The use of virtual exhibition to promote exhibitors’ pro-environmental behavior: The case study of Zhejiang Yiwu International Intelligent Manufacturing Equipment Expo

Qing Xia; Shan Wang; Jose Weng Chou Wong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294502

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 19, 2023
2 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Sudarsan Jayasingh, Editor PONE-D-23-26178The use of virtual exhibition to promote exhibitors’ pro-environmental behavior: the case study of 2021 Zhejiang Yiwu International Intelligent Manufacturing Equipment ExpoPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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. * Need to present the source of the scale item used in your study. Good if it is presented in Appendix. * Purpose of conducting interview after survey need to be explained clearly in the methodology. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 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, Sudarsan Jayasingh, 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. 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. 3. 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. [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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: 1.The format of each paragraph needs to be uniform. 2.Advice for the exhibition industry could be added. 3.Please attach empirical data. 4.The meaning can be considered in the first half of the article. Reviewer #2: Thanks for letting me review your exciting manuscript. Regarding the form, I propose the necessity of some language-in-use corrections with some English editing. In terms of the content, Although the statistical analysis in the manuscript is correct, your procedure demands better sustaining the relationship between the content analysis of the interviews and the quantitative PLS statistical analysis. This aspect requires extra space in the methods section, additional details of your analytic approach, and qualitative interviews' data use. It is also imperative to explain how quantitative data is supported and mixed up with the data from interviews. All in all, with those additions, the journal must accept your article. ****** 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: Yes: Juan Felipe Espinosa-Cristia, PhD ******** [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.0294502.r001
Revision 1
20 Oct 2023 Author Response Response to editor: 1. Need to present the source of the scale item used in your study. Good if it is presented in Appendix. Response: Thanks for editor’s comment. We have already inserted the sources of the scale items used in this study, as Table 3 shows (Page 20, Line 364). In addition, we have attached a new Appendix 1 (Page 38-40) at the end of the manuscript, showing the questionnaire of this study. 2. Purpose of conducting interview after survey need to be explained clearly in the methodology. Response: Thanks for editor’s comment. We have added some contents that clearly explained the purpose of conducting the interview after survey in methodology section (Page 15, Line 280-288; Page 16, Line 294-299). The new added sentences are shown below: ---“The quantitative and qualitative triangulation methods help ensure a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the research topic or phenomenon being studied. By using the triangulation method, researchers can mitigate the limitations and biases inherent in quantitative results while increasing the validity and reliability of their findings [44]. This method also allows for a richer interpretation of the research results, enabling a more robust understanding of the phenomenon under investigation [44]. According to previous studies, Cao, Liu (45) and Wong and Pan (46) have also applied the triangulation method to verify the results of the quantitative study. Therefore, this study conducted another qualitative study to verify the reliability of the results.” --- “The researcher asked the interview questions based on the guideline of proposed hypotheses, such as “what kinds of attributes in the virtual exhibition are attractive? And why?” or “what practices will the virtual exhibition organizers can do to trigger exhibitors’ pro-environmental behavior? And how?”. The previous quantitative results allow us to identify patterns, correlations, and general trends within the dataset. The following qualitative data is to validate the quantitative results and provide industry insights”. Response to Reviewer #1: 1. The format of each paragraph needs to be uniform. Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. We have checked the format of each paragraph being uniform. 2.Advice for the exhibition industry could be added. Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. We have added some advices for the exhibition industry at the practical implications section (Page 32, Line 510-519; Page 33, Line 527-535) , such as: --- “The organizers can incorporate VR technology, offerring a more immersive experience to exhibitors and visitors. This can include creating virtual showrooms or product demonstrations that simulate real-life experiences, enhancing the visual impact and clarity. In addition, the organizer can provide high-resolution images, videos, and interactive content for exhibitors to showcase their products or services. This can be achieved through advanced technology or partnerships with digital content providers” --- “The organizer can provide high-resolution images, videos, and interactive content for exhibitors to showcase their products or services. This can be achieved through advanced technology or partnerships with digital content providers --- “Furthermore, the organizers can create a dedicated section or forum within the virtual trade show platform to promote sustainability practices, such as facilitate discussions, share success stories, and provide resources on how companies can integrate sustainability into their business operations”. 3.Please attach empirical data. The meaning can be considered in the first half of the article. Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. The empirical data has been attached at Mendeley Data official website. Please refer to DOI:10.17632/b34wj2dvnv.1 The citation of data is: Wang, Shan (2023), “The use of virtual exhibition to promote exhibitors’ pro-environmental behavior: the case study of 2021 Zhejiang Yiwu International Intelligent Manufacturing Equipment Expo”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/b34wj2dvnv.1 Response to Reviewer #2: 1.Thanks for letting me review your exciting manuscript. Regarding the form, I propose the necessity of some language-in-use corrections with some English editing. Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. We have invited a professional English translator to finish the proofreading of this manuscript. 2.In terms of the content, Although the statistical analysis in the manuscript is correct, your procedure demands better sustaining the relationship between the content analysis of the interviews and the quantitative PLS statistical analysis. This aspect requires extra space in the methods section, additional details of your analytic approach, and qualitative interviews' data use. Response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. We have added a paragraph that clearly explained the purpose of conducting the interview after survey in methodology section. The new added sentences are shown below (Page 15, Line 280-288): ---“ The quantitative and qualitative triangulation methods help ensure a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the research topic or phenomenon being studied. By using the triangulation method, researchers can mitigate the limitations and biases inherent in quantitative results while increasing the validity and reliability of their findings [44]. This method also allows for a richer interpretation of the research results, enabling a more robust understanding of the phenomenon under investigation [44]. According to previous studies, Cao, Liu (45) and Wong and Pan (46) have also applied the triangulation method to verify the results of the quantitative study. Therefore, this study conducted another qualitative study to verify the reliability of the results.” 3.It is also imperative to explain how quantitative data is supported and mixed up with the data from interviews. All in all, with those additions, the journal must accept your article. Response: Thanks for reviewer’s valuable feedback. In our manuscript, we applied the quantitative and qualitative triangulation method to ensure a comprehensive analysis of the research topic. In methodology section, we have explained the significance of conducting interview after the questionnaire. The quantitative data were collected through surveys/questionnaires administered to a large sample size, allowing us to obtain a broad understanding of participants' viewpoints and experiences related to the research topic. After this, the interviewees were firstly asked by following a basic interview guideline related to the topic with questions like “what kinds of attributes in the virtual exhibition are attractive?” or “what practices will the virtual exhibition organizers can do to trigger exhibitors’ pro-environmental behavior?”. The previous quantitative results allow us to identify patterns, correlations, and general trends within the dataset. The following qualitative data is to validate the quantitative results and provide industry insights. After completing individual analyses, we employed a process of data comparison and integration, examining how the qualitative insights either confirmed, expanded, or provided further explanation to the quantitative findings. This process facilitated an iterative triangulation approach that strengthened the validity and reliability of our study. To illustrate this integration in our manuscript, we have revised the methodology section to provide a clear and detailed description of the process involved in supporting and mixing the quantitative and qualitative data (Page 15-16, Line 280-297). We recognize the importance of making this aspect transparent for readers, ensuring they can fully grasp the rigor and comprehensiveness of our analysis. Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which will significantly enhance the clarity and quality of our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294502.r002
3 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Sudarsan Jayasingh, Editor The use of virtual exhibition to promote exhibitors’ pro-environmental behavior: the case study of Zhejiang Yiwu International Intelligent Manufacturing Equipment Expo PONE-D-23-26178R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Sudarsan Jayasingh, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294502.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Nov 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sudarsan Jayasingh, Editor PONE-D-23-26178R1 The use of virtual exhibition to promote exhibitors’ pro-environmental behavior: the case study of Zhejiang Yiwu International Intelligent Manufacturing Equipment Expo Dear Dr. Wang: 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 Dr. Sudarsan Jayasingh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294502.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 .