Exploring Factors Affecting Consumer Behavioral Intentions toward Online Food Ordering in Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.  The TAM is a very mature model, why use TAM? The “introduction” has reiterated the content that was presented within the introduction. The researchers suggest that there is a gap in the academic literature on this topic. There are so many contributions that have explored this topic in more depth and breadth. This is not a novel paper. It is not original enough. The constructs that were used in this study were adopted in many other papers.

2.     The following statement is inappropriate:

L100-102 [32] TAM model for mo-100 bile health care user adoption [33] Study on online purchase intentions for middle-aged 101 people [34], and the research studies on the TPB such as The intention of young consumers 102 to buy environmentally friendly products in developing countries [35],

L180-181 [39] confirmed the previous studies [54] showing that customers’ ATT toward online 180 food delivery was BI’s most key predictor of online shopping.

3.     Please write your full name on the first occurrence, ex ATT, BI, SN, PBC….

4.     L298 There are nine steps in the operation process as shown in Figure 2. This manuscript did not see this figure 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study. Suggestions for revision:

1. Change the title from "... online food delivery..." to "... online food ordering...".

2. Grammatical errors need to be corrected throughout the manuscript.

3. Please have all of the acronyms explained/written in full before using them in abbreviated form.

4.  From  line 274 to 286, please explain how SDGs are related to the current study. This is a standard consumer study. The whole design of the study is not based on or directed related to SDGs. It is very awkward to have the SDGs suddenly shown up in the content.

5. Please provide sources for each table and figure.

6. The content of Table 5 and Figure 3 is not clear. Please modify.

 7. Line, 560, "... which indicates BI." This is not clear. Please revise.

Overall, there is no linkage of the study to SDGs. Authors may need to remove SDGs from the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author/s,

I have gone through your manuscript and have the following comments:

1. Although, the manuscript explains a very timely and valid theme of Online food delivery apps and their association with the consumers' behavioural intentions and impact with regards to the impact of Covid-19, but in the present form it seems that the manuscript is incomplete and suffers from major validations with respect to the problem under study.

2. The abstract of the study seems very weak and requires the author/s to provide more stress on the originality of this study. What is the differentiating factor that makes your study novel and your unique contribution to the present body of literature??? This should be properly highlighted and provided in the abstract. The objectives of the study in the abstract are not clear. This is the most important section of the paper. Author/s are suggested to make sufficient modifications in the abstract to make it more clear, crisp and lucid with well drafted research objectives, unique contribution of your study, its originality and most significant findings. I would suggest the author/s to include a paragraph explaining what will follow in the manuscript which will be extremely helpful for the journal readership.

4. Introduction section is very weak. The explanations given with regards to the behavioural intentions with regards to the use of Online food delivery apps in the Thailand food service market needs a better outlook in line with the stress on the impact of Covid-19.  Please be consistent with your statements especially in this section.

5. The statements discussed in the literature review section lacks rigor. Add in some updated studies to clearly identify the research gaps and framing of research questions. The hypotheses formulated needs some better explanation and validation from the previous gap in the literature.

6. Methodology is a serious drawback of this study. It needs better explanations for a lot many important aspects. Sampling universe should be defined more appropriately and in detail..
 How you handled the biases that might have occurred during the data collection process.  What did you do for the initial screening of the questionnaires?? Were there any questionnaires having missing values or discrepancies?? Provide explanations

7. Although, I am satisfied with the presentation of results but author/s should provide a better detail of the results explained in Tables. 
8. Implications are very weak... Authors are suggested to align their discussions with their objectives and propose refined implications... In the present form implications are not looking effective with the study results. 

9. Written language requires modifications with respect to grammatical and punctuation errors which are visible through out the manuscript.. It is always better to get the manuscript proof read by versed professors in the field... Throughout the manuscript, I found errors with regards to the in-text citation. Pls follow the journal citation guidelines. There are inconsistencies in the references also.

Overall, I think the manuscript in the present form is needs a thorough rigorous revision to be considered further.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please refer to attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

The revised manuscript looks significantly better from the previous version. I have the following comments:

1. The introduction section still needs some more gap identification in terms of defining the problem under investigation. You should come up with more points which makes your study relevant in the domain you have researched. I still think the introduction is weak and can be improved.

2. As I said for introduction, the LR can also be improved by including some more recent studies conducted on the domain under study. Make sure to include very recent studies i.e. not before 2018.. This will help you making the study more relevant with the present scenario and more updated. 

3. Methodology section looks fine now.

4. Presentation of results and data interpretation is improved.

5. I think you can still improve upon the discussion section and discuss the long term and short term implications of the study for the scholars and stakeholders. This section in the present form looks weak.

6. I could find that the references you have provided still have inconsistencies. Please remove the irregularities and make sure to follow just one type of referencing as suggested by the journal.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx