Characterizing Young Consumer Online Shopping Style: Indonesian Evidence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting and pertinent topic. The objectives of this study are to characterize the consumer decision-making styles of young internet users and to create a profile of their online shopping styles. However, the manuscript will have to be heavily improved / rethought to ensure publication potential. The size and depth of the manuscript are not guaranteed. The document does not present a robust discussion and does not present real contributions (for theory and for practice). The manuscript needs a deeper, more robust and more current theoretical framework. It will be convenient to develop lines of future research and limitations of the study. The conclusions of the manuscript are modest and insufficient. The manuscript has publication potential, however further scientific development is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

The topic is fine but your paper needs important improvements. 

The literature review must be revised. Instead of offering to many definitions for different concepts such as the decision making process, the authors should find and analyze previous similar researches from different countries/regions and expose their findings. 

The result and discussions section should be enriched by comparing the results with those previous findings.

The method section should be revised and supplementary information regarding the survey and the instrument used for it should be offered.

References should be enriched as a consequence of improving the sections mentioned.

Sentences should not begin with a reference in brackets (eg. line 69) but mentioning the name of the first author. 

Good luck

Author Response

Please see the attachments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper describes an interesting topic; however, I consider the sample of 400 respondents unrepresentative, so the research results and the paper alone do not significantly contribute to this research field and  should not be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting and pertinent topic