Next Article in Journal
Sharing or Hiding? Exploring the Influence of Social Cognition and Emotion on Employee Knowledge Behaviors within Enterprise Social Media
Next Article in Special Issue
Do Psychological Ownership and Communicative Presence Matter? Examining How User-Generated Content in E-Commerce Live Streaming Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention
Previous Article in Journal
Promoting Psychosocial Adjustments of Cross-Border Students in Hong Kong: A Resilience and Social Capital Framework
Previous Article in Special Issue
Study on the Psychological Effects of Intangible Cultural Heritage Advertising with Different Degrees of Situational Involvement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/bs14080652
Review Report
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Buying Game Derivative Products Is Different from In-Game Purchases: A Mixed-Method Approach

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14(8), 652; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080652
by Xinyi An, Yuhan Peng, Zexi Dai, Yunheng Wang, Zizhen Zhou and Xianglong Zeng *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Zaila Oliveira
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14(8), 652; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080652
Submission received: 27 May 2024 / Revised: 22 July 2024 / Accepted: 24 July 2024 / Published: 28 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Emotional Antecedents and Consequences of Buying and Consuming: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Consumers’ Emotions)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

We noticed that you mentioned the scale items in Comment 7. The scale items adopted in this study is in the supplemental material. We submitted it together with the original manuscript, and it seems that for some reasons you have not seen it. We have also added the content in the Author's Notes File.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The text is well structured. Congratulations!!

The article addresses a research gap, the methods are appropriate, and the results are particularly interesting and have the potential to provide relevant knowledge for both academics and practitioners. However, the article needs some improvements to make it stronger and more relevant to readers. Namely, in chapter 4, "discussion" you should discuss the results of your research by comparing them with other results from existing scientific literature. In this way, you will highlight your own contribution to the field of knowledge. As for references, I consider it important that you review the possibility of replacing references that are more than 10 years old with more recent ones.

Please consider these recommendations constructive based on my reading of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion and make some changes. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper writing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop