C2C e-Marketplaces and How Their Micro-Segmentation Strategies Influence Their Customers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract
Originality of the investigation should be mentioned
Introduction
How was the online questionnaire distributed? (email, social media...)
Results discussion
A chapter on the obtained results should be addressed
User notes
This part should reflect the authors conclusions, in that sense it is not very robust, please review this part and improve the obtained conclusions.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract
Originality of the investigation should be mentioned
Response 1: The originality of the investigation was included
Point 2: - Introduction
How was the online questionnaire distributed? (email, social media...)
Response 2: The distribution method was included
Point 3: Results discussion
A chapter on the obtained results should be addressed
User notes
This part should reflect the authors conclusions, in that sense it is not very robust, please review this part and improve the obtained conclusions
Response 3: Two new sections ,“Conclusions and Limitations y future research” has been included. The section highlights the investigation's most important findings and compares them to the previous literature. Moreover, limitations and future directions have been considered.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Topic
The topic is interesting and current.
Introduction
What is the reason for conducting the study vis-à-vis the literature?
What justifies conducting the study in the literature?
Literature Review
The paper has no literature review section.
Is it not a scientific paper? Not intended to contribute to the literature?
Methodology
Section 2 could be incorporated within the methodology section.
In section 3. Methods, no results are presented.
There is no discussion of results.
Conclusions
There is no conclusions section.
Author Response
Point 1: Introduction
What is the reason for conducting the study vis-à-vis the literature?
What justifies conducting the study in the literature?
Literature Review. The paper has no literature review section.
Is it not a scientific paper? Not intended to contribute to the literature?
Response 1: The definitions of each variable was included in the paper. The hypotheses were included and supported by the previous literature. Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasize the fact that this article is a “Data Descriptor”. It is the reason why there is no a section to explain the previous literature.
Point 2: Methodology. Section 2 could be incorporated within the methodology section.
In section 3. Methods, no results are presented.
Response 2: The data description was done following the paper structure proposed by the editor. Since the results are described in section 2, mentioning them again in section 3 could duplicate the information shown in the paper.
Point 3: There is no discussion of results. Conclusions. There is no conclusions section.
Response 3: A new section,“Conclusions” has been included. The section highlights the investigation's most important findings and compares them to the previous literature. Moreover, limitations and future directions have been considered.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article does not follow the structure indicated in the journal template. The structure is one of the key points when evaluating all the articles and the authors do not follow the sections that are recommended in the journal template.
The research is good, but authors should follow the sections that are recommended in the journal template.
In addition, the authors must broaden the contextualization of the problem to be studied, increase the number of references to other studies and describe the results achieved in these.
And I advise looking at these things:
Never two sections without a paragraph of text in between. You should put a couple of lines describing/naming the subsections you are going to deal with within that section. You must correct this between sections 3-3.1.
And the references in the 'References' section must follow the model set by the journal. You must correct the errors that exist. Look at this in the template.
Author Response
Point 1: In addition, the authors must broaden the contextualization of the problem to be studied, increase the number of references to other studies and describe the results achieved in these.
Response 1: The definitions of each variable was included in the paper. The hypotheses were included and supported by the previous literature. Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasize the fact that this article is a “Data Descriptor”. It is the reason why there is no a section to explain the previous literature.
Point 2: The article does not follow the structure indicated in the journal template. The structure is one of the key points when evaluating all the articles and the authors do not follow the sections that are recommended in the journal template.
Response 3: The data description was done following the paper structure proposed by the editor for a Data Description paper. Nevertheless, two new sections ,“Conclusions and Limitations y future research” has been included. The section highlights the investigation's most important findings and compares them to the previous literature. Moreover, limitations and future directions have been considered.
Point 3: In addition, the authors must broaden the contextualization of the problem to be studied, increase the number of references to other studies and describe the results achieved in these.
Response 3: The definitions of each variable was included in the paper. The hypotheses were included and supported by the previous literature. Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasize the fact that this article is a “Data Descriptor”. It is the reason why there is no section to explain the previous literature.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
