Beauty Tech—Customer Experience and Loyalty of Augmented Reality- and Artificial Intelligence-Driven Cosmetics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a study of the use of augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) technology in products and services in the field of beauty technology. The research topic is relevant. The authors of the article presented a literature review in the chosen area of research and identified gaps in existing studies. The presented research fills the gap and presents a comprehensive consideration of the impact of augmented reality and artificial intelligence in the beauty industry in terms of customer experience. The study uses an online survey to determine the influence of factors on product choice. The article concludes that such characteristics as augmented reality and artificial intelligence services and applications have a significant impact on customer satisfaction and intention to purchase. The article contains an introduction with an analysis of the research problem, research materials and methods with a literature review, presentation of the results and their discussion, and conclusions. The discussion of the results identifies the limitations of the presented study, prospects for further research, and provides recommendations for using the benefits of information technology to meet customer needs. The article provides recommendations on how cosmetic companies can use the results of the presented study to improve their operations in order to maintain the loyalty of existing customers and attract new customers to purchase goods.

The conclusions are consistent with the results obtained. Figures, tables and references used in the article have appropriate references. The literature sources used are relevant to the research topic.

In general, the presented study contributes to the improvement of the work of companies in the beauty industry and is of interest to the field of e-commerce in cosmetics.

Comments for improving the article:

In general, the article provides an explanation of the designations and their abbreviations when they are first written in the text. It would also be advisable to present a table of the notation used in the article to make it easier for readers to find appropriate explanations for the abbreviations used. Thus, some commonly used abbreviations are explained, while others are not, for example, “WoM” (first use in Table 1, and in the text on line 177).

Line 258: “As detailed in section 2.2...” Since this text is already in Section 2.2, the authors may be referring to Section 2.1. If this refers to Section 2.2, it would be better to state, for example, that based on the detailed description of this Section...

Line 384: It is necessary to list the constructs presented in Table 3, for example, INT (Interactivity)...

To visualize the results of the survey, it is advisable to use diagrams that show the quantitative indicators of respondents' answers in percentages.

Author Response

Comment:

In general, the article provides an explanation of the designations and their abbreviations when they are first written in the text. It would also be advisable to present a table of the notation used in the article to make it easier for readers to find appropriate explanations for the abbreviations used. Thus, some commonly used abbreviations are explained, while others are not, for example, “WoM” (first use in Table 1, and in the text on line 177).

Reply:

Thank you for pointing this out. The text has been reworked and each abbreviation is introduced upon first use. The table is appended with a legend about the used models and their abbreviation.

 

Comment:

Line 258: “As detailed in section 2.2...” Since this text is already in Section 2.2, the authors may be referring to Section 2.1. If this refers to Section 2.2, it would be better to state, for example, that based on the detailed description of this Section...

Reply:

Thank you for pointing it out. Your assessment is correct, it refers to Section 3.1. The first part of the sentence has been changed to “The literature review revealed that…”.

 

Comment:

Line 384: It is necessary to list the constructs presented in Table 3, for example, INT (Interactivity)...

Reply:

We fully agree and the abbreviations in the table are replaced with the full terms

 

Comment:

To visualize the results of the survey, it is advisable to use diagrams that show the quantitative indicators of respondents' answers in percentages.

Reply:

We are not fully sure that get the point behind this comment. We added percentage values to the description of the sample, where sensible. Additionally, we added an overview table on the percentage of participants that had previous experiences with the considered digital services and products. To list all questions of the survey and list percentages for the participants’ answers per category would not add any benefit to understanding. Regarding the regression results, which are essentially the results of the survey, percentage values would not be a reasonable option as well.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your exciting work to the publication opportunity. The topic is novel, and you did a recommendable job on the manuscript. However, before acceptance, I asked you to revise the following comments.

First of all, the topic of the manuscript did not sound well. So, I suggest you revise the topic.

 Abstract

Do not use abbreviations in the abstract; it distracts the readers' attention.

You have to revise your abstract. I want to see significant revisions on it. Please develop the methodology and implications section. The abstract should reflect the study's purpose, gap, method, findings, novelty/implications.

Introduction

I appreciate your efforts to provide facts and figures regarding the topic. However, I could not find any potential research gap and motivation for the study. I hope you can craft your introduction by following.

