Data Protection, Cookie Consent, and Prices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

ok to publish

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Text was checked again linguistically and improved in some places. There were no comments on the content from Reviewer 1.

Best

tw

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the article Data protection, cookie consent and pricing. 

In general it is a very good work, which points to a necessary issue in our countries, where it is urgent to develop new regulatory frameworks in the context of neurorights.

Here are some specific comments.

1.       It is suggested that in summary indicate the contribution to existing knowledge. It should also indicate some methodological aspects.

2.       It is suggested to improve the objective of the research, something is presented in lines 37-38 and 39, but the objective is not clear.

3.       To help the reading of the theoretical framework, a brief paragraph of synthesis of key ideas that serve as a connector for the topics to come is proposed.

4.       The microeconomic explanation is very interesting to understand privacy behavior. However, it is advisable to deepen the bibliographic review of studies that empirically have addressed the subject. A synthesis table with the results of other field studies is suggested.

5.       It is pertinent to explain the methodology of the work. I suggest reviewing the rearrangement for ease of reading. The author uses a descriptive analysis of the survey identifying traits of the two groups and subsequently applies a Logit model. The analysis axes need to be better presented.

6.       It is suggested to improve the presentation aspects of the results of the field study. Especially the tables.

7.       It is suggested to revise the size criterion of to run the Logit models, using Freeman's formula: n = 10 * (k + 1). What percentage of cases did the Logit models correctly present?. It is pertinent to identify the degree of collinearity that the independent variables have. It is possible to calculate the Inflation Factor of Variance or the matrix of nonparametric correlations (Rho or Kendall's Tau)

8 It is suggested from the results and the theoretical review a table or table that facilitates the discussion of results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Here y remarks to the  specific comments.

1. It is suggested that in summary indicate the contribution to existing knowledge. It should also indicate some methodological aspects.

Both suggestions were gladly implemented.

2. It is suggested to improve the objective of the research, something is presented in lines 37-38 and 39, but the objective is not clear.

Suggestion was gladly implemented.

3. To help the reading of the theoretical framework, a brief paragraph of synthesis of key ideas that serve as a connector for the topics to come is proposed.

Short paragraph was introduced.

4. The microeconomic explanation is very interesting to understand privacy behavior. However, it is advisable to deepen the bibliographic review of studies that empirically have addressed the subject. A synthesis table with the results of other field studies is suggested.

Empirical work is discussed at the end of Chapter 2. Since only 2 real relevant field experiments are involved, a table has been omitted.

5. It is pertinent to explain the methodology of the work. I suggest reviewing the rearrangement for ease of reading. The author uses a descriptive analysis of the survey identifying traits of the two groups and subsequently applies a Logit model. The analysis axes need to be better presented.

Two new figures were introduced to explain the experiment setup and results.

6. It is suggested to improve the presentation aspects of the results of the field study. Especially the tables.

See point 5.

7. It is suggested to revise the size criterion of to run the Logit models, using Freeman's formula: n = 10 * (k + 1). What percentage of cases did the Logit models correctly present?. It is pertinent to identify the degree of collinearity that the independent variables have. It is possible to calculate the Inflation Factor of Variance or the matrix of nonparametric correlations (Rho or Kendall's Tau)

The rule of thumb for logit model applicability was introduced and tests for collinearity were performed.

8 It is suggested from the results and the theoretical review a table or table that facilitates the discussion of results.

The presentation of results has been revised and shortened.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is devoted to the problem of the personal data privacy protection, and studies the willingness of the people to share their personal data in order to receive certain goods. The paper presents the results of the experimental study cinducted in the University with more than 100 participants. I believe that the experiment as well as the analysis of the results obtained constitute the strengths of the paper. However, there are some issues to be enhanced.

Major concern

1)      Please specify the experiment scenario more clearly and structured. What is the reason to have three different groups, what is the validation for such design experiment? How participants were split into three different groups. The more structured description of options in all three groups should given (perhaps in form of table.)

2)      Restructure the introduction section to provide explicitly contribution and novelty (if possible) of the research.

Minor concerns relate to the presentation of the formal model.

1)      First of all if you are using the notations please, check that they are consistent. In lines 254 the x is used to denote to a good, starting with line 307 it is used to denote to a set of goods. Use either bold or capital letter to distinguish, or specify explicitly that x – denotes to a set of documents.

2)      Secondly, notations of the format d^s are quite confusing especially when they are used in conjunction with exponential functions. Please reconsider notations, maybe it is possible to use d_s, when s is an index but not an exponent. This also relates to l¹, l².

3)      Figure 1 presents x but not W as it is stated in the text. Please explain your statement.

4)      When describing the experiment and its results the numbers some times are written by digits (2,3,) sometimes as words (three, two). Please, select one format and follow it.

Author Response

Dear referee 3

Major concern

1)      Please specify the experiment scenario more clearly and structured. What is the reason to have three different groups, what is the validation for such design experiment? How participants were split into three different groups. The more structured description of options in all three groups should given (perhaps in form of table.)

Done, especially with Figures 10 + 11

2)      Restructure the introduction section to provide explicitly contribution and novelty (if possible) of the research.

done

Minor concerns relate to the presentation of the formal model.

• First of all if you are using the notations please, check that they are consistent. In lines 254 the x is used to denote to a good, starting with line 307 it is used to denote to a set of goods. Use either bold or capital letter to distinguish, or specify explicitly that x – denotes to a set of documents.

clearer description of the model to avoid the misunderstandings

• Secondly, notations of the format d^s are quite confusing especially when they are used in conjunction with exponential functions. Please reconsider notations, maybe it is possible to use d_s, when s is an index but not an exponent. This also relates to l¹, l².

changed

• Figure 1 presents x but not W as it is stated in the text. Please explain your statement.

clearer description of the model to avoid the misunderstandings

4)      When describing the experiment and its results the numbers some times are written by digits (2,3,) sometimes as words (three, two). Please, select one format and follow it.

done

Reviewer 4 Report

Missing some references. For example at 27 "Cookie consent fatigue" is introduced, followed by a definition but no reference to who first coined this phrase/where this came from?

Lines 36/37 - Taking the leap from data disclosure to state interference is one avenue, there are others that would perhaps be more appropriate to mention in this context (e.g. tracking, using data for economic gain etc.) or, at the very least, should also be mentioned in this context

Line 112 - mentions chapter, assume this should say section.

Line 114 - GDPR is gold standard, who says? There are other well developed privacy standards around the world now too

Line 379 - Experiment - how many answered the complete survey?

A few spelling mistakes (e.g. Englisch in Table 5)

Line 569 - were omitted

Author Response

Dear Referee 4

Missing some references. For example at 27 "Cookie consent fatigue" is introduced, followed by a definition but no reference to who first coined this phrase/where this came from?

changed

Lines 36/37 - Taking the leap from data disclosure to state interference is one avenue, there are others that would perhaps be more appropriate to mention in this context (e.g. tracking, using data for economic gain etc.) or, at the very least, should also be mentioned in this context

Text changed to make it clearer

Line 112 - mentions chapter, assume this should say section.

changed 

Line 114 - GDPR is gold standard, who says? There are other well developed privacy standards around the world now too

Reference introduced

Line 379 - Experiment - how many answered the complete survey?

Had been mentioned in the text, clearer described

A few spelling mistakes (e.g. Englisch in Table 5)

consequence of pdf building

Line 569 - were omitted

Consequence of pdf building

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed all suggestions and questions.