Sustaining Business: A Psychological Perspective of Donation Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very interesting. Lot of work has been done by the authors. The final result is convincing.

I suggest that the author(s) correct and harmonize the writing of the reference list. For instance:

Reference 12:

Gong, Han; Douglas L. Medin. Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making 2012,7 (5) 628-38.

(lowercase here).

Reference 16:

Schwarts, Shalom H.; Anat Bardi. Value Hierarchies Across Cultues: Taking a Similarities Perpective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2001, 32 (3) 268-90.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments.

Reviewer 1

Point 1: I suggest that the author(s) correct and harmonize the writing of the reference list. For instance:

Reference 12:

Gong, Han; Douglas L. Medin. Construal levels and moral judgment: Some complications. Judgment and Decision Making 2012,7 (5) 628-38. (lowercase here).

Reference 16:

Schwarts, Shalom H.; Anat Bardi. Value Hierarchies Across Cultues: Taking a Similarities Perpective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2001, 32 (3) 268-90.. 


Response 1: Well taken. Change to upper case: Reference number 1, 2, 12, 26, 27, 33, 36,39, and 49.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the article is very interesting.

The title of the article is appropriate.

The abstract is well structured and contains all necessary information.

The "Introduction" section is designed in a non-standard way, it also includes “Literature review” and “Conceptual framework“ sections. However, the text is well structured, it is clear. I therefore consider the approach to be acceptable. I appreciate the approach to formulating hypotheses.

I recommend adding literature sources, especially newer ones.

I have also a few minor comments on this part of the text:

• p. 2, r. 56: explain abbreviation “CRM”;
• p. 3, r. 108-109: (Kim and Lee 2009), Use the correct form of the citation.

As far as the "Materials and methods" section is concerned, please specify in more detail the data collection process (sample of respondents, implementation time, etc.). Also specify the statistical procedure in more detail.

The findings in the "Results" section could be presented more clearly.

I really appreciate the elaboration of the sections "Discussion" and "Concluding remarks".

Pay more attention to formal requirements!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments.

Reviewer 2

Point 2: The "Introduction" section is designed in a non-standard way, it also includes “Literature review” and “Conceptual framework” sections. However, the text is well structured, it is clear. I therefore consider the approach to be acceptable. I appreciate the approach to formulating hypotheses.

Response 2: Appreciate the comment. Since it is accepted, no changes made.

Point 3: I recommend adding literature sources, especially newer ones.

Response 3: Well taken. Included newer sources of literature in pp:3 (r:125, 147), 4 (r:148), 5(r:215), 6 (r:266, 270)

Point 4: I have also a few minor comments on this part of the text:

1. 2, r. 56: explain abbreviation “CRM”;
2. 3, r. 108-109: (Kim and Lee 2009), Use the correct form of the citation.

Response 4: Well taken. Explain in the p:2 (r: 56) and corrected in the p:3 (r:109)

Point 5: As far as the "Materials and methods" section is concerned, please specify in more detail the data collection process (sample of respondents, implementation time, etc.). Also specify the statistical procedure in more detail.

Response 5: Well taken. Included a paragraph to detail the data collection process in p: 10 (r: 460-470) and statistical procedure p: 11(r: 492-503)

Point 6: The findings in the "Results" section could be presented more clearly.

Response 6: Well taken. Included a paragraph/sub heading to present findings in p:18 (r: 696-704)

Point 7: Pay more attention to formal requirements

Response 7: Did the changes in pp; 18 (r: 689), Reference number 1, 2, 12, 26, 27, 33, 36,39, and 49.