PONE-D-23-29134Effect of emotional factors on purchase intention in streaming live marketing of agricultural products: a moderated mediation modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 Dec 28 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,

Mingyue Fan, 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. 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.

3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include authors Weibao Li, Tianming Han, Jing Han, and Jia Liu.

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

There are several points that authors can revise:

1. Introduction: The necessity of research content is not reflected, and it does not indicate that the research content has not been studied by previous researchers or lacks sufficient research. The first two sections lack some logical coherence, and are suggested to be made some adjustments.

2. Literature Review: The theory used in this study, the S-O-R (Stimulus-Organism-Response) theory, lacks a certain level of innovation.

3. Method: Based on what criteria are the data from 3-4 questions integrated into a latent variable, and there being a lack of relevant explanations and citation references for the combination of data sources.

4. Conclusion and Discussion: In this section, it is suggested to reorganize the content by comparing and discussing one's own conclusions with previous research, and presenting valuable viewpoints.

5. Reference: Literature is scarce, and some of it is outdated. It is recommended to appropriately increase and update the references.

6. Please get the paper read by a professional language editor.

7. Run the article on a plagiarism check software like Turnitin and eliminate similarities from other publications. The Similarity Index should be within 10 percent.

Please take a look at the reviewers' comments and address them. Authors can ignore the citations listed in the reviewers' comments if they are irrelevant.

I would also invite the authors to highlight the unique contribution to theory and methodology in the revised version. Following papers will be helpful during revision.

Leidner, D. E. (2020). What's in a Contribution?. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 2.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-495.

Bergh, D. D., Boyd, B. K., Byron, K., Gove, S., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2022). What constitutes a methodological contribution?. Journal of Management, 48(7), 1835-1848.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 studies how emotional factors impact the consumers’ purchase intention in live steaming. They constructed a moderated mediation model of the interaction, resonance and purchase intention under rural sentiment. They found several interesting findings. Overall, the paper examines a timely and promising topic. My concerns for the paper is as follows:

1. The contribution of the paper. The hypotheses developed in the paper is well expected. For example, H1 proposed that interaction in streaming live marketing of agricultural products has a positive impact on consumers’ purchase intention. The relationship between interaction and purchase intention has been studied by the literature. Therefore, the incremental value of the current study is not clear. I suggest the authors revise the framework.

2. The literature review is too brief. The authors mainly discuss about stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) in the literature review but ignored the literature on live streaming. I suggest the authors add the literature on live streaming to the paper.

3. The theoretical support for the survey questions. The literature to support the development of the survey questions seems not very solid. I suggest the authors develop the survey questions using high-cited articles.

I hope the authors find the suggestions useful. Good luck!

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the Editor's invitation to review manuscript PONE-D-23-29134, “Effect of emotional factors on purchase intention in streaming live marketing of agricultural products: a moderated mediation model,” about the potential to strengthen its current findings and contribute to a more thorough understanding of the role of emotional factors in agricultural product marketing within the context of live streaming. While the provided article comprehensively explores the impact of emotional factors on consumers' purchase decisions during the live streaming of agricultural products, certain confines should be acknowledged, and a chance should be given to the authors to redo their work after MAJOR REVISION. Here are some suggestions to improve the article and please cite new research it’s related to author’s study below:

Consider enlarging the sample size and diversifying demographic representation to enhance the external validity of findings, providing more nuanced insights into how emotional factors influence purchase intention across various consumer groups. Explore the feasibility of conducting a cross-cultural analysis, recognizing that different cultures may respond differently to emotional cues in marketing. This could offer valuable insights into the universality or cultural specificity of emotional factors in agricultural product marketing. Assess the feasibility of a longitudinal study to capture changes in consumer behavior over time, providing insights into the long-term impact of emotional factors on purchase decisions amid evolving market trends and technological advancements. Incorporate qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus group discussions, to gain a deeper understanding of consumers' emotional responses. Qualitative data can complement quantitative findings, offering richer insights into the nuances of emotional experiences during live streaming. Expand the scope of emotional factors studied beyond interaction, resonance, and rural sentiment. Consider exploring additional emotional factors like trust, excitement, or nostalgia that may play a role in agricultural product marketing, providing a more comprehensive Please discuss the potential policy implications arising from the findings. For example, if emotional factors significantly impact agricultural product sales, policymakers may consider supporting initiatives that enhance emotional engagement in the agricultural sector. Provide practical recommendations for marketers based on the study's findings. Offer insights into how agricultural product marketers can leverage emotional factors in their live streaming strategies, presenting actionable recommendations that industry professionals can apply.

Good Luck

**********

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.

Effect of emotional factors on purchase intention in live streaming  marketing of agricultural products: a moderated mediation model

PONE-D-23-29134R1

Dear Dr. Li,

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,

Mingyue Fan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: The authors have addressed all my concerns. I very much appreciate it. I suggest accept the paper in the current form.

Reviewer #2: Thank you to Authors, and i am very happy to see many to improve paper. All my suggestions have been revised and addressed well

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Muhammad Bilawal Khaskheli

**********