Health Star Ratings and Beverage Purchase Intentions: A Study of Australian and New Zealand Hospitality Consumers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.I would recommend not to mention keywords (i.e. Health star rating、Australia、New Zealand) which are already present in the title. Please use different keywords thinking terms that will help someone locate your work at the top of the search engine.

2.The paper structure goes from introduction to methods used: It is hard to follow the essence of the article in the entire opening section. It would be better to clearly address research questions and the importance of the paper. It would me make more sense if the author could frame the article, especially the introduction part, with a theoretical consistency. The paper needs to address more clearly the novelty of the research.

3.You need to go beyond describing a series of relevant references, and tell us how your interpretation of the literature shows the gaps that exist, and how the proposed approach to the literature brings about novel opportunities to reinterpret the literature that will allow an advancement in our understanding in the field. This feels mechanical and lacking in originality. Additionally, more updated literature could have been used.

4.The description of the methodology is lacking in detail and scope. The paper need a deeper level of analysis of the key issues. What is theoretical significance of your OLS  results? How do you explain your statistical analysis outcomes and how do they contribute the current research?

5.Conclusions: it lacks further research recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and recommendations on our manuscript. Please see attached the our response to reviewer comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is well written but missing some information. Also it is recommended for the authors to re-summarise their introduction and discussion section before the review can proceed.

The Introduction section should be summarised further, it is quite long for a research article and should be shorten and only include relevant information for the research.

Please include other statistical analysis as well on the analysis technique section for example, cronbach alpha measures and factor analysis.

Was there any ethics approval for this? If yes, please include.

I'd highly recommend the authors to subhead their discussion, what was the key results? It felt ambiguous.

Please provide limitations and future research avenues from this research output. 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and recommendations on our manuscript. Please see attached the our response to reviewer comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the detailed and well-explained revision of the document. I think it will be a good contribution to our Journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and support.

Reviewer 2 Report

I'd like to thank the authors for revising the manuscript.

One minor comment here is to section the statistical analysis section under materials and method, the explanation of stats approach in results is not appropriate.

Author Response

One minor comment here is to section the statistical analysis section under materials and method, the explanation of stats approach in results is not appropriate.

Thank you for your feedback. In response we have now amended the content in Section 3.3 Model description and analysis techniques as well as the Results sections 4.2 and 4.3. These amendments involve removing content that describes the methods from the Results sections, and including this in Materials and Methods instead.  Please see changes highlighted in revised manuscript.

We have also proof read the paper again and made some minor corrections.