Sustainable Consumer Behavior in Purchasing, Using and Disposing of Clothes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the current study has value, but the way it is presented I found it annoyingly hard to follow. As a result I really don't know what I learned if anything which is a shame as again I think there is some value to the data the authors collected.
As such, I would strongly recommend the authors streamline the intro, methods, and results - perhaps putting most of the data pre-processing information in an appendix rather than the main text. In addition, the figures and tables have some issues (overlapping text, missing text, etc.) which makes interpretation of the findings harder still. It would also be good to provide some measures of variability for the betas in the regressions and I would urge the authors to be extremely weary of making much out of what appear to be very small interactive effects.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- The title is concise and representative of the entire research. However, neither the title nor the abstract refers to the country or countries where the research has been conducted and why this research is replicable to other countries.
- The abstract contains the expected sub-sections: problem, methodology, results and discussion. It is correct, concise and to the point, and the keywords are sufficient and well chosen.
- The introduction is interesting, but lacks the most important part: why this paper is original, why it detects or solves a problem and why it represents an advance for the scientific community.
- The bibliography is solid, numerous, international and prestigious.
- There is no mention of any study, in materials and methods, that has used a similar methodology and that has served as a model for this work.
- A harmonious distribution of the paragraphs should be sought, so that they all have the same length, as some paragraphs are very long and others are very short. It would be highly recommended that all paragraphs be 5-7 lines long. This would give legibility and clarity to the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents a research on a very current topic and uses an appropriate research methodology. From the point of view of the research design, I do not think that anything can be criticized, only possibly related to the better clarification of the researched population, the sample being well described and quite representative. The statistical tools used are appropriate and well doubled by the interpretations that complement them. The issue of sustainability in the field of clothing is a current one in the context of increasing the number of products sold in this way. The limits of the research are analyzed and assumed responsibly, presenting potential elements for further research. The bibliography is rich and even uses MDPI resources.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
The issues of consumers’ behavior and consumption have been my scientific interest for years. That is why I am very happy to have the opportunity to read your very interesting article on this topic.
The manuscript entitled “Sustainable consumer behavior in purchasing, using and disposing of clothes” is well-written and has a research and analytic character. The Authors should be appreciated for the research reliability and methods used.
In my opinion, the Authors should complete the Sampling section by explaining why in the quantitative study the sample consisted of 2,898 respondents and what is the measurement error? When was the research conducted? What was the sampling used? Random or non-random? Why this?
The Discussion section certainly provides a good synthesis of the obtained research and analysis results. The discussion, however, is difficult to notice. Most of all, it lacks references to similar studies by other authors.
Why did the Authors omit the conclusions section? What are the conclusions of the authors' work? What are the implications for science and practice? In what direction do the Authors plan their further research?
Researchers recognize the limitations of their research and write about them in 5.1 section. It is commendable. This fact proves the high reliability and scientific maturity of the Authors of the presented article.
The references are good and closely related to the topic of the article. Taking advantage of the fact that both Authors and me are passionate about the issues of consumers’ behavior and consumption, I would like to draw their attention to one article that can possibly enrich the discussion of results. Here it is:
Maciejewski, G. Consumers Towards Sustainable Food Consumption, Marketing Of Scientific And Research Organizations 2020, 36(2), 19-30. DOI: 10.2478/minib-2020-0014
Finally, a few more details. The data in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2 are unreadable. In laine 207 is figure 1, and in line 365 is figure 1 too. This needs to be corrected.
I hope that the indicated remarks will help the Authors to improve their text even more so that the work will be published. Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the authors have done a nice job in better highlighting the findings and contribution of the current work. I still believe it would be best to indicate perhaps 95% CIs on the betas as its hard to get a real feel for the impact of each based only on rough p values.
