PONE-D-24-19773Effects and functional mechanisms of Digital Fitness Platforms on Online Fitness Payment Behavior under the Perspective of “She-Economy”PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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 Aug 11 2024 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,

Kashif Ali, 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. 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.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that "Data will be made available on request."

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

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

Additional Editor Comments:

• Please addressed all the comments and suggestions given by the reviewers. 

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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 article explores the consumer market trends and behaviors in the context of women's fitness, emphasizing the significant role of women in driving sports consumption. It discusses the evolving perceptions of women's fitness, the influence of national policies, and the impact of digital fitness platforms on women's fitness behaviors.The development and design of digital fitness platforms require a combination of individual characteristics and product innovation to meet the needs of different users. Perceived ease of use is the most basic feature, making it easy for users to get started. Additionally, perceived enjoyment is crucial for engaging female users and providing a more enjoyable fitness experience. Developers should focus on consolidating the ease of use of basic functions and continuously expanding the product field through brand co-branding and supply chain integration. Enhancing user retention through personalized fitness plans and community-building activities is essential for the long-term success of digital fitness platforms.

Reviewer #2: 1) While it can be intuitive, it is not clear what is exactly meant by “She-economy”. A definition is missing.

2) What do TAM (line 67), SEM and fsQCA (line 84) stand for?

3) The citations in the text do not mention the year of publication. Sections are not numbered.

4) The SOR theory is not clearly explained, nor it is clear how it is used in the study.

5) Not clear what is meant here: “women’s psychological cognitive changes to online fitness occur after they feel internal and external stimuli using digital fitness platforms, which in turn affects women’s attitudes, intentions, and behaviors in fitness consumption”.

6) This is not clear: TAM affects individuals’ satisfaction and willingness to continue using it. TAM is a model and should not affect anything; it might be used to explain some relationships.

7) The 7 hypotheses feel redundant and repetitive. This should be simplified.

8) The definition of online payment behavior (line 224) is not clear. The literature that follows does not clarify it. Is payment behavior just the willingness to pay for a product/service?

9) The hypotheses from 10 to 18 are redundant, unclear and it is not discussed where they stem from.

10) Fig 1: everything seems to affect directly and indirectly anything else…

11) The data analysis should be better described and the results better explained and discussed. It is unclear whether the research questions presented in the introduction have been answered.

12) Overall, and looking at the title, it is not easy to understand what the contribution and the objectives of the paper are.

Reviewer #3: A literature search provides not only an opportunity to learn more about a given topic but provides insight on how the topic was studied by previous analysts. It helps to interpret ideas, detect shortcomings and recognize opportunities. In short, systematic and well-organized research may help in designing a novel research.

**********

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:  Assoc.prof.Dr.Nath amornpinyo

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-24-19773R1Effects and functional mechanisms of Digital Fitness Platforms on Online Fitness Payment Behavior under the Perspective of “She-Economy”PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

• Please address all the comments given by the reviewers. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 25 2024 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,

Kashif Ali, PH.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

Reviewer #5: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The title is intriguing, which set high expectations for the content. However, I found the article challenging to follow and understand in certain areas. While most of the previous reviewers' comments have been addressed, one recommendation—to number the sections—remains unimplemented.

Below are some additional suggestions that could further improve the manuscript:

Abbreviations: The manuscript uses abbreviations without first providing their full forms. For instance, the first usage appears in the Abstract. The previous reviewer likely meant that you should introduce the full term before using the abbreviation, rather than including extensive explanations of the concepts.

Literature Review:

Lines 84-85: The statement "there are few studies on women’s sports consumption" is debatable, as I have come across a number of studies in this area. It would be beneficial to clarify why the existing studies are deemed insufficient.

Lines 87-89: Consider providing specific examples of studies to support your statements.

Lines 125, 190: It would strengthen your argument to cite relevant studies here as well.

Writing Style:

Lines 167-168: Ensure that only the appropriate words are capitalized. Currently, it seems that words are unnecessarily capitalized, which might be incorrect.

Methods:

It is not clear how many questions were included in the questionnaire. This should be specified.

Lines 318-324: The source of the questionnaire sets should be clearly cited in square brackets, not just by mentioning the author. For instance, the citation "from Jarvenpaa and Others" is unclear—if "Others" is not a name, it should be lowercase, and typically, multiple authors are referred to as "Jarvenpaa et al." The source should also be included in the references list.

Results and Discussion:

The results appear somewhat intuitive. It would be useful to elaborate on the practical and theoretical implications of your findings. This will help readers understand the significance of your research.

The number of valid questionnaires analyzed is 259, not 323. I think this number should be mentioned in the Abstract.

The manuscript is somewhat wordy in places. Consider streamlining the text for clarity and conciseness.

The discussion section is underdeveloped, with results being compared to only three previous studies. A more thorough comparison with existing research is needed.

Conclusion:

The conclusion section is too lengthy and should not include subtitles. Additionally, the practical and theoretical implications of the study are not clearly outlined. This is a critical element that needs to be addressed.

In summary, while the manuscript presents an interesting topic, it requires significant revisions to improve clarity, conciseness, and scholarly rigor. I encourage the authors to consider these suggestions to enhance the quality and impact of their work.

I hope this review helps guide the necessary revisions for the manuscript.

Reviewer #5: General comment – First, I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this manuscript. The research presented aims to analyse the effects and functional mechanisms of Digital Fitness Platforms on Online Fitness Payment Behaviour under the perspective of the “She-Economy.” This topic is indeed compelling, especially considering the increasing influence of digital fitness platforms in the context of gender-targeted marketing, as noted by the authors. The study's relevance to current market trends makes it a valuable contribution to the literature.

However, I believe that the manuscript requires significant improvements before it can be considered for publication. While the authors have implemented changes from the previous review, several issues persist, particularly concerning the article's structure. The sections on theoretical background, hypotheses, discussion, and conclusion need substantial revision. The theoretical background should be more comprehensive and logically organised, providing a clearer foundation for the hypotheses. The discussion would benefit from a more thorough analysis of how the findings relate to existing literature, and the conclusion should better synthesise the study’s contributions and practical implications.

These structural improvements are essential for the manuscript to present a more cohesive and compelling narrative, effectively supporting the relevance and innovation of the research.

In the subsequent paragraphs, I will provide specific comments and concerns that arose during my review, which I hope will guide the authors in enhancing the quality of their work.

Comment 1 – The current title of the second section, "Research Basis", could be more informative. I suggest renaming this section to "Context and Theoretical Background." This revised title would better reflect the content, providing a clearer indication of what the reader can expect in this section.

Comment 2 – The subtitles "A Review of Research Related to Women’s Fitness" and "She-Economy" cover closely related themes and would benefit from being combined into a single subsection. I recommend a new title that highlights the integrated context of the research, such as "The Role of Women's Fitness and the She-Economy in Digital Consumer Behaviour." This would create a more cohesive narrative and emphasise the interconnectedness of these topics, allowing the reader to see the broader context of the study.

Comment 3 – I have observed that a previous reviewer requested clarification on the acronyms, "SEM" and "fsQCA", asking for their full forms. While this feedback highlights the need for clarity, it is not essential for the authors to provide detailed explanations of these methodologies within the second section of the manuscript. Instead, I recommend that the authors simply present the complete names of these methodological approaches the first time they are mentioned. For example, "SEM" as "Structural Equation Modelling" and "fsQCA" as "Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis."

These methodologies are well-established and widely recognised within the research community, and most readers familiar with the field will understand their significance without requiring extensive descriptions at this stage. Additionally, placing detailed methodological explanations in later sections where these methods are directly applied would enhance the manuscript’s structure and maintain the focus of the theoretical background. This approach will address the reviewer’s concern effectively while ensuring the manuscript remains clear and well-organised.

Comment 4 – The second section of the manuscript provides a thorough review of the relevant literature, discussing key concepts such as women’s fitness, the She-Economy, and the associated consumer behaviours. While this review is informative, the section would greatly benefit from the inclusion of a conceptual framework that synthesises the reviewed literature and sets the stage for the subsequent hypotheses.

A conceptual framework is essential as it visually and theoretically links the key variables discussed in the literature review, providing a clear and structured foundation for the research. By introducing a conceptual framework after the literature review, the authors can more effectively illustrate the relationships between the different variables and concepts, such as how the She-Economy influences online fitness payment behaviour through variables like satisfaction, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness.

This framework should serve as a bridge between the literature review and the hypothesis formation, making the logical flow of the manuscript more evident to the reader. It would also enhance the overall coherence of the research by providing a clear, visual representation of the theoretical model that underpins the study.

I strongly recommend that the authors develop and include a conceptual framework at the end of the second section. This will not only strengthen the theoretical grounding of the research but also provide a clear roadmap for the hypotheses and the subsequent empirical analysis.

Comment 5 – The current section titled "Theoretical Assumptions" appears overly simplified, particularly in its approach to forming hypotheses. The section would benefit significantly from incorporating more deductive reasoning derived from the theoretical framework presented earlier in the manuscript. Currently, the hypotheses seem to be stated without sufficient grounding in the theoretical background, which weakens the logical flow and the connection between the literature review and the hypotheses.

To enhance this section, I recommend that the authors first revise the title to better reflect its content and purpose. A more appropriate title could be "Hypothesis Formation," which clearly indicates that this section is dedicated to the development of hypotheses based on the theoretical framework. This title change will help align the reader’s expectations and clarify the section’s role within the manuscript.

Moreover, in forming the hypotheses, it is crucial to draw more explicitly from the theoretical background. The authors should aim to demonstrate how each hypothesis logically follows from the theories and concepts discussed in earlier sections. For example, when introducing the hypotheses related to perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and perceived enjoyment, the authors should first discuss these concepts within the context of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and related literature, thereby providing a stronger justification for each hypothesis. Similarly, when discussing satisfaction, continue using intention, and online fitness payment behaviour, the authors should reference relevant theories and prior studies to build a more robust foundation for the hypotheses.

By integrating these elements into the hypothesis formation process, the section will not only become more comprehensive but will also provide a clearer rationale for the proposed research model. This approach will significantly improve the overall coherence and scholarly rigor of the manuscript.

Comment 6 – The discussion section of the manuscript, as it stands, is not sufficiently developed. It is important to emphasise that the discussion section plays a pivotal role in any research paper. This section is where the authors have the opportunity to showcase their critical thinking, derive solutions from their findings, and demonstrate a deeper understanding of the research problem. Currently, the discussion provided is largely descriptive and lacks the depth required to thoroughly engage with the implications of the findings.

To improve this section, the authors should focus on several key areas. First, the discussion should delve deeper into the broader implications of the findings. For instance, how do these results contribute to our understanding of women’s online fitness payment behaviour in the context of the She-Economy? What do these findings suggest for digital fitness platform developers, marketers, and policymakers? The discussion should not only reiterate the findings but also explore their significance in a broader context, comparing them with results from other studies and considering their practical applications.

Furthermore, the authors should engage more critically with the results, considering alternative explanations for the findings and discussing any limitations or unexpected outcomes. This critical analysis will demonstrate a more nuanced understanding of the research problem and provide a balanced view of the study’s contributions.

In summary, the discussion section should be expanded to include a more thorough analysis of the implications of the study, a comparison with other research, and a consideration of the broader impact of the findings. This will significantly enhance the manuscript’s overall quality and ensure that it provides valuable insights to the field.

Comment 7 – The conclusion section of the manuscript, as currently structured, does not adhere to the standard format typically expected in academic research papers. Several elements within this section would be more appropriately placed in the discussion or in a separate section dedicated to "Implications and Limitations."

Firstly, the content under "Focus on perceived enjoyment," "Enhancing user retention," and "Improving technology development" delves into detailed recommendations and implications that are more suited for the discussion section. The discussion is where these insights should be thoroughly explored, considering how the study’s findings contribute to existing knowledge and offering practical recommendations for industry professionals. By relocating this content to the discussion, the authors can provide a more comprehensive analysis of how these findings align with or diverge from other studies, thereby offering a deeper understanding of the research problem.

