Examining the Effect of Revenue Management on Customer Perceptions and Calculating the Service Performance Index: Food Order Application Example
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The paper has been significantly improved based on reviewers’ comments.
The abstract of the paper is complete and stand-alone. The author(s) mentioned the objective as well as the practical implication of this research. Furthermore, the author(s) provided some details about the methodology used and highlighted the practical contribution of the paper.
The Introduction is focused. The author(s) used the traditional structure in order to justify the research gap and the motivation as well as the value of this paper. The objective of the paper is clearly stated. The author(s) presented the motivation of the paper and discussed about the main findings. The author(s) added the theoretical and practical contribution of this paper. The paper makes an important contribution to academics and to practitioners.
Research methodology is sound and the statistical analysis is relevant. The research on which the paper is based is well designed and the methods that have been employed are appropriate. This section is designed based on the existing literature.
The author(s) presented clearly the results of the analysis and clearly documented justified and clarified practical and theoretical implications of the paper as well as limitations and suggestions for future research. Implications of findings are considered fully. Conclusions follow from the evidence provided in the paper.
Please remove the letters (a) and (b) from the last name of each author in the 22nd reference.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
I feel the authors have addressed most of my concerns. Therefore I am happy to suggest acceptance at this stage
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was improved considering the previous recommendations.
The authors should (re)consider the "w" in computing their index. I do not think that this "w" represents path coefficients (as the authors consider) from SEM, but loading factors from CFA. In this regard, the abstract and all other parts of the paper (where "path coefficients" for computing the index is written) should be reformulated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The aim of this paper is to create a "Service Performance Index" for food order mobile application. Overall, the concept of this paper is promising although there are areas that are suggested to be cleared out.
The main strengths of this paper are the following:
· The title accurately reflects the content of this study.
· The tables and figures are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately.
Introduction is too long for what it is getting across and the purpose of this paper needs to be written more concisely. The general structure needs to be redone to improve readability. The author(s) should use the traditional structure, just 4 paragraphs: motivation, gap, method, results, and contributions. The author(s) did not present the motivation of the paper. It is recommended to look into this issue in the manuscript, and better motivate the study through its main contributions.
A theoretical background which presents the results of previous surveys is necessary to be added. It will strengthen the contribution of this paper and it will highlight what is new or unexpected in this work.
The research on which the paper is based is well designed and the methods that have been employed are appropriate.
Moving on to the discussion section of this paper, it is too limited for what it is getting across and the general structure needs to be redone to improve readability. The findings are a good basis for discussion but they need more conceptualization to make the contribution of the research more evident.
Finally, when it comes to the limitations, authors should be transparent about the ways that the choices made during the study have limited the scope and reach of the findings. This can also open avenues for further research on the topic, and allow them to reflect upon how future endeavors can address the limitations of this work, but also how this work can offer opportunities for future research on the topic. These sections are currently considerably restricted in this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction is weak and there is no problem statements or phenomena research. authors need to combine both data from Food Order Application with previous studies. Please stated the research motivation in the background. The research model is not common and authors need to describe the argumentation for each hypothesis that is defined. Research findings need to be re-write again and made more structured and some analyses based on results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper can offer an important contribution in that the adoption of revenue management strategies can have effects on service perceptions so it is important to assess the direction and strength of such effects.
Having said that, I have some suggestions to improve the quality of your contribution.
First, it is important to operationalise the concept of Revenue Management at the very beginning. As I explain later in the review, some aspects of revenue management strategies (e.g., dynamic pricing) are actually disliked by customers (and so won't have a direct positive effect). You do not include such aspects in your questions and that might explain why revenue management is seen with rose-colored glasses by customers here.
Second, you have to improve the readability of your work. At present, it is all written in passive form and it is very difficult to read (there are also grammar mistakes). Please make sure to proofread it.
Third, a literature review table would help you to bring out your contribution. As mentioned, revenue management is a multi-faced concept. Here few articles that should help on defining the boundary conditions for the effects:
(to show how people tend to compare with what others did) Lastner, M. M., Fennell, P., Folse, J. A., Rice, D. H., & Porter III, M. (2019). I guess that is fair: How the efforts of other customers influence buyer price fairness perceptions. Psychology & Marketing, 36(7), 700-715.
(to explain that revenue management strategies will actually depend on the competition) Abrate, G., Viglia, G., García, J. S., & Forgas-Coll, S. (2016). Price competition within and between airlines and high-speed trains: the case of the Milan—Rome route. Tourism Economics, 22(2), 311-323.
(to clarify how with crises like COVID the adoption of revenue management strategies became even stronger) Viglia, G., De Canio, F., Stoppani, A., Invernizzi, A. C., & Cerutti, S. (2021). Adopting revenue management strategies and data sharing to cope with crises. Journal of Business Research, 137, 336-344.
Fourth, it is important to have a bit of theoretical grounding before each hypothesis (not presenting all of them together).
Fifth, the empirical analysis is sound. Just make sure to present Figure 1 in a more academic fashion (especially the Y-axis).
Overall, a good paper that needs to be tightened up quite a bit (particularly on the definition of Revenue Management).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been significantly improved based on reviewers’ comments.
The abstract of the paper is complete and stand-alone. The author(s) mentioned the objective as well as the practical implication of this research. Furthermore, the author(s) provided some details about the methodology used and highlighted the practical contribution of the paper.
The Introduction is focused. The author(s) used the traditional structure in order to justify the research gap and the motivation as well as the value of this paper. The objective of the paper is clearly stated. The author(s) presented the motivation of the paper and discussed about the main findings. The author(s) added the theoretical and practical contribution of this paper.
The paper makes an important contribution to academics and to practitioners. However, the table in Introduction needs a caption and it should be presented at the second section.
Research methodology is sound and the statistical analysis is relevant. The research on which the paper is based is well designed and the methods that have been employed are appropriate. This section is designed based on the existing literature.
The author(s) presented clearly the results of the analysis and clearly documented justified and clarified practical and theoretical implications of the paper as well as limitations and suggestions for future research. Implications of findings are considered fully. Conclusions follow from the evidence provided in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I did not get the urgency to accept this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I feel you have done a diligent job in addressing the comments from the previous round. A very final note: it is important you include your own paper as the last row of the literature review table. This way you can bring out your own contribution vis-a-vis with the existing literature
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
