setting: "The Education and Research Library of the Pilsen Region has gradually changed its visual style", ... moving again to literature review here :"Branding currently constitutes an essential part of the marketing activities of most organizations."
I would suggest to reorganize the Introduction by creating another paragraph for the case study design. Or removing some paragraphs or sentences form the introduction that go into too much details on the case setting. Right now, the Introduction is very hard to follow.
Some sentences, such as the one on line 162, should be rephrased, as they are very long and use parentheses that are too long. Also, the bullet point on line 179 is not appropriate (same for line 307). In general, there are several bullet points that should not be there (lines 402, 405 etc).
The literature should be better focused and avoid reporting definitions that are well known (e.g. Kotler's brand definition), as they do not seem to add any value to framing the Theory behind the paper. Does line 348 contain a typo?
There is no conclusion, no section for Limitations and no mention of theoretical contribution of the study. There is no reference to ways to extend the results beyond the Czech Republic. I am sure this analysis is very important for non-profit leaders and other practitioners. Both the theoretical and practical contributions are not visible now.
Author Response
Comment-based article modifications
We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback on our article. Based on your comments and those of the other reviewer, the article was amended and proofread by a native English speaker. We believe that the resulting outcome will be satisfactory and meet your expectations.
This paper describes an interesting case study, though it looks still like a consulting report. The introduction should be better focused, avoiding a style of back and forth from literature review to description of the setting. Here for example, the authors go from literature "The differences between the two types of libraries are dealt with in detail in the research and article by 60 Saunders and Jordan [5].".... to describing the setting: "The Education and Research Library of the Pilsen Region has gradually changed its visual style", ... moving again to literature review here: "Branding currently constitutes an essential part of the marketing activities of most organizations." I would suggest to reorganize the Introduction by creating another paragraph for the case study design. Or removing some paragraphs or sentences form the introduction that go into too much details on the case setting. Right now, the Introduction is very hard to follow.
We have reworked the article structure. In the Introduction, we clearly stated the aim of the article and provided the reader with brief background information on the topic that the article and the entire research deals with. Subsequently, we included a detailed literature review of the available brand and branding research studies which our research is based on. We have also expanded the subchapter Research Design, which serves as a kind of introduction to the analytical part of the study and elevates the article to a full-fledged case study – thank you. For the purpose of clarity, we have divided the original, extensive chapter Introduction into two separate segments: Introduction and Theoretical Background (we have also tried to delete and rephrase certain parts of these introductory chapters).
Some sentences, such as the one on line 162, should be rephrased, as they are very long and use parentheses that are too long.
Corrected.
Also, the bullet point on line 179 is not appropriate (same for line 307).
In general, there are several bullet points that should not be there (lines 402, 405 etc.).
Both have been deleted.
The literature should be better focused and avoid reporting definitions that are well known (e.g. Kotler's brand definition), as they do not seem to add any value to framing the Theory behind the paper.
The general quotation from Kotler has been removed; however, using the option of references used, we tried to show that Kevin Lane Keller is perhaps the biggest expert in brand and branding, followed by Philip Kotler. Before we received the reviews of our article, an excellent article was published summarizing the existing research on this topic according to the Journal Citation Report by Keller (which we included in the article), and not only this article, but also other case studies (e.g., The Case Study of a Library in Malaysia) corroborate that the method we had chosen as well as our research results are well-founded and justified in the present context and applicable across the board in the Czech Republic, and can serve as a foundation for further research in this area.
Does line 348 contain a typo? The typo has been deleted.
There is no conclusion, no section for Limitations and no mention of theoretical contribution of the study. There is no reference to ways to extend the results beyond the Czech Republic. I am sure this analysis is very important for non-profit leaders and other practitioners. Both the theoretical and practical contributions are not visible now.
Yes, thank you, we have added to the article the research limitations and pointed out the theoretical as well as practical benefits of our research results with respect to their utilization in the future.
Once again, thank you for your comments, which helped us improve the quality of our article.
The article was proofread by Simon O'Flynn, a native English speaker.
Team of authors
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate this paper shows an interesting insights regarding the branding of library as one of non-profit organization. But I am afraid the weakness of the research design and method may outweigh the contribution of the proposed study.
- Insufficient theoretical justification: I cannot find the author(s) really attempted to use some theories or model as a background for argument or justification. This study just tries to present researcher’s findings by showing the result of simple frequency analysis.
- This seems to be a just market research report. There is no proposed research model or serious discussion for the research proposition. It should be more restructured for increasing research completedness and argumentative by adding more causal relationship. For example, the introduction part should be reduced and theoretical background or review of previous studies should be made as a separate part.
- Unfortunately, I can’t find there are distinctive findings on research subjects in this study. There is no meaningful insights from this paper and has logical insufficiency in extending this research to other related studies or regional areas.
Author Response
Comment-based article modifications
We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback on our article. Based on your comments and those of the other reviewer, the article was amended and proofread by a native English speaker. We believe that the resulting outcome will be satisfactory and meet your expectations.
I appreciate this paper shows an interesting insights regarding the branding of library as one of non-profit organization. But I am afraid the weakness of the research design and method may outweigh the contribution of the proposed study.
- Insufficient theoretical justification: I cannot find the author(s) really attempted to use some theories or model as a background for argument or justification. This study just tries to present researcher’s findings by showing the result of simple frequency analysis.
- This seems to be a just market research report. There is no proposed research model or serious discussion for the research proposition. It should be more restructured for increasing research completedness and argumentative by adding more causal relationship. For example, the introduction part should be reduced and theoretical background or review of previous studies should be made as a separate part.
Thank you, points 1 and 2 are closely linked, so we are going to respond to both of them together.
We have reworked the article structure. In the Introduction, we clearly stated the aim of the article and provided the reader with brief background information on the topic that the article and the entire research deals with. Subsequently, we included a detailed literature review of the available brand and branding research studies which our research is based on (particularly in Chapter 3 – Materials and Methods). We have also expanded the subchapter Research Design, which serves as a kind of introduction to the analytical part of the study and elevates the article to a full-fledged case study – thank you. For the purpose of clarity, we have divided the original, extensive chapter Introduction into two separate segments: Introduction and Theoretical Background.
Before we received the reviews of our article, an excellent article was published summarizing the existing research on this topic according to the Journal Citation Report by Keller (which we included in the article), and not only this article, but also other case studies (e.g., The Case Study of a Library in Malaysia) corroborate that the method we had chosen and our research results are well-founded and justified in the present context, and can serve as a foundation for further research in this area.
3. Unfortunately, I can’t find there are distinctive findings on research subjects in this study. There is no meaningful insights from this paper and has logical insufficiency in extending this research to other related studies or regional areas.
We have expanded the chapter Conclusions, in which we mainly pointed out the theoretical as well as practical benefits of our research results with respect to their utilization in the future. The research findings can be beneficial and, most importantly, easy to work with (due to the simple method used) not only for all state-run contributory non-profit organizations in the Czech Republic (libraries, museums, theaters, galleries, hospitals and other institutions), but also non-governmental non-profit organizations, for which the topic of brand and branding is a key success factor (positioning tied in with fundraising and competitiveness).
Once again, thank you for your comments, which helped us improve the quality of our article.
The article was proofread by Simon O'Flynn, a native English speaker.
Team of authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised paper has improved and I am satisfied with the changes. Thank you for taking them seriously.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the researchers for their hard work reflecting the judges' comments in the first round in a short time. Nevertheless, if this paper is intended to have a more academic character, it would be hoped that, in addition to fully explaining the variables of the research presented, a theoretical basis or frame of study would be presented to support the background or design of such research. It would be also better if researchers could have used more advanced methods of statistical analysis to support the causal relationship or reasonable logic.
Author Response
- Reviewer: I would like to thank the researchers for their hard work reflecting the judges' comments in the first round in a short time. Nevertheless, if this paper is intended to have a more academic character, it would be hoped that, in addition to fully explaining the variables of the research presented, a theoretical basis or frame of study would be presented to support the background or design of such research.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback in the form of additional comments. We hope that we can manage to explain the specifics of this research, or more precisely this case study, and having added to the text also justify the significance of this article for practice as well as for the purpose of future research in the area of branding of non-profit organizations in the Czech Republic and elsewhere.
We emphasized the fact that the preparations for the questionnaire design were also based on the library's existing segmentation, which does not use the segmentation criterion of gender (in the library's experience and according to literature research, this criterion is irrelevant), but age as the essential segmentation criterion. Other variables and the main results presented in our sensitivity analysis relate to the "age" variable. There is a strong logical link between brand/branding and the selected institution's communications (corroborated, among others, in a publication by Keller, 2020). This case study aimed to clearly point out the significance of brand and communication for a selected state-run non-profit organization, and to offer a research method that would be easily applicable in practice as well as the possibility to follow up on this research in other countries or in international comparison.
- Reviewer: It would be also better if researchers could have used more advanced methods of statistical analysis to support the causal relationship or reasonable logic.
Answer: The article attempts to explain that in the Czech Republic, education and research libraries are contributory state-run non-profit organizations, just like theaters, museums, galleries and hospitals. All these institutions as well as non-governmental non-profit organizations can utilize the sensitivity analysis presented in the case study, mainly thanks to the convenient and easily applicable method. More sophisticated research methods engaged in this area would, in our opinion, lower their applicability in practice.
Thank you for your understanding and your contribution to the overall result.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
