Italian Consumers: Craft Beer or No Craft Beer, That Is the Question

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors need to organize the background section based on the variables used in this work. This work used seven attributes, thus it is necessary to present the notion of the variables one by one in the review of literature section. 

Authors need to improve the logical flow of the hypotheses development based on the review of literature. 

Authors need to present the method section based on research model, data collection, measurement items, and data analysis. Authors also need to present how to set the threshold for the statistical analysis. 

Multiple regression method looks inadequate. Also, authors need to present the results comparing the sqaure root of AVE with the correlation coefficient to ensure discriminat validity. 

 

Figure 3 needs to be checked why loading 0.000, what does that number stand for?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The stated aim of the study is to investigate the factors that drive craft beer consumption in Italy.

Several recommendations for the improvement of the manuscript are presented below.

a) Need for the study. The manuscript must explain the need for the study of the stated topic. The present version of the article does not identify and describe appropriately this need. It is important to explain in the context of Italy and of other European markets (an example is Germany that faces a difficult period in the beer industry as the consumption of classic beer decreased and producers started to readapt their marketing strategies.

b) Current state of the research literature. There is a need to clarify the extent to which identical or similar studies have been achieved in Italy or other countries.

c) Specific contribution to the research literature. The authors have presented insufficiently the contribution of their own study to the scientific research literature. The section “Discussion” could compare and contrast more thoroughly this manuscript to those that are recognized for their relevant results. The comparison can be made with articles already published on the factors that influence the beer market and other producers.

d) Research methodology. The manuscript could include more details on the research methodology. Main aspects that require clarifications are the following: sampling method and representativeness of the sample, questionnaire design.

e) Liker scale. In the line 281 of the manuscript, the following text exists: “responses based on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not relevant and 5 = very relevant)”. However, the name of the scale is very likely not Likert if the extremes are 1 = “not relevant” and 5 = “very relevant”. The scale applied is more likely a semantic differential.

f) Limitations of the research. There is a need for clear specification of the research limitations.

The above-mentioned suggestions can enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented in the manuscript is interesting and complex. However, there are a few recommendations to consider:

The results section should be revised. Data reported in Table 3-6 can be reported in one table as it provides descriptive stats on the consumer behavior. Also revise the manner of reporting; sometimes it a comma is used other times a dot for decimal points. Table notes should also be consistent all over the manuscript (preferred Source and not Elaboration). However, in the results section, it is expected that authors report their own findings, therefore, I personally do not see why the table note is necessary.

 

Figure 2 quality is poor and therefore, difficult to read. In the title of the figure it appears “(table…)” – clearly something is missing.

The titles of some tables could be revised to better reflect their content. Suggestions: see other publications that used similar methodology

The manuscript should benefit from professional language editing to improve clarity of expression and ensure correct academic English, as well as a careful revision to eliminate typographical errors. For example: Line 423 “in the document by…” actually Hair is not a simple document, it is a book, a referenced one in the field.; Line 435: “he following values” … perhaps “ the following “

Because the study used snowball sampling, the results are not fully representative of all Italian consumers. Any generalization to the national level should be made with caution and framed as applying only to the surveyed sample.

The manuscript states that ethical approval was waived, but no proof is provided. The authors should explain why was not required and confirm compliance with institutional or national guidelines.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately the changes were not marked in the revised version, and therefore it was not possible to follow all improvements. In some cases lines are provided, but not in all cases.

As regard to the reorganisation of Tables 3-6 it is the authors responsability to rethink a manner of reporting and not the editorial staff. The reorganisation should be done by the authors to ensure clarity and to meet the journal’s academic standards for data presentation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is now improved following the recommendation, including related to the reorganisation of data in one table for an easier undertstanding of teh work done.