The Changes in the Perceptions of Women towards the Symbolic Value of Gold: Marketing and Financial Implications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their contribution and their interest in this journal. Unfortunately, I think the paper has not enough quality to be published, the results don’t show relevant findings and the structure is unclear.

It seems that the authors have not reread the paper before submitting it. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how they have repeated until four times the same paragraph in the text: lines 41-48 are repeated in 67-74, 214-221, and 240-247. The same can be said about lines 34-40, repeated three times: 60-66 and 233-239; lines 49-53, repeated twice (lines 222-226), and lines 54-59, repeated also twice, both in the Introduction and the Literature review (227-232).

The structure is unclear, and there is also a mistake with the headings of the sections: 2.1 is repeated seven times in the Literature Review.

The Methodology section does not address exactly what methodology is: part of the text should have been included in the literature review. The sample is not relevant, as they don’t explain which have been the criteria to select the respondents: could be biased this sample? In this case, would the results be valuable?

Extensive copy-editing is needed to improve the English language: there are many plural nouns followed by a singular verb, and vice versa: lines 184, 272, 278, 297: mistakes in the use of punctuation, etc.

Author Response

1	It seems that the authors have not reread the paper before submitting it. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how they have repeated until four times the same paragraph in the text: lines 41-48 are repeated in 67-74, 214-221, and 240-247. The same can be said about lines 34-40, repeated three times: 60-66 and 233-239; lines 49-53, repeated twice (lines 222-226), and lines 54-59, repeated also twice, both in the Introduction and the Literature review (227-232).	We wish to thank the reviewer wholeheartedly for the detailed and specific review. The vital issue of repetition as pointed out by the reviewer has been corrected
2	The structure is unclear, and there is also a mistake with the headings of the sections: 2.1 is repeated seven times in the Literature Review.	We have brought changes to the structure and corrected the numbering issue
3	The Methodology section does not address exactly what methodology is: part of the text should have been included in the literature review. The sample is not relevant, as they don’t explain which have been the criteria to select the respondents: could be biased this sample? In this case, would the results be valuable?	In response to the valuable inputs of the reviewer, we have added more into the methodology in order to bring in further clarity, we have also added justification for the sampling method chosen
4	Extensive copy-editing is needed to improve the English language: there are many plural nouns followed by a singular verb, and vice versa: lines 184, 272, 278, 297: mistakes in the use of punctuation, etc.	We have put the content through a detailed language check and have made extensive corrections throughout the text

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper approaches an interesting topic, even though highly cultural specific. Here are some suggestions for its improvement:

- in the Results section include some comments to shortly interpret the figure results to make it clear to the reader what a certain result does it mean

- in the Discussion section increase discussion on similar and dissimilar findings between the two generations via more interpretation of the results and more comparison between the generations

-  in the last section refer to theoretical implications and to practical implications (for whom?). Also better delineate the marketing implications (a, b, c) and the financial implications (a,b,c).

- there are numerous English and editing mistakes that need to be corrected.

- there numerous paragraphs that are repeated twice mot-a-mot. One fragment is repeated mot-a-mot  3 times (See raws 45-48 with raw 71-74 and raws 218-221). This is not acceptable. The Introduction needs to be written separately from the text. You cannot copy fragments from the text and include them in the Introduction. Re-wording is needed.

- more recent (last 3 years) bibliographical sources need to be included.

- the format of the journal is not followed.

 

 

Author Response

Sl. No.	Reviewer's Comments	Author's Response
		We wish to thank the reviewer wholeheartedly for the words of appreciation and a detailed review with specific and clear suggestions to improve our research paper.
1	In the Results section include some comments to shortly interpret the figure results to make it clear to the reader what a certain result does it mean	As pointed out by the reviewer we have increased the explanations of the figure results
2	In the Discussion section increase discussion on similar and dissimilar findings between the two generations via more interpretation of the results and more comparison between the generations	As suggested, we have added to the discussion section, highlighting more differences and similarities.
3	In the last section refer to theoretical implications and to practical implications (for whom?). Also better delineate the marketing implications (a, b, c) and the financial implications (a,b,c).	Based on the suggestion of the reviewer we have added a theorotical implications section, have also added practical implications by delineating the two major parties viz. the Government and the industry.
4	There are numerous English and editing mistakes that need to be corrected	We have put the paper for a detailed language check and did extensive corrections throughout the text
5	There numerous paragraphs that are repeated twice mot-a-mot. One fragment is repeated mot-a-mot  3 times (See raws 45-48 with raw 71-74 and raws 218-221). This is not acceptable. The Introduction needs to be written separately from the text. You cannot copy fragments from the text and include them in the Introduction. Re-wording is needed.	Our apologies for the error, we have rewritten the texts and ensured that repetitions are avoided
6	More recent (last 3 years) bibliographical sources need to be included	We have added a few more recent sources to the content as suggested
		We wish to thank the reviewer once again for the detailed and specific suggestions, which the authors believe has helped in improving the structure and quality of the paper considerably.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been considerably improved in structure, methodology, discussion, and theoretical and practical implications. But it is difficult to extract these conclusions from the practical research with the 110 interviewees. 

It also has improved the quality of the English Language. Some minor details should be considered before publication. English punctuation needs some improvements. For example, lines 51, 59-61, 68, 73-76, 80, 89, 140, 228, 311, 328, 361,362, 369, 386, 387,454, 460, 465. Use of singular and plural: line 83, line 86, 364.

Author Response

Reviewer’s Comments	Author’s Response
The paper has been considerably improved in structure, methodology, discussion, and theoretical and practical implications.	We wish to thank the reviewer for the positive comments, more importantly for the robust contribution that has been made to improve the paper considerably
But it is difficult to extract these conclusions from the practical research with the 110 interviewees.	To address this issue we have added a section – titled ‘sample size estimation in the methodology part (3.3). This was based on a pilot study that we had conducted to estimate the sample size, the same, however, was not added to the initial submission.
It also has improved the quality of the English Language. Some minor details should be considered before publication. English punctuation needs some improvements. For example, lines 51, 59-61, 68, 73-76, 80, 89, 140, 228, 311, 328, 361,362, 369, 386, 387,454, 460, 465. Use of singular and plural: line 83, line 86, 364.	All the English punctuation issues pointed out has been rectified. We appreciate the strong eye for detail of the reviewer

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have introduced most of the recommended changes, repetitive passages have been eliminated and the final part of the paper has been improved.

However, there are still changes to be done in terms of format (in section 3.3. there is a first table that is not numbered as such) and also in terms of content ( a more detailed analysis between the two generations it would improve the paper and a more detailed discussion that relates the present paper with other SIMILAR papers on the same topic will also add value).

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Reviewer’s Comments	Author’s Response
The authors have introduced most of the recommended changes, repetitive passages have been eliminated and the final part of the paper has been improved.	We wish to thank the reviewer for the positive comments, more importantly for the robust contribution that has been made to improve the paper considerably
However, there are still changes to be done in terms of format (in section 3.3. there is a first table that is not numbered as such)	The error pointed out has been rectified, the authors also reviewed the numbering throughout to ensure that there aren’t any further issues left in the regard.
and also in terms of content ( a more detailed analysis between the two generations it would improve the paper and a more detailed discussion that relates the present paper with other SIMILAR papers on the same topic will also add value).	There have been contents added in sections 5.1 and 5.2, we have attempted to organize the results into two and have added two more citations related to the findings, so that the argument can be more established.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx