Dear Dr. Tran,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 10 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.

• 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,

Jenna Scaramanga

Staff 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 you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

5. Please upload a new copy of Figure 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This article aims to explore the effect of User-Generated Content (UGC) on the purchasing behavior of environmentally friendly products in the Hospitality and Food Service Industry. It is an interesting and valuable field of research. However, how can the author say that this study uses a strong foundation, especially regarding the TPB? The author only applies one construct from the TPB, namely attitude. Furthermore, the implications of the study are not clearly presented, both theoretically and practically.

There is a lack of adequate foundation in the literature, and the definition of basic concepts is neglected. In addition, previous research supporting the hypothesis is also inadequate.

The methods section is well-designed, but the rationale for choosing PLS-SEM over other software for this study needs to be clarified.

The results of the study are presented clearly and logically, and the analysis is well-grounded in the methodology used. The article effectively demonstrates how UGC influences the environmental concerns, attitudes, and the intention to purchase green products. As well as the moderating role of brand reputation. Authors can add notes in each table for variable abbreviations. The conclusions are consistent with the earlier parts of the article and effectively combine theory with empirical data. The only possible improvement could be a deeper comparison of the results with previous studies in other cultural contexts.

The findings have direct implications only for businesses, emphasizing the importance of UGC to build trust regarding environmentally friendly products in the Hospitality and Food Service Industry. It is recommended to create new sections for each implication, both theoretical and practical, including limitations and suggestions for future research.

Reviewer #2: The document considers the effect UGC has on the purchase behavior in hospitality and food service industries while taking into account the moderation effect of brand reputation. A relevant model has successfully incorporated the framework with relevant theories and empirical research. The results affirm the hypotheses, and the conclusions drawn enhance the knowledge of consumer behavior toward sustainable consumption. In my opinion though, the research can be improved in the research design and practical use aspects.

1. Availability of the Data: Athough the authors mention the availibility of the data, it is available only by request, which is contrary to the policy of unrestricted data availibility of PLOS ONE. Suggestion: The authors must either upload the data to a public repository, or provide a reasonable justification for their inability to provide the data in full.

2. Sample Representation: Though a sample of 331 participants is sizable, drawing all participants exclusively from five-star dining establishments in Ho Chi Minh City may be too limiting to reflect the entire consumer base in Vietnam. Suggestion: Including participants from a wider array of dining establishments and across different geographic areas in Vietnam would enhance the applicability and usefulness of the results.

3. Practical Implication: While the focus in the manuscript on the theoretical part is pretty reasonable, it is the practical approach in relation to the business strategy which seems to be missing in this case. Suggestion: The authors must come up with strategies focused on the use of UGC to elevate brand image and positively influence consumer buying behaviour on green products, as well as practical strategies for the business.

4. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review: Having a strong theoretical foundation is great, but the literature review needs more explanation on the application of such theories on the hospitality market in the like of Vietnam. Recommendation: The authors should add additional literature that has analyzed the impact of UGC on consumer behavior in the hospitality industry in emerging economies.

5. Hypothesis Development: The authors did a great job in formulating the hypotheses but additional justification is a must for why the brand reputation is a strong moderator on the impact of UGC toward consumer behavior in the hospitality sector. Recommendation: The authors should explain in more detail why UGC is likely to have more impact on purchasing behavior on high reputation brands compared to low reputation brands.

**********

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:  Dicky Jhon Anderson Butarbutar

**********

[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.

Research on the impact of User-Generated Content (UGC) in shaping the purchase behavior of environmentally friendly products and the moderating role of brand reputation

PONE-D-25-13451R1

Dear Dr. Tran,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Vanessa Carels

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Overall, you did a good job revising the paper.

In the background, you have strongly explained the reason for choosing one construct from TPB, namely attitude.

The methods section is well-designed; you already clarified the rationale for choosing PLS-SEM over other software for this study.

The results of the study are presented clearly and logically, and the analysis is well-grounded in the methodology used. The article effectively demonstrates how UGC influences the environmental concerns, attitudes, and the intention to purchase green products, in addition to the moderating role of brand reputation.

The authors have already added notes in each table for variable abbreviations. The conclusions are consistent with the earlier parts of the article and effectively combine theory with empirical data.

The authors already created new sections for each implication, both theoretical and practical, including limitations and suggestions for future research. It is essential to enhance the robustness of this 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:  Prof. Dr. Ratni Prima Lita, SE, MM

**********