A theoretical model of factors influencing online consumer purchasing behavior through electronic word of mouth data mining and analysis

Qiwei Wang; Xiaoya Zhu; Manman Wang; Fuli Zhou; Shuang Cheng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286034

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 19, 2023
2 May 2023 Decision Letter - Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan, Editor PONE-D-23-11851A Theoretical Model of Factors Influencing Online Consumer Purchasing Behavior through Electronic Word of Mouth Data Mining and AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHU, 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 Jun 16 2023 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, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Henan Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project (grant number. 2020CZH012), the Henan Key Research and Development and Promotion Special (Soft Science Research) (grant number. 222400410126), the Jiangsu Province Social Science Foundation Youth Project (grant number. 21GLC012) and the Doctor Fund of Zhengzhou University of Light Industry (grant number. 2020BSJJ022, 2019BSJJ017).Conceptualization: Xiaoya Zhu. Data curation: Manman Wang. Formal analysis: Fuli Zhou, Shuang Cheng. Funding acquisition: Qiwei Wang, Xiaoya Zhu, Manman Wang, Fuli Zhou, Shuang Cheng Investigation: Qiwei Wang. Methodology: Qiwei Wang. Project administration: Xiaoya Zhu, Manman Wang, Fuli Zhou, and Shuang Cheng Resources: Qiwei Wang. Software: Qiwei Wang. Supervision: Qiwei Wang, Xiaoya Zhu, Manman Wang, Fuli Zhou, Shuang Cheng Writing – original draft: Qiwei Wang. Writing – review & editing: Qiwei Wang." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. 4. 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 5. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: I am pleased to inform you that we have reviewed your manuscript and find it to be of high quality and relevance to our journal's scope. Congratulations on your excellent work! However, to ensure that your manuscript meets the highest standards of academic excellence, we recommend that you carefully address the reviewers' comments, which we have attached with this email. The comments highlight some minor revisions that can enhance the clarity and impact of your work. We kindly request that you carefully consider each of the reviewers' comments and address them appropriately in your revised manuscript. Once you have made the necessary changes, please resubmit your manuscript through our online submission system. [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: As a journal reviewer, I would like to commend the authors for their rigorous data analysis process and the comprehensive results presented in the article. However, there are two minor aspects that need to be addressed by the authors in order to increase the quality of this paper. The introduction section can be strengthening by clearly highlighting the research problem, significance, and gaps in the literature. This would help outline the main contributions of this submission. It has been noticed that you have cited a bit old research (2010, 2011, 2013). You are suggested to update these citations with recent and well-established ones. Reviewer #2: This is a well-written paper with good contributions. All important elements of a good academic research paper are presented in this submission. I would suggest a few minor amendments. 1. The abstract appears to be more focused on reporting results rather than effectively communicating the central idea(s) explored in the paper and the contribution it makes to the scientific community's existing knowledge. Its lack of coherence makes it challenging to follow. 2. The discussion section should first compare the findings of this research with those of prior research. Both theoretical and practical implications should be reported in a separate section. 3. The literature review, particularly the literature related to the SOR and WOM, should be strengthen by including well-established and related research. This includes but is not limited to: - E-commerce in high uncertainty avoidance cultures: The driving forces of repurchase and word-of-mouth intentions. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102083 - Boosting Online Purchase Intention in High-Uncertainty-Avoidance Societies: A Signaling Theory Approach. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030136 - Solving the product uncertainty hurdle in social commerce: The mediating role of seller uncertainty. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2023.100169 - Boosting Customer E-Loyalty: An Extended Scale of Online Service Quality. Doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120380 - Building customer loyalty in online shopping: the role of online trust, online satisfaction and electronic word of mouth. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEMR.2020.108132 ****** 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: Yes: Malek alsoud Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Husam Yaseen ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286034.r001
Revision 1
5 May 2023 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviews: Thank you for your correspondence and for the feedback provided by the reviewers regarding our manuscript titled “A Theoretical Model of Factors Influencing Online Consumer Purchasing Behavior through Electronic Word of Mouth Data Mining and Analysis”. These valuable and constructive comments have assisted in revising and enhancing our paper, in addition to providing significant guidance to our research. We have carefully examined and addressed all provided comments, and hope that the corrections meet with approval. The main revisions made to the paper and our corresponding responses to the reviewers' comments are listed below. Responds to the Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: We have modified our manuscript to ensure compliance with PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. 2. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: The cover letter contains a statement indicating that "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 3. 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. Response: We have uploaded a separate file consisting of the study's minimal data. 4. 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. Response: The corresponding author has updated the ORCID iD. 5. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. Response: we have included a title page with information for all authors in our main document. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Response: Our reference list has been carefully reviewed and verified to be both complete and accurate. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Responds to the reviewers’ comments: Reviewer #1: As a journal reviewer, I would like to commend the authors for their rigorous data analysis process and the comprehensive results presented in the article. However, there are two minor aspects that need to be addressed by the authors in order to increase the quality of this paper. The introduction section can be strengthening by clearly highlighting the research problem, significance, and gaps in the literature. This would help outline the main contributions of this submission. It has been noticed that you have cited a bit old research (2010, 2011, 2013). You are suggested to update these citations with recent and well-established ones. Response: Firstly, the introduction section has been rewritten to address the reviewers' comments. The research problem, significance, and gaps in the literature have all been included in the introduction. Secondly, outdated references from 2010, 2011, and 2013 have been removed and replaced with more recent references. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: This is a well-written paper with good contributions. All important elements of a good academic research paper are presented in this submission. I would suggest a few minor amendments. 1. The abstract appears to be more focused on reporting results rather than effectively communicating the central idea(s) explored in the paper and the contribution it makes to the scientific community's existing knowledge. Its lack of coherence makes it challenging to follow. Response: The abstract section has been rewritten to enhance the logical flow and coherence of the paper, as suggested by the reviewers. 2. The discussion section should first compare the findings of this research with those of prior research. Both theoretical and practical implications should be reported in a separate section. Response: In the discussion section, we have compared the findings of our research with those of prior research, and have separated the theoretical and practical implications into distinct sections. 3. The literature review, particularly the literature related to the SOR and WOM, should be strengthen by including well-established and related research. This includes but is not limited to: - E-commerce in high uncertainty avoidance cultures: The driving forces of repurchase and word-of-mouth intentions. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102083 - Boosting Online Purchase Intention in High-Uncertainty-Avoidance Societies: A Signaling Theory Approach. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030136 - Solving the product uncertainty hurdle in social commerce: The mediating role of seller uncertainty. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2023.100169 - Boosting Customer E-Loyalty: An Extended Scale of Online Service Quality. Doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120380 - Building customer loyalty in online shopping: the role of online trust, online satisfaction and electronic word of mouth. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEMR.2020.108132 Response: Additionally, we have incorporated the listed references suggested by the reviewer to strengthen the literature review. Special thanks to you for your good comments. We have made our best effort to improve the manuscript and greatly appreciate the Editors and Reviewers' earnest work. We hope that the revised manuscript meets with approval. Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions. Best regards, Dr. Xiaoya Zhu Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286034.r002
7 May 2023 Decision Letter - Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan, Editor A Theoretical Model of Factors Influencing Online Consumer Purchasing Behavior through Electronic Word of Mouth Data Mining and Analysis PONE-D-23-11851R1 Dear Dr. ZHU, 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, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286034.r003
Formally Accepted
10 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan, Editor PONE-D-23-11851R1 A Theoretical Model of Factors Influencing Online Consumer Purchasing Behavior through Electronic Word of Mouth Data Mining and Analysis Dear Dr. ZHU: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286034.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .