Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In its current form, the paper presents a valuable and timely contribution to the study of consumer motivations in the fashion resale industry. It combines two strong theoretical frameworks with empirical insight, offering a nuanced understanding of how financial, emotional, and environmental factors interact in consumer decision-making. The qualitative design is appropriate and executed with care, though some methodological and analytical aspects could be strengthened. The main areas that require improvement are synthesis and interpretation. The literature review and discussion sections should focus more on connecting findings to theory rather than simply describing them, and the conclusion should make the study’s contribution to the broader discourse on sustainable fashion more explicit. With revisions focused on analytical depth, theoretical integration, and concision, this paper has the potential to make a significant scholarly and practical impact.

Below there are comments and points for improvement for each section.

Abstract
The abstract provides a clear overview of the study’s objectives, methodology, and findings. It effectively establishes the growing importance of the secondhand fashion industry and summarizes the four main motivations that drive individual consumers to participate as resellers: financial, convenience, emotional, and sustainability-oriented reasons. The structure is logical and informative, and the writing is concise. However, the abstract functions more as a factual summary than an analytical statement of contribution. It would be stronger if it explicitly mentioned the theoretical frameworks guiding the analysis and briefly explained how this research advances current understanding of fashion resale behavior. Including a sentence about the practical relevance of the findings for fashion retailers or sustainability advocates would make the abstract more impactful and focused.

Introduction
The introduction successfully situates the study within the broader context of corporate social responsibility and the increasing demand for sustainable practices in the fashion industry. It establishes the urgency of addressing consumer behavior as a response to these pressures and provides a coherent transition into the topic of secondhand apparel. The section demonstrates thorough engagement with the literature and sets up the research questions clearly. However, it takes too long to establish the specific research gap, as much of the early discussion is devoted to summarizing general trends and statistics. The argument would be more persuasive if the authors stated the gap and the study’s contribution earlier in the section. The research questions themselves are relevant, but they could be phrased in a way that emphasizes the link between individual motivations and the theoretical frameworks that guide the study. In stylistic terms, some sentences could be shortened or combined to improve flow and avoid repetition of ideas.

Literature Review
The literature review is comprehensive and demonstrates a strong command of the topic. It effectively covers several dimensions of secondhand apparel consumption, including generational trends, technological impacts, sustainability considerations, and branded recommerce initiatives. The discussion of Consumption Values Theory and Goal Framing Theory is an important feature that provides conceptual clarity. Nonetheless, the review often reads as a sequence of summaries rather than an integrated argument. It would benefit from greater synthesis of ideas, where connections between studies are explicitly stated and gaps in the existing literature are identified. Each subsection could end with a few sentences explaining how its content informs the present study. The theoretical framework section would also be strengthened by explaining how the two chosen theories complement one another and why they are appropriate for analyzing resale motivations. Including a short conceptual model that maps out the relationship between the theories, the research questions, and the expected themes could also improve coherence.

Method
The methodology is appropriate for the purpose of the study. The choice of a qualitative, phenomenological approach aligns with the aim of exploring subjective motivations in depth. The description of data collection, interview structure, and participant demographics is detailed and transparent. The inclusion of IRB approval and ethical considerations enhances credibility. However, there is room to expand on the rationale for participant selection and to clarify how representativeness was addressed. The predominance of Generation Z participants is noted but not discussed in depth, and this demographic skew could influence the results. It would also be helpful to explain how the authors ensured analytical rigor, for example by discussing intercoder agreement, reflexivity, or the process by which thematic saturation was achieved. A brief discussion of potential researcher bias and how it was mitigated would further strengthen the section.

Findings and Discussion
The findings are presented in a well-organized manner, and the four major themes provide a clear framework for understanding the motivations behind apparel resale. The inclusion of direct quotations from participants enriches the analysis and lends authenticity to the results. The integration of theoretical concepts into the discussion is consistent and logical, especially the connections between financial motivations and gain goals, and between emotional satisfaction and hedonic values. However, the discussion sometimes becomes repetitive and overly descriptive. Rather than simply restating what participants said, the authors could interpret the findings more critically and explore their implications in relation to previous research. The interplay between convenience and sustainability, for instance, presents a compelling contradiction that could be examined further. The section would also benefit from addressing alternative or divergent cases to provide a more balanced understanding of participant experiences. Greater synthesis of themes and deeper reflection on their theoretical meaning would enhance the analytical strength of this section.

Conclusion
The conclusion provides a concise summary of the four main themes and reiterates that multiple motivations coexist in shaping individuals’ resale behavior. It successfully restates the central findings and reinforces the relevance of understanding these motivations in the context of a circular economy. However, the conclusion remains primarily descriptive and does not move far enough beyond the findings to discuss their broader implications. To strengthen it, the authors could explain how the results refine or expand upon the theories used in the study. The conclusion could also offer practical recommendations for retailers, platform designers, or policymakers, drawing directly from the findings about financial, emotional, and convenience-related factors. Adding a short reflective statement on how these insights might shape future sustainability initiatives in fashion would give the conclusion greater depth and originality.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Research  

This section does well in identifying how the study contributes to both scholarship and practice. It provides thoughtful commentary on the educational and industrial relevance of the findings. The discussion of potential policy changes is innovative and demonstrates forward thinking, but it would be more convincing if it were tied to evidence from participants or comparable examples in existing research. The limitations are acknowledged clearly, including the small sample size and issues with transcription technology, yet the discussion could be expanded to mention the subjective nature of qualitative interpretation and the potential for researcher influence. Suggestions for future research are appropriate but could be more specific. Proposing comparative studies across cultural or platform contexts, or longitudinal analyses of resale motivations, would provide clearer direction for subsequent work. Overall, this section is informative and reflective but could be refined to better differentiate between theoretical implications, practical applications, and methodological considerations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English throughout the article is generally clear, professional, and appropriate for an academic journal. The authors demonstrate a strong command of academic vocabulary and maintain a formal tone that suits the research context. Sentence structures are varied, and key concepts are expressed with precision, allowing readers to follow complex theoretical discussions with relative ease. However, there are occasional issues with wordiness and redundancy, particularly in the introduction and literature review, where long sentences sometimes obscure the main argument. A few sections could benefit from greater conciseness and smoother transitions to enhance readability. Minor grammatical inconsistencies, such as misplaced commas or awkward phrasing, appear infrequently but should be corrected during proofreading. Overall, the English is proficient and conveys ideas effectively, though stylistic refinement and tighter editing would improve the paper’s flow and clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attached response to the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to explore the motivations of individual consumers who resell their clothing via peer-to-peer (C2C) platforms. Its significance lies in uncovering these motivations to inform platform optimization and advance the circular economy. In essence, the research investigates C2C resale behavior in the apparel domain.

The study adopts a qualitative approach, drawing loosely on grounded theory methodology without strictly following its full procedural guidelines. The primary objective is not to generate new theory, but rather to describe and categorize the motivations of individual resellers, framing the findings within established theoretical frameworks such as Consumption Values Theory and Goal Framing Theory, rather than inductively developing a novel theory from the data. While the methodological approach has limitations in terms of theoretical generation, as an exploratory study focused on description and classification, it demonstrates logical analytical processes and a systematic thematic extraction, resulting in a coherent and self-consistent argument.

The following suggestions are offered to strengthen the manuscript:

1. It is recommended to revise the title to: "The Inner Drive: Unpacking the Motivations for Consumer Participation in Apparel Resale." This would more clearly convey the research objectives and central questions to readers.
2. In the Introduction, alongside stating the research purpose, the authors should explicitly clarify the study's positioning—emphasizing that it is descriptive and classificatory in nature, rather than aimed at theory building.
3. In the Method section, the authors should clearly state that their approach was inspired by grounded theory but deviates from its standard protocol. A flowchart illustrating the research process would greatly enhance methodological transparency.
4. Section 4.4, "Contribution towards a sustainable future," identifies participants' environmental awareness as a key motivator—an important finding. To deepen the discussion and academic rigor, the following is suggested:
• Limitation in the current discussion: While the study clearly identifies "contribution to a sustainable future" as a motivator, the mechanism through which environmental awareness translates into resale behavior remains underexplored. The well-documented "knowledge-action gap" in environmental psychology highlights the complex relationship between awareness and pro-environmental action.
• Suggested improvement: It is strongly recommended to incorporate the theoretical lens of the "knowledge-action gap" when discussing sustainability motivations. This would help explain why some environmentally conscious individuals choose resale as a concrete action, while others do not. The following paper is recommended for citation: Bridging the knowledge-action divide: environmental awareness and low-carbon behaviors of Chinese university students (DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04953-2).
• Sample integration: For instance, the discussion could begin: "The finding that sellers are motivated by environmental concerns aligns with broader literature on pro-environmental behavior. However, the link between awareness and action is not automatic, and is often mediated by a well-documented 'knowledge-action gap' (cite). Our study shows that apparel resale can serve as one concrete pathway for environmentally aware individuals to bridge this gap."
5. In the Conclusion, the argument could be strengthened as follows: "This research demonstrates that apparel resale is not merely an economic activity but also a tangible low-carbon behavior. It represents a practical means for individuals to translate abstract environmental values into action, thereby addressing the knowledge-action divide discussed in studies on sustainable consumption (cite)."
6. Terminology consistency: The spellings "resale" and "recommerce" are used predominantly throughout the text (e.g., apparel resale, resale market). The authors should ensure consistent usage of these terms, avoiding variants like "re-sale" or "re-commerce."
7. Potential typo: In Table 1, the preferred resale channel listed as "Gralled" appears to be a typographical error. Based on context, the intended platform is likely "Grailed," a well-known secondhand fashion marketplace for men. The authors should verify and correct this.

Author Response

Please see the attached responses to the reviewers document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a timely and relevant qualitative research into the motivations of individual vendors in the fashion resale industry. The topic is of significant interest given the market's growth and its implications for sustainability and retail strategy. The paper is generally well-structured, with a clear introduction, a comprehensive literature review, a sound methodological approach for a qualitative study, and a discussion that effectively links findings to established theoretical frameworks (Consumption Values Theory and Goal Framing Theory). However, the manuscript requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication. The most pressing issues are related to the presentation and justification of the methodology and the depth of the discussion in relation to existing literature:

1. Methodology Section Needs Strengthening: First, while the small sample size (n=10) is acceptable in qualitative research, the authors should explicitly address the concept of theoretical saturation. A statement confirming that data collection ceased once no new themes were emerging would strengthen the methodological rigor. Second, the description of the thematic analysis process, while present, could be more detailed. For instance, it would be beneficial to know if the coding was performed by a single researcher or multiple researchers to establish inter-coder reliability. A brief mention of how disagreements (if multiple coders were involved) were resolved would enhance transparency. The authors should better explain how they arrived at the result in Figure 1. Finally, including the core interview questions or themes as an appendix (or within the manuscript) would greatly improve reproducibility and allow readers to better assess the line of questioning that led to the themes.
2. Discussion and Literature Integration: The findings are well-presented but the discussion section could be more critically engaged with the existing literature cited in the review. For example, the finding that financial gain is primary aligns with some studies (e.g., Ertz et al., 2016), but the paper could do more to contrast its findings with studies that found stronger hedonic or normative drivers in certain contexts (e.g., Turunen et al., 2020, is mentioned but somewhat dismissed). A deeper discussion of why these differences might exist (e.g., sample demographics, cultural context, type of apparel) would add significant value.
3. Some sentences are very long and complex, which affects readability. Breaking them down would improve the flow.
4. The literature review is comprehensive but could be more focused on vendor/seller motivations specifically, rather than general secondhand consumption. While the consumer literature provides context, explicitly highlighting the gap in research on sellers earlier on would sharpen the paper's contribution.
5. Conclusion and Implications: The policy implication suggestion, while interesting, is somewhat speculative and not directly derived from the findings. It should be tempered or more clearly framed as a potential avenue for future research based on the study's broader conclusions. The limitation regarding the sample size is appropriately acknowledged, but the authors could further discuss the demographic skew (70% Gen Z) as both a limitation (affects generalizability) and a strength (focuses on a key demographic).

Author Response

Please see the attached responses to the reviewers document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have fully addressed all of my concerns in the revised manuscript. I recommend acceptance for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your evaluation of our revision. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done an outstanding job in revising the manuscript and addressing the reviewers' concerns. I appreciate the detailed and well-explained description of the changes made to the document. The authors have adequately addressed my comments. I have no further concerns.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your evaluation of our revision.