Digital Marketing Effects of Clubhouse on Crowdfunding in the Context of COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the assessment of the paper submitted for the review, I specifically focussed on the discussed issues, applied research methods and the scope of analysis of research results, as well as substantive content of the article and its structure.
The reviewed paper is of scientific nature. The considerations conducted in the paper are focused on such categories as: social media and social media marketing, crowdfunding, Clubhouse, COVID-19.
The subject area discussed in the paper is topical and important. It is also consistent with the profile of the Journal.
The research procedure has complex character.
The article, however, needs to be refined to be published.
Therefore, it is specifically recommended to:
- provide in-depth and expanded discussion,
- deepen the description of research limitations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your suggestions. Please see the letter attached.
Best regards
Peter Konhäusner
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author(s) demonstrate knowledge of the relevant research. However, I found that some of the reasoning, especially regarding interpretation, seemed to be missing the connections I would have liked to have seen. In the introduction section, the motivation and objective of the paper shall be further elaborated/discussed. The manuscript requires major revisions to contextualize the merits of the study and potential uses of its methodology in future studies. The analysis strikes me as requiring a bit more depth and to clearly state the contribution that it makes, even though it aims to provide an overview of the topic. The presentation of the main constructs that anchor the argument could be strengthened. The study design and argument lack a level of refinement that one might expect in a research paper. The lead up argument for the study and results section appear to be too loosely constructed. Several statements made in the paper are not supported by adequate empirical evidence or by making reference to relevant literature. There is a need of structuring the discussion to ensure that the methodological aspects are clearly presented. It would be great whether the authors would reorganize their citation list, so that only sources that shaped the performed research be included. There is some discussion of the limitations of the study however these are not considered in terms of the implications on the study findings. Please provide more details regarding the study limitations and strengths and what this means for the study findings. The recommendation regarding future research requires elaboration.
The relationship between customer loyalty in the sharing economy platforms associated with the proliferation of COVID-19 misinformation and fake news is not covered enough and thus recent Scopus Q1 sources should be cited:
Sion, G. (2019). “Self-Portraits in Social Media: Means of Communicating Emotion through Visual Content-Sharing Applications,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 18: 133–139. doi:10.22381/LPI1820199
Hollowell, Jane Catherine, Zuzana Rowland, Tomas Kliestik, Jana Kliestikova, and Victor V. Dengov (2019). “Customer Loyalty in the Sharing Economy Platforms: How Digital Personal Reputation and Feedback Systems Facilitate Interaction and Trust between Strangers,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 7(1): 13–18. doi:10.22 381/JSME7120192
Rommer, D., Majerova, J., and Machova, V. (2020). “Repeated COVID-19 Pandemic-related Media Consumption: Minimizing Sharing of Nonsensical Misinformation through Health Literacy and Critical Thinking,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 19: 107–113. doi: 10.22381/LPI1920207
Popescu Ljungholm, D., and Olah, M. L. (2020). “Regulating Fake News Content during COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence-based Reality, Trustworthy Sources, and Responsible Media Reporting,” Review of Contemporary Philosophy 19: 43–49. doi:10.22381/RCP1920203
Bratu, S. (2020). “Threat Perceptions of COVID-19 Pandemic: News Discernment, Media Exaggeration, and Misleading Information,” Analysis and Metaphysics 19: 38–44. doi:10.22381/AM1920203
Lazaroiu, G., and Adams, C. (2020). “Viral Panic and Contagious Fear in Scary Times: The Proliferation of COVID-19 Misinformation and Fake News,” Analysis and Metaphysics 19: 80–86. doi:10.22381/AM1920209
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions. Please see the letter attached.
Best regards
Peter Konhäusner
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
After reviewing your article, I would like to make the following observations:
- The title of the paper is called social marketing. This is something that strikes me when it is not mentioned in the article, as well as digital marketing.
- The introduction can be improved, it would be convenient to follow the following structure; research question, objective and contribution to the academic world.
- The literature review lacks the sections on social marketing and digital marketing. The writing does not refer to any literature that supports or does not support your research hypothesis.
- The methodology can be improved. The number of interviews is low for the quality of this journal. It is advisable to include a technical sheet of the interview with the socio-demographic data of the interviewees. In this regard, it should be pointed out that the text does not indicate the dates on which the interviews were carried out. Also, reading the section on the results, one notes that a content analysis is made, which requires the use of a computer programme and a more in-depth analysis.
- The justification for the choice of the Clubhouse platform is not very clear from an academic point of view. It would be interesting to spend a few lines on how it originated, what are its medium and long term commercial objectives with respect to other platforms that may be its direct or indirect competitors.
- The results are very descriptive and generalist, derived, among other things, from the number of interviews conducted and the simple content analysis carried out.
- In the conclusions section, it would be useful to indicate whether or not the fact that the interviews were conducted during the Cóvid-19 period constitutes a bias.
- It would be interesting to include a section on limitations.
Best regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions. Please see the letter attached.
Best regards
Peter Konhäusner
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version can be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept.
