PONE-D-24-00459Shopping festival atmospherics of China’s Singles Day Shopping Festival and participants’ perception: Scale development and validationPLOS 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 Aug 08 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,

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

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"The Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project of Zhejiang Province, No. 23NDJC414YBM"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. 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:

I wanted to inform you that we have completed the review of your article. After careful consideration, we have reached a major revision decision regarding its publication.

We appreciate the effort and time you invested in this submission. Attached, you will find the detailed feedback from our reviewers that guided our decision. Please note that this revision will be risky, as the article focuses on scale development and the reviewers have raised significant concerns. You are advised to carefully address all the concerns.

Thank you for considering our journal for your work. We look forward to your revised submission.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The paper discusses atmosphere scale development based on the successful online shopping SDSF event. The topic is relevant and the methodological approach is basically adequate. However I have some major concerns about the presentation in the paper and the underlying data collection and analysis:

1. The literature relies mainly on elder articles. Many current and relevant publications are not reflected. So, e.g., Cheng and Chen (2023) discuss an atmosphere scale development in a detailed and methodologically advanced manner. Also, the author cites many times DeVellis (2003) where as DeVellis and Thorpe (2021), the advanced and extended fifth edition of this standard book privdes advanced insights. Also "Kolter 1973" is cited, but the author wants to cite Kotler 1973, the famous atmosphere article by the famous marketing professor (:O). Few scientific articles cited in the paper are from 2015 onwards (exactly: 10), the paper needs a complete refresh of its references and consequently a discussion of the state of the art based on this refreshing.

2. The author refers to Churchill and others for scale development. However, only one survey is conducted in contradiction to Chruchill's two surveys (after eliminating and extending the item batteries). I miss a discussion why this is adequate. Just to mention Cheng and Chen (2023): They use two surveys, the second one is based on a modified questionnaire. Also, the search for items in the construct development phase during the semi-structured interviews is not convincing: The interviewers focus on the SDSF event concerning atmosphere (positive aspects: "Can you list some

atmospheric cues you feel during the SDSF?"). They completely miss the aspects that participants miss during an SDSF event. Again, look at Cheng and Chen (2023) for improvements: They ask what "defines" "good" atmosphere at an event.

3. The author refers to standard models in marketing (SOR model) but I miss a clear reference to the origins of these models (e.g., Woodworth, or Howard and Sheth).

4. The paper discusses scale developement for atmosphere at the SDSF event. However, for me, it is unclear, whether this scale could also be used to measure atmosphere at other online and offline events. Usually, if you develop a standard scale, it is used to compare competitors, users, and the like. The author should more clearly explain why it is so important to develop a scale that is focused on one specific event.

References

Cheng, T. M., & Chen, M. T. (2023). Creative atmosphere in creative tourism destinations: Conceptualizing and scale development. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 47(3), 590-615.

DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications, Fifth Edition.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for conducting such interesting research. Although it has several advantages, there are also some issues that you should resolve before further processing.

Introduction::

• The introduction provides a good overview of the importance and growth of China's Singles Day Shopping Festivals (SDSFs), highlighting their massive scale and increasing popularity.

• It identifies the lack of systematic analysis of the atmospheric elements of these major online sales events as a research gap.

• The objectives of the study, which are to develop a measurement scale for "shopping festival atmospherics" (SFA) and examine participants' perceptions of the atmospherics, are clearly stated.

But there are some Weaknesses:

• The introduction could be strengthened by providing more context on the existing research on shopping atmospherics, both in offline and online settings. This would help situate the current study within the broader literature. I suggest adding the following research to your paper to improve this section:

Shafiee, M. M., & Es-Haghi, S. M. S. (2017). Mall image, shopping well-being and mall loyalty. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(10), 1114-1134.

Shafiee, M. M., & Bazargan, N. A. (2018). Behavioral customer loyalty in online shopping: The role of e-service quality and e-recovery. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 13(1), 26-38.

Tabaeeian, R. A., & Mohammad Shafiee, M. (2023). Identifying factors affecting the motivation of games users in social networks and their impact on the user attitude and shopping intention. New Marketing Research Journal, 12(4), 51-68.

• The rationale for focusing specifically on SDSFs, rather than online shopping festivals in general, could be elaborated on further.

• Expand the literature review in the introduction to give a more comprehensive overview of the existing research on shopping atmospherics and how it has been applied in online and festival settings.

• Clearly articulate the theoretical and practical significance of developing a scale to measure SFA.

• Provide a more detailed justification for the choice of SDSFs as the context for this study.

Literature Review::

• The literature review covers the key concepts and theories relevant to the study, including the definition of atmospherics and its application in retail and festival settings.

• The review discusses the existing research on the success factors and motivations of consumers for participating in online shopping festivals, providing useful background information.

• However, the literature review could be more comprehensive, incorporating a wider range of studies on shopping atmospherics, both in offline and online contexts. Please use previous mentioned sources to improve this section.

• The review could also delve deeper into the specific atmospheric cues that have been identified in the literature for offline and online shopping environments, as well as festival settings.

• Expand the literature review to include a more thorough examination of the broader research on shopping atmospherics, highlighting the key dimensions and cues that have been identified in previous studies.

• Discuss how the atmospherics of online shopping environments and festival settings may differ from traditional offline retail settings, and the implications for the current study.

• Identify any gaps or limitations in the existing literature that the current study aims to address.

I also suggest using and adding the following sources to update your sources in this section:

Shafiee M. M., Yavari, Z. & Ghorbanian, P. (2015). Ranking of Selected Convenience Stores of Isfahan Based on Store Image Dimensions with Group AHP Technique. Journal of Operational Research and Its Applications, 12(46), 35-47.

Ghorbanian, P., Yavari, Z., & Mohammad Shafiee, M. (2015). Analysis of retailer equity based on selected store image dimensions (Case study: Refah, CityCenter (HyperStar) & Kowsar stores). New Marketing Research Journal, 5(3), 143-160.

Mohammad Shafiee, M., & Ahghar Bazargan, N. (2016). Electronic trust of customers to online stores with a risk reduction approach. Journal of Karafan, 6(10), 113-122.

Mohammad Shafiee, M., Bazargan, N. A., & Kazeminia, A. (2017). Modeling Customer Electronic Trust in Online Stores: A Risk Reduction Approach. 11th International Conference on e-Commerce in Developing Countries (ECDC), April, Isfahan, Iran.

Nurani, M., Rezaei Dolatabadi, H., & Mohammad Shafiee, M. (2021). Designing a store brand competitiveness model based on environmental stimuli In chain stores. Journal of Business Management Perspective, 19(44), 13-40.

Nurani Kutenaee, M., Rezaei Dolatabadi, H., & Mohammad Shafiee, M. (2021). Modeling the Competitiveness of a Store Brand based on the pattern of Environmental Estimuli in Chain Stores: A mixed approach. Management Research in Iran, 25(2), 151-182.

Methodology:

• The study employs a rigorous, multi-step approach to scale development, including both qualitative and quantitative methods.

• The use of multiple data sources (literature review, focus groups, and online survey) to generate and refine the scale items is a strength.

• The validation of the scale through confirmatory factor analysis is appropriate and well-executed.

• But the methodology section could provide more details on the sample characteristics and data collection procedures for the quantitative phase.

• The rationale for the specific statistical techniques used (e.g., exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis) could be elaborated on further.

• Expand the methodology section to include more details on the sample composition, data collection methods, and data analysis procedures used in the quantitative phase of the study.

• Provide a clearer explanation of the decision-making process behind the selection of the statistical techniques employed.

• Consider including information on the reliability and validity assessments conducted for the final SFA scale.

Results and Discussion:

• The results section presents the key findings from the scale development and validation process in a clear and concise manner.

• The discussion section effectively interprets the findings, highlighting the theoretical and practical implications of the study.

• The identification of novel atmospheric cues, such as the "happily crowded environment" and "fair shopping environment", is a valuable contribution.

Weaknesses:

• The discussion could be strengthened by more explicitly connecting the findings to the existing literature on shopping atmospherics and festival settings.

• The limitations of the study and directions for future research could be expanded upon.

• Enhance the discussion by drawing stronger links between the identified SFA dimensions and cues and the broader literature on shopping atmospherics.

• Discuss the potential cultural and contextual factors that may have influenced the emergence of the novel atmospheric cues.

• Expand the limitations section to acknowledge the study's boundaries and provide more detailed recommendations for future research.

Overall, the paper presents a rigorous and comprehensive approach to developing a measurement scale for the atmospheric elements of China's Singles Day Shopping Festivals. The strengths of the study include the multi-method scale development process, the identification of novel atmospheric cues, and the clear discussion of the theoretical and practical implications. To further improve the paper, the authors could strengthen the literature review, provide more details on the methodology, and enhance the discussion by more explicitly connecting the findings to the existing 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Majid Mohammad Shafiee

**********

[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.

Shopping festival atmospherics of China's Singles Day Shopping Festival and participants' perception: Scale development and validation

PONE-D-24-00459R1

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 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,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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: Congratulations, the paper has improved. All the best for your current and future research, looking forward to additional papers from you.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. After a thorough evaluation, I find the paper to be well-written, methodologically sound, and making a valuable contribution to the literature. The research objectives are clearly defined, the methodology is appropriate, and the findings are insightful and well-presented.

**********

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 #3: No

**********