Sustainable Brand Advertising—The Green Advertising for Generation Z, a Qualitative LRSB Analyze
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read this paper many times. My assessment is that this article does not provide useful guidance for researchers in the field. From the title, I would have expected a commentary on the various models used in the literature and a comparison between different approaches. In reality, it is a very useful bibliometric analysis, but it does not help the reader to form their own opinion. I suggest that some mathematical formulas could explain the many models studied in a better way.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this work, the authors have studied the link between advertising and sustainability in recent scientific publications (from 2000 until 2023).
The bibliometric analysis has allowed to demonstrate that there is a strong growth of scientific publications dealing with these topics and has allowed to identify some trends and some research directions not yet explored.
The bibliometric analysis is carried out rigorously, and the protocols used by the authors are considered valid.
Unfortunately, the authors limit themselves to a qualitative analysis without delving into essential technical details for those involved in advertising at a scientific level.
Most current advertising models are quantitative, whereas in this work, only qualitative aspects are considered.
Some valid questions that the authors could consider are the following:
1) How many of the analyzed papers described a quantitative numerical model?
2) Was the numerical model static or dynamic?
3) Did the model consider a game among different companies?
From my point of view, although the analysis is very thorough, it does not assist the reader in their research (which should be done by a systematic literature review). For example, as a scientist, I would be interested in understanding which dynamic advertising models deal with greenwashing; however, from this article, I only obtain qualitative considerations and not concrete and directly usable indications.
Minor revision:
In Figure 2, publications from 2024 should be removed as the graph otherwise appears incorrect.
Author Response
Dear Revisor,
I hope this letter finds you well. I want to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the article entitled “Sustainable Brand Advertising - A Systematic Literature Re-view” and providing valuable feedback. Your insights have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the work.
In response to your feedback, I have carefully considered each point raised and made the following revisions:
- Revisor comments about the objective of the study: the authors consider that the objective of the study was achieved once the main objective “is to clarify the state of the art regarding advertising and sustainability”.
- Revisor comments about Figure 2, publications from 2024 should be removed as the graph otherwise appears incorrect: It has been corrected as asked.
- Overall, other comments from the reviewer were responded to in the final part of the text underlined in yellow.
Additionally, I would like to thank the positive comments on the identification of trends and some research directions not yet explored regarding this topic made possible by bibliometric analysis, as well as the comment on the rigor applied to bibliometric analysis and the protocols used by the authors.
Once again, thank you for your invaluable feedback and for your commitment to excellence. I look forward to the possibility of further collaboration in the future.
Warm regards,
Paula Lopes, Associate Professor, Lusófona University
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is on a topical topic, includes a broad review of sources and scientifically substantiated identification of the components of Sustainable Brand Advertising by means of a systematic literature review.
Author Response
Dear Revisor,
I hope this letter finds you well. I want to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review the article entitled “Sustainable Brand Advertising - A Systematic Literature Re-view” and providing valuable feedback. Your insights have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the work.
Additionally, I would like to thank the positive comments on the current nature of the submitted study, as well as the broad review of scientifically based sources on advertising and brand sustainability through a systematic literature review.
Once again, thank you for your invaluable feedback and for your commitment to excellence. I look forward to the possibility of further collaboration in the future.
Warm regards,
Paula Lopes, Associate Professor, Lusófona University
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors have introduced a new section: lines 601-656, but this paper still remains a qualitative description that does not address my requests outlined in the previous review. The results of this analysis are correct, but they only represent qualitative aspects. As an advertising expert, I would have expected a more quantitative approach or a more appropriate description of the models present in all the analyzed papers. Some questions that remain unanswered are as follows:
1) How many of the analyzed papers contained a quantitative model?
2) Was the quantitative model deterministic or stochastic?
3) Did the model propose an optimization problem or a game?
Most likely, the authors are not interested in these questions, because they see advertising more as a qualitative process. I would therefore ask them to fully clarify this choice by modifying the title, abstract, and keywords so that it is clear that the results of the analysis are only qualitative.
Personally, with the assigned title "A Systematic Literature Review," I would have expected a thorough analysis of the models and not just qualitative trends.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you in advance for the suggestions for improvements you sent us. We make the requested changes and hope they are in compliance.
Therefore, we changed the title, abstract and keywords (underlined in yellow) according to your comments.
Best regards,
Paula Lopes
Alberico Rosário
Filipe Rosário
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNow the paper, with the new title, can be accepted for publication in Platforms.