Secondly, the "Shortcoming" subsection, which addresses the limitations of the study and suggests areas for future research, should be separated into its own distinct section titled "Implications and Limitations." This section is crucial as it provides transparency about the study’s constraints and guides future research efforts. By clearly delineating these points, the manuscript will present a more organised and coherent structure, making it easier for readers to navigate the conclusions and implications of the study.

The conclusion itself should focus on summarising the key findings of the research, highlighting the main contributions to the field, and succinctly stating the broader implications without going into detailed recommendations or limitations, which should be reserved for the other sections mentioned above.

In summary, I recommend reorganising the current conclusion section by transferring the detailed implications to the discussion, creating a separate "Implications and Limitations" section, and refining the conclusion to be a concise summary of the study’s contributions.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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.

PONE-D-24-19773R2Effects and functional mechanisms of digital fitness platforms on online fitness payment behavior under the perspective of “She-economy”PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please address all the comments given by the reviewers.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 20 2024 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,

Kashif Ali, PH.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 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 #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: General comment – I appreciate the opportunity to review this revised manuscript. The authors have made meaningful progress, addressing several key points raised during the previous review. The structural changes, including the reorganisation of sections and the inclusion of a conceptual framework, have enhanced the manuscript’s clarity and alignment with academic conventions. The discussion section now offers a more in-depth engagement with the study’s findings and their implications for research and practice, which improves the overall narrative of the manuscript.

However, two areas still require further refinement before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Specifically, the theoretical model and the limitations section remain underdeveloped. While the revised framework provides a stronger foundation for hypothesis formation, some aspects of the theoretical linkages could benefit from greater elaboration. A clearer articulation of the relationships between key constructs would help strengthen the coherence and rigour of the theoretical model. Additionally, the limitations section, though expanded, could be further enriched by providing more detailed reflections on the study's constraints and suggesting more specific avenues for future research.

Comment 1 – While I appreciate the efforts to include a conceptual framework that integrates the S-O-R paradigm and TAM, I remain unconvinced that the TAM model should serve as the stimulation phase in the S-O-R paradigm. The S-O-R framework traditionally relies on external stimuli (e.g., environmental cues) to influence internal states and subsequent behaviours, whereas TAM primarily focuses on users' perceptions and attitudes towards technology adoption. Thus, positioning TAM as the stimulation phase may not fully capture the environmental influences intended in the original S-O-R model.

Instead, I recommend exploring the possibility of a hybrid model that synthesises elements from both TAM and the S-O-R paradigm. Such an approach would allow TAM’s constructs—such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use—to be incorporated within the organism or response phases, rather than as stimuli. This synthesis could enhance the conceptual model by acknowledging both environmental factors (stimuli) and users' internal evaluations (as part of the organism or behavioural response).

By adopting a hybrid framework, the study would offer a more nuanced understanding of how digital fitness platforms engage consumers, balancing technological acceptance with broader contextual and emotional factors. This approach would also align better with the study’s focus on behavioural outcomes, providing a clearer theoretical foundation for the subsequent hypotheses. I encourage the authors to reflect on this possibility and refine the conceptual framework accordingly to strengthen the coherence of the theoretical model.

Comment 2 – The limitations section, as it stands, provides only a surface-level overview of the constraints faced in this study. To enhance the academic rigour and transparency of the manuscript, I recommend that this section be further developed with more meaningful insights. In particular, the limitations should reflect not only the methodological constraints but also theoretical and practical challenges encountered during the research process.

For instance, the limited sample diversity and potential sampling biases could be discussed more explicitly—were the participants representative of the broader population within the She-Economy context? Additionally, it would be valuable to reflect on the generalisability of the findings across different geographical or cultural contexts, as digital fitness behaviour may vary significantly across regions.

The manuscript could also elaborate on limitations related to data collection, such as self-reported data biases or limitations in tracking behavioural patterns over time. Moreover, since the mediating effect of perceived enjoyment was found to be insignificant, the authors might discuss alternative methodological approaches—such as longitudinal studies or qualitative methods—that could provide deeper insights into this phenomenon in future research.

Finally, I suggest that the section conclude with a clearer outline of actionable directions for future research. In addition to investigating group differences and the mediating effects mentioned, future studies could explore how evolving technology trends (e.g., AI-based fitness recommendations) influence consumer behaviour within digital fitness platforms. Strengthening this section will not only improve the coherence of the manuscript but also demonstrate a deeper reflection on the limitations and their implications for future research.

**********

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 #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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.

PONE-D-24-19773R3Effects and functional mechanisms of digital fitness platforms on online fitness payment behavior under the perspective of “She-economy”PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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. Comments from the editorial office : 

Upon a closer evaluation of the manuscript, we have identified certain issues that we feel need to be addressed before this proceeds to publication, in order to comply with PLOS ONE's publication criteria (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication):

1. Ln 45, "Traditional thought, “soft beauty” is no longer the inherent label of women [8]. The Awakening of “Body Sense” [9], and The pursuit of “self-gratification, self transcendence and self-reading” is the “self-redemption” of women in the new era [10]" : It is unclear what this sentence means, and this would need to be clarified

2. ln 115, "Women’s fitness is a subordinate concept to fitness, with “body sensations” of pain, lightness, sweat, difficulty, heat, and being seen [9], emphasizing the important functions of body sculpting, emotional expression, and psychological construction [10]." : It is unclear what this sentence means, and this would need to be clarified

3. ln 118, "In the context of China’s socialist culture, women’s fitness has been influenced by the group’s body-shaping aspirations, the indulgence of social visual experience, and the advancement of the national fitness strategy, resulting in a number of research findings" : It is unclear what this sentence means, and this would need to be clarified. This sentence also needs to be supported by an appropriate reference.

4. Ln 124, "women’s fitness reconstruction of the gender order" : It is unclear what this sentence means, and this would need to be clarified.

5. Ln 246 - 250: It would be helpful if the authors briefly describe the differences, rather than only stating there was a difference

6. ln 539- ln 548: This seems to be the author's opinions only, and are unsupported by primary literature and as such would require clarification or revised to be removed

7. ln 575-ln 577: This seems to be the author's opinions only, and are unsupported by primary literature and as such would require clarification or revised to be removed

8. ln 585-592: This seems to be the author's opinions only, and are unsupported by primary literature and as such would require clarification or revised to be removed

9. ln 606 : It is unclear what this sentence means, and this would need to be clarified.

10. ln 634-635, "However, it may be due to reasons such as women's presentation of fitness results being poorer than men's": The article that has been referred to support this statement is not an appropriate one to support this. It is also further unclear what this means or what is meant by fitness results.

In addition to the concerns above, this manuscript also needs to be thoroughly copyedited for its English language usage and grammar, before this submission can be accepted, in order to comply with our publication criteria 5 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 18 2025 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,

Annesha Sil, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS ONE

On behalf of:

Kashif Ali, PhD

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

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

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 #5: 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 #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: 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 #5: 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 #5: 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 #5: The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvements, successfully addressing all the issues raised in previous review rounds. The refinement of the conceptual framework, particularly the integration of the TAM model as part of the "O" phase in the S-O-R paradigm, enhances its theoretical coherence and rigour. This adjustment, accompanied by a clearer articulation of the relationships between key constructs and the inclusion of a well-constructed figure, strengthens the manuscript’s contribution to the literature.

Furthermore, the expanded limitations section thoughtfully reflects on methodological constraints, theoretical challenges, and practical implications. The authors have also proposed insightful future research directions, including the role of generative AI in digital fitness platforms and its implications for consumer behaviour, which align well with emerging trends in the field.

The authors' diligence in incorporating feedback has resulted in a comprehensive and robust study, making a valuable contribution to the understanding of digital fitness platforms and the "She-economy."

**********

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 #5: 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.

Effects and functional mechanisms of digital fitness platforms on online fitness payment behavior under the perspective of “She-economy”

PONE-D-24-19773R4

Dear Dr. Yang,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Kashif Ali, 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 #6: 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 #6: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #6: 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 #6: 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 #6: 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 #6: The Authors have adequately addressed all of the comments and the manuscript is acceptable for publication

**********

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 #6: Yes:  Essiagnon John-Philippe Alavo

**********