Research on Users’ Exercise Behaviors of Online Exercise Community Based on Social Capital Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is well designed and succeeds in conveying an articulate argumentation.

I would suggest minor improvements with a view to increase the quality of the undertaking.

1. A better argumentation of the research problem in the introduction.

2. A more developed discussion of the varied implications of the findings, especially the theoretical ones.

3. A more developed section on limitations and future research directions.

Best of luck!

English is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

Line 43, shared language maybe translated as shared topics to be more accurate.

Line 45, continuous williness maybe translated into continuous intention to be more accurate.

etc...

 

Line 58-72, all the research mentioned in this paragraph is not properly referenced.

 

The introduction section focused too much about the previous related research about online exercise community and self-health management, but ignores the analysis the social background and the social significance of the research topic, it reads like the introduction of the literature instead of the research topic.

 

The literature on centrality almost focuses on online community behavior, authors should expand the relationship between centrality and offline behavior in previous literature

 

Line 127,188, the hypotheses should be proposed after some texts, e.g. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:

 

8800/30/150, just about 2 valid chat records from each member per day on average, I doubt the activity of the chat group and the representativeness of the sample

Line 278, the authors should discuss the offline exercise behavior and online group chat

The author needs to clarify that considering online chat group chat check-in as the rationality of the actual exercise behavior representation. Because the author did not explain the situation that group members do not check-in in gruopchat after exercise and do not check-in anywhere.

 

why 138 users are just labeled A-D

 

The authors should draw a flowchart to present a clear research structure and key content of each step

 

Line 315， n=2，n is not defined

 

the detailed information about 65 cliques and their categorization process？

 

section 3.3.1， the equations developed by authors themselves or ？

English language needs extensive editing

grammar correction

term using

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of the required revisions are properly handled. But the process of developing the 65 cliques is still not clear to the readers. I suggest that the authors either add some details or delete this part.

The English expression now seems acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf