Word of Mouth, Digital Media, and Open Innovation at the Agricultural SMEs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

First of all, your research addresses a topic of interest in the field of business management: the promotion of products through different communication channels.

In particular, the authors study "Word of Mouth or Digital Media, which is Better to Promote SMEs in the Agricultural Local Market of Central Europe? This is an interesting study that aims to identify the best communication channels to promote agricultural products. It contrasts two possible channels: digital media vs. word of mouth.

 

On the one hand, I found the paper to be overall well written and much of it to be well described. I felt confident that the authors performed careful and thorough field processing. The paper has an overall good structure and I only have a few comments and remarks meant toimprove its addressability to the readers. However, I would like to point out some aspects to improve their manuscript. I explain my concerns in more detail below. I ask that the authors specifically address each of my comments in their response.

Major comments

1. I consider that the title is not strictly in line with the content of the document. I consider that the study takes place in a specific market, the Budapest Central Market. In this context, I think that it is not possible to generalise the results and consider them valid for the whole of Central Europe.
2. In line with the above, from the point of view of the territorial unit of analysis, the study carried out responds to a mainly local approach. In particular, the Central Market of Budapest. Moreover, if one takes into account that 90% of the individuals in the sample are Hungarian, I think that the scope of the study is too limited for an international journal like "JOImtC". In any case, the editor should consider the line of the journal and, based on that, make the final decision.
3. The keywords selected in my opinion are not relevant and specific to the work. It is recommended to use other words such as: digital media, promotion, agricultural products, word of mouth. I recommend you to use the following link to search for keywords:

http://vocabularies.unesco.org/browser/thesaurus/en/page/concept111

4. The introduction should justify the choice of Hungary as the territorial unit of study and in particular the Budapest Central Market. It would also be interesting to include a paragraph on the original contribution of this research.
5. The review of the research background needs to be improved, I think it is not enough. Authors should make a significant effort to better review the current state of the research field and cite the most important publications.
6. In relation to the sample used: 156 consumers, I have doubts whether it is sufficiently representative. It should be properly justified in the document whether it is a representative sample.
7. It would be advisable for the authors to also include the limitations of the study and any restrictions on the availability of materials or information.

In sum, I again thank you for giving me this opportunity to learn from your research project and I wish you the very best.

Best Regards,

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I hope you are doing well and in good health. 

Thank you so much for your comments and efforts to improve the content of our manuscript. Here are our responses to your comments

1. Reviewer: I consider that the title is not strictly in line with the content of the document. I consider that the study takes place in a specific market, the Budapest Central Market. In this context, I think that it is not possible to generalise the results and consider them valid for the whole of Central Europe.

Author: We change the title from Central Europe into Hungary, line 3 (yellow color)

 

2. Reviewer: In line with the above, from the point of view of the territorial unit of analysis, the study carried out responds to a mainly local approach. In particular, the Central Market of Budapest. Moreover, if one takes into account that 90% of the individuals in the sample are Hungarian, I think that the scope of the study is too limited for an international journal like "JOImtC". In any case, the editor should consider the line of the journal and, based on that, make the final decision.

Author:  a. We have added the reasons for choosing Hungary as a sample area (Section 1, lines 52-70 yellow color). We also added the reason for choosing BCMH in Section 3.1 lines 240-247 We use an international context as the reason for selecting Hungary and BCMH.

b. We also mention the contribution of this study to theory (Section 6.1) line 599-605

c. We also add your comment in the limitation of this study (Section 6.3 line 622-631 yellow color). The Covid-19 pandemic made foreigners unable entering Hungary and rarely visiting the Budapest Central Market Hall research site. 

d. However, this research is therefore relevant in order to promote SMEs to foreigners. This condition will open up opportunities for other researchers to conduct research in normal conditions. 

 

3. Reviewer: The keywords selected in my opinion are not relevant and specific to the work. It is recommended to use other words such as: digital media, promotion, agricultural products, word of mouth. I recommend you to use the following link to search for keywords:http://vocabularies.unesco.org/browser/thesaurus/en/page/concept111

Author: We have already changed the keywords based on vocabularies.unesco.org (line 17)

 

4. Reviewer: The introduction should justify the choice of Hungary as the territorial unit of study and in particular the Budapest Central Market. It would also be interesting to include a paragraph on the original contribution of this research.

Author: a. We explain (based on literature) the reasons for choosing Hungary in Section 1 (line 52-70 yellow color), while the reasons for choosing BCMH are in Section 3.1 (line 240-247)

b. We have added original contribution of this research in Section 1 line 94-100 (yellow color) and Section 6.1 line 599-605 (yellow color) 

 

5. Reviewer: The review of the research background needs to be improved; I think it is not enough. Authors should make a significant effort to better review the current state of the research field and cite the most important publications.

Author: We have added the review literature in Section 2.1 (line 111-155) and the most important publication in Section 2.2. line 188-190

 

6. Reviewer: In relation to the sample used: 156 consumers, I have doubts whether it is sufficiently representative. It should be properly justified in the document whether it is a representative sample.

Author: We have added the reference for justification for this sample in Section 3.2 line 251-255

 

7. Reviewer: It would be advisable for the authors to also include the limitations of the study and any restrictions on the availability of materials or information.

Author: We have added it in Section 6.3 line 622-634

 

Hopefully, our response can satisfy you

Thank you

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done interesting work, but it requires some improvements in order to be published:
- The abstract is unclear and does not expressly relate to the concept of Open Innovation.
- The introduction should contain a clear justification of the relationship between the article and the journal. You cite Yun but do not clarify the direct relationship between Open Innovation and his research.
- The introduction should include a final paragraph with the structure of the paper.
- You should explain the methodology including quotes about the theory of the interview. Was it an interview or a questionnaire?
- The analysis model is complete and is very good.

- Results could be presented in a more graphic way to make them more easily understandable.
- You should include a specific section on conclusions. 
- In the discussion, you should present again the explicit relationship between Open Innovation. I recommend that you follow the structure of the following paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/6/4/169/htm

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I hope you are doing well and in good health

Thank you so much for your comments and efforts to improve the content of our manuscript. Here are our responses to your comments

1. Reviewer: The abstract is unclear and does not expressly relate to the concept of Open Innovation.

Author: Done, we change the abstract, line 4-16 (yellow color)

 

2. Reviewer: The introduction should contain a clear justification of the relationship between the article and the journal. You cite Yun but do not clarify the direct relationship between Open Innovation and his research.

Author: Done, we change the introduction, line 94-101 (yellow color)

 

3. Reviewer: The introduction should include a final paragraph with the structure of the paper.

Author: Done, we have added it in the final paragraph Section 1, line 101-107 (yellow color)

 

4. Reviewer: You should explain the methodology including quotes about the theory of the interview. Was it an interview or a questionnaire?

Author: Done, we have added it in Section 3.2, line 256-262 (yellow color)

 

5. Reviewer: The analysis model is complete and is very good.

Author: Thank you

 

6. Reviwer: Results could be presented in a more graphic way to make them more easily understandable.

Author: Done, we have added it in Section 4.1, line 326-399 (yellow color)

 

7. Reviewer: You should include a specific section on conclusions. 

Author: Done, we have added it in Section 6, line 587 (yellow color)

 

8. Reviewer: In the discussion, you should present again the explicit relationship between Open Innovation. I recommend that you follow the structure of the following paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/6/4/169/htm

Author: Done, we have added it in the Section 5, line 551-556 and 565-585 (yellow color)

 

Hopefully, our response can satisfy you

Thank you

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I attach a review of the main aspects of the article that can, in my view, be improved.
Congratulations on the work presented and good luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I hope you are doing well and in good health

Thank you so much for your comments and efforts to improve the content of our manuscript. Here are our responses to your comments

1. Reviewer: The introduction is well accomplished, with a last paragraph missing that presents the structure of the work that follows. This allows the reader to focus their attention and make the reading more fluid

Author: Done, we have added it in the last paragraph of Section 1, line 101-107 (yellow color)

 

2. Reviewer: See typing errors (eg. line 72)

Author: Done, we change from “dan” to “and”, line 132 (yellow color)

 

3. Reviewer:  The introduction of the "Nationality" variable needs better reasoning. I suggest introducing a paragraph before presenting the hypotheses, where the authors' assumptions for the introduction of this variable are demonstrated

Author: Done, we have added it in Section 2.2, line 210 - 220 (yellow color)

 

4. Reviewer: The model presented in figure 1 needs further explanation, namely, the relationship between the information search process, the consumer decision and the SME promotion

Author: Done, we have added it in Section 2.2, line 174-185 (yellow color)

 

5. Reviewer: Methodology and discussion of results is very well achieved

Author: Thank you

 

6. Reviewer: The implications are essentially contributions to practice. In this regard it was important that the authors focus on guidelines or future trends, for example, at the level of marketing actions that reconcile WoM with traditional marketing strategies and with digital marketing strategies

Author: Done. we have added it in Section 6.2, line 611-613 (yellow color)

 

7. Reviewer: It is important to focus on what the study contributed to the theory

Author: Done, we have added it in Section 6.1, line 599-605 (yellow color)  

 

8. Reviewer: Since the data collection took place in the middle of the Covid19 pandemic phase, where face-to face contacts are predictably scarcer, it was important that the authors reflect on this possible influence on the results obtained. If justified, they should present this context as a limitation and the recommendation of studies of this kind in contexts of greater social and economic "normality". 

Author: Done, we have added it in the limitation (Section 6.3), line 622-634 (yellow color)

 

Hopefully, our response can satisfy you

Thank you

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

I believe that the authors have made a remarkable effort to improve the article. They have expanded the bibliography and included current references. They have also included some additional description of the method. They have incorporated and justified the limitations of the study. They have justified its importance by adding some academic contributions that have previously used this method. 

As for the territorial unit of analysis, although its range remains limited, the authors have included some arguments that could justify their choice.

Wish you all the best. Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you very much for your efforts to improve our manuscript

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have included all recommendations. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your efforts to improve our manuscript