The Flow of the story should be as follows: General text about the topic, focus on its relevance and importance for the industry, practice, and theory, and what has been done so far on the topic. You have to propose the research gaps and research questions. The novelty and contribution of the study are missing, so please work on it.

 

Literature review and hypotheses development

I suggest deleting unnecessary literature while you can strengthen your hypothesis development. The hypotheses development section requires significant work.

 

I did not find sampling techniques; please address them.

The results section is very immature. As it is survey research, CMB issues may arise, but I did not find any measures to control it. For example, I did not find VIF and discriminate validity. I suggest you to include it. Also, please provide a standard table for Figure 2 and Figure 3.

I wonder about the implications of the study. Please develop the theoretical and practical implications.

 

Best wishes, and I am looking forward to the revised file.

Author Response

Comment:

First of all, the topic of the manuscript did not sound well. So, I suggest you revise the topic.

Reply:

We think that the comment refers to the title of the article since its topic is hard to change and would require writing a new article. Thus, a new title has been devised.

 

Comment:

Do not use abbreviations in the abstract; it distracts the readers' attention.

Reply:

While we do think that readers of Digital are familiar with abbreviations like AI, the abstract has been adjusted.

 

Comment:

You have to revise your abstract. I want to see significant revisions on it. Please develop the methodology and implications section. The abstract should reflect the study's purpose, gap, method, findings, novelty/implications.

Reply:

The implemented methodology and findings are already detailed in the abstract. As far as the constraint of 200 words allows it, the abstract has been adjusted to reflect on the mentioned issues.

 

Comment:

I appreciate your efforts to provide facts and figures regarding the topic. However, I could not find any potential research gap and motivation for the study. I hope you can craft your introduction by following.

Reply:

The second-to-last paragraph of the Introduction already addresses this aspect, as does the first paragraph after Table 1. However, the Introduction has been extended to point out in detail how the study adds to the scientific literature.

 

Comment:

The Flow of the story should be as follows: General text about the topic, focus on its relevance and importance for the industry, practice, and theory, and what has been done so far on the topic. You have to propose the research gaps and research questions. The novelty and contribution of the study are missing, so please work on it.

Reply:

We interpret this comment in connection to the preceding one since the article itself already follows this structure. The Introduction details the relevance of the topic, in particular, from a company and industry perspective. The theoretical relevance and what has already been done on the topic is already part of Section 3.1 as is the deduction of the research questions.

The Introduction has been extended to more strongly accentuate the contributions of this article. In the same way the literature review has been expanded slightly to include some additional more recent sources.

 

Comment:

I suggest deleting unnecessary literature while you can strengthen your hypothesis development. The hypotheses development section requires significant work.

Reply:

This comment in part contradicts the previous one, expanded a discussion of the literature would not coincide with a reduction of the literature basis. Following Table 1 a paragraph has been added that details with of the sources in the synopsis table are the once most closely linked to the underlying model conception.

 

Comment:

I did not find sampling techniques; please address them.

Reply:

Thank you for pointing this out. A respective paragraph has been added to Section 4.1.

 

Comment:

The results section is very immature. As it is survey research, CMB issues may arise, but I did not find any measures to control it. For example, I did not find VIF and discriminate validity. I suggest you to include it. Also, please provide a standard table for Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Reply:

Thank you for pointing this out. The methodology section has been extended to detail how the survey has been realized to reduce the bias by design. Additionally, the results of the Harman tests for the two considered scenarios are reported in the beginning of Section 4.2.

 

Comment:

I wonder about the implications of the study. Please develop the theoretical and practical implications.

Reply:

The practical implications have been in some parts been made more concrete. While section 3.2 already relates the findings to the previously cited literature and the section on limitations already pick up on a reflection of the methodology, an additional sub-section that discusses the theoretical implications has been added.

 

Comment:

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Reply: 

The language has been rechecked again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Topic is interesting, but I have the following questions and suggestions.

(1) Please highlight the main contributions of this in the introduction part, in contrast to the current literature. 

(2) The name "Materials and Methods" is not proper for the Section 2. Please change this following the content. 

(3) Is all the research design new in Figure 1? or part of them. Please highlight this.

(4) Please upload the questionaire in the appendix.

(5) Please add the principle for the survey design, based on the research aim of this paper.

(6) Why is the framework chosen in this paper, namely S-O-R Model, appropriate for the research aim?

(7) The presentation of the adopted methodology and the detailed estimation methods need to be added.

(8) Please show some descriptive analysis on the surveyed data. 

(9) Please add more discussions on the results.

Author Response

Comment:

Please highlight the main contributions of this in the introduction part, in contrast to the current literature. 

Reply:

Thank you for that reminder. The Introduction has been extended to more strongly accentuate the contributions of this article. In the same way the literature review has been expanded slightly to include some additional more recent sources.

 

Comment:

The name "Materials and Methods" is not proper for the Section 2. Please change this following the content. 

Reply:

The section title has been selected following the structure proposed by the journal. The section has been split up into its two sub-sections; the literature review and the methodology.

 

Comment:

Is all the research design new in Figure 1? or part of them. Please highlight this.

Reply:

Figure 1 combines existing approaches. The preceding section has been adjusted to reflect on this in more detail.

 

Comment:

Please upload the questionaire in the appendix.

Reply:

An abridged version of the questionnaire, that covers all questions relevant for the study has been added as an appendix.

 

Comment:

Please add the principle for the survey design, based on the research aim of this paper.

Reply:

As far as we understand this comment, this is already realized in section 3.2.

 

Comment:

Why is the framework chosen in this paper, namely S-O-R Model, appropriate for the research aim?

Reply:

Thank you for this input. A justification in favor of the suitability of the S-O-R model has been added.

 

Comment:

The presentation of the adopted methodology and the detailed estimation methods need to be added.

Reply:

We can only partially follow this comment. The implemented estimation method is explicitly stated even already in the abstract. The methodology is introduced in detail in the respective sections. The model conception is expanded upon some more.

 

Comment:

Please show some descriptive analysis on the surveyed data. 

Reply:

Thank you for this input. Section 3.1 already describes the characteristics of the data set and Table 4 reports on the constructs. We added percentage values to the description of the sample, where sensible. Additionally, we added an overview table on the percentage of participants that had previous experiences with the considered digital services and products and a table on the descriptives for the constructs.

 

Comment:

Please add more discussions on the results.

Reply:

In the conclusions an additional section has been added.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study identifies how interactivity, informativeness, personalization, and service quality of digital and physical beautytech solutions for home use affect utilitarian and hedonistic values ​​and the perceived risk factors among consumers. The manuscript needs to substantially improve the quality of scientific references (Scopus and WoS) and promote greater consistency in the use of APA standards. The manuscript needs greater consistency in the theoretical framework and its relationship with the actual theoretical and practical contributions of the manuscript. There is a lack of depth in the conclusions of the study and in the lines of future research. The document has good publication potential, but it is in need of greater robustness and consistency.

Author Response

Comments:

The manuscript needs to substantially improve the quality of scientific references (Scopus and WoS) and promote greater consistency in the use of APA standards.

Reply:

Scopus has been scanned again and a few additional sources could be determined that fit the scope of the study.

 

Comments:

The manuscript needs greater consistency in the theoretical framework and its relationship with the actual theoretical and practical contributions of the manuscript.

Reply:

The introduction has been expended to exhibit the contributions of the article more clearly. Additionally, the conclusions have been expanded by a new section which goes into more detail with regard to the theoretical insights gained from the study.

 

Comments:

There is a lack of depth in the conclusions of the study and in the lines of future research.

Reply:

An additional section has been added that expands this aspect.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. I am satisfied with it. However can you revise your introduction based upon my previous comment. I look forward to see your revision.

Author Response

Comment:

Thank you for the revision. I am satisfied with it. However can you revise your introduction based upon my previous comment. I look forward to see your revision.

Reply:

The introduction, in the previous round of revisions, has already been extended and reworked to pronounce the research gaps it targets and in how far it generates new insights (Lines 133-155). In the new section „Literature Review“ the existing literature is considered and it is discussed where there are still gaps.

Still, the first part of the justification in the introduction has been slightly rephrased and extended to reference the later literature review.

Assuming that you refer to your old fourth and fifth comment, we has added a paragraph to the introduction focusing on the value added of the study for practitioners (Lines 156-160), which was the only perceived aspect of the comments not yet already covered in detail by the introduction.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision is good.

Author Response

Comment:

The revision is good.

Reply:

Thank you for this assessment.