PONE-D-22-18927factors affecting repurchase intention of organic food among generation Z (Evidence from developing economy)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Khan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ming Zhang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file.

4. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper is quite relevant and interesting, but some improvements are necessary to make it even better.

The relationship between consumer perceptions and sustainable consumption behavior as regards repurchase intention of organic food has not been covered, and thus such sources can be cited:

Kliestik, T., Zvarikova, K., and Lăzăroiu, G. (2022). “Data-driven Machine Learning and Neural Network Algorithms in the Retailing Environment: Consumer Engagement, Experience, and Purchase Behaviors,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 17(1): 57–69. doi: 10.22381/emfm17120224.

Hopkins, E. (2022). “Machine Learning Tools, Algorithms, and Techniques in Retail Business Operations: Consumer Perceptions, Expectations, and Habits,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 10(1): 43–55. doi: 10.22381/jsme10120223.

Nica, E., Sabie, O.-M., Mascu, S., and Luțan (Petre), A. G. (2022). “Artificial Intelligence Decision-Making in Shopping Patterns: Consumer Values, Cognition, and Attitudes,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 17(1): 31–43. doi: 10.22381/emfm17120222.

Lăzăroiu, G., Andronie, M., Uţă, C., and Hurloiu, I. (2019). “Trust Management in Organic Agriculture: Sustainable Consumption Behavior, Environmentally Conscious Purchase Intention, and Healthy Food Choices,” Frontiers in Public Health 7: 340. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00340.

Pocol, C.B., Marinescu, V., Dabija, D.C., and Amuza, A. (2021). “Clustering Generation Z university students based on daily fruit and vegetable consumption: empirical research in an emerging market,” British Food Journal 123(8): 2705-2727. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-10-2020-0900.

Introduction

Please try to have a better emphasize and explanation of the

research gap

research question

theory which the paper is enhancing

As you are referring to Gen Z, your paper could, for instance, improve and enhance the generational theory. See for instance: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174532

Lit review

After the lit review, please present the conceptual model under investigation

The lit review should be enhanced and extending. There should also be a paragraph on the theory that you employ

Methodology

Please present the money in EUR or USD

From the methodology it should be clear how the questionnaire has been operationalised, i.e. what scales have been used. There should be some analysis presented regarding reliability, validity etc. and the general procedure employed by the authors should also be presented.

Table 2. Please also state the items ... it is needed to know what the items are

Items below 0.7 must be dismissed

Please also present the cronbach alpha

Table 3. Is this the correlation matrix or the discriminant validity? This is not clear!

Table 4. for each hypothesis there should be a discussion

Discussions

Please make more comparisons between your findings and previous results from the literature, thus pinpointing the novelty of your research.

Conclusions

please also add limitations and future research perspectives

Please add more up to date references.

The paper needs proofreading

Reviewer #2: Title: Factors affecting repurchase intention of organic food among generation Z (Evidence from developing economy)

Comments: Major Revision

The current manuscript needs major improvement in terms of writing and APA formatting.

Write references in APA VI format.

Firstly, this manuscript needs to be prove-read by a native English Speaker and a research analyst before submitting it again.

My concern is that why the author has chosen to carry out research on such old and over used variables? I do not see any contribution of this current manuscript on the existing literature. In simpler words, what is new in this research?

Page 1 line no. 41, “It is noted that various studies have been conducted in western countries…” mention the research here.

Page 1 line 42, “Similarly, Biswas & Roy[3]…” cite properly

Write all statistics in one paragraph, consider Page 1, Para 1 & 2

Page 2 line 50, cite properly. Either cite through number or through names in order to maintain the coherence of the manuscript.

Page 2 line 54 “generation z” .Either write generation Z or generation z throughout the text.

The gap in the study is not addressed properly as most studies related to repurchase intention of organic food and generation Z are missing while developing a problem statement since these topics would strengthen your problem statement.

Refer to the following article while mentioning existing literature in the problem statement

https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2021-0279

In the literature review section, the author has failed to mention any theory/s applicable to the research model, in detail at the beginning of the chapter. See page no. 3, heading “2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses”

Moreover, the manuscript lacks consistency as the author has not defined/describe each variable with respect 3-4 previous studies. Moreover, the author has not provided reference of previous literature with respect to the relationship between IV and DV, and created hypotheses just like that. Refer to Page no. 3-4. Similarly, the author has missed out some recent literature related to the variables.

For customer satisfaction, refer to:

• https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1100517

• https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2018-0728

For Brand awareness, refer to:

• https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-08-2017-0275

• https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1960

Page 4, line 141, the demographic cohort referred as Gen Z in this article ranges between the years 1996-2012 where as you have mentioned “1995-2010”. So, provide reference for using this range.

Referring to 4.1. Data Analysis and Results, Page 5 line no. 176. Have you applied SEM or PLS-SEM? Because all the tables you have shared are that of PLS-SEM not SEM neither CFA.

Where are the other tables of Discriminant validity (Cross-leadings and HTMT)?

The author must write detailed interpretation of all the tables along with providing the references for the benchmark values. Refer to the following articles:

https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2020-0019

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0735633117715941

Referring to the “5. Discussion” page no. 6-7, first of all correct the numbering. It should be the part of chapter 4. Secondly, none of the result of the path analysis is discussed through the channel of existing literature. No reference is give, no proper justification is given with respect to Gen Z.

Where is the conclusion in chapter 5, author has just directly written “5.1.1 Theoretical Contribution”

Similarly referring to “5.1.2. Practical contribution”, the author has not given managerial implications properly as they are quite generalized and not linked to the results.

Write Future recommendation under separate heading. Hence, the author must rewrite chapter 5. See pages 7-8

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

factors affecting repurchase intention of organic food among generation Z (Evidence from developing economy)

PONE-D-22-18927R1

Dear Dr. Khan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ming Zhang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for implementing all my suggestions and recommendations. The paper can now be accepted. Best luck in attracting valuable citations

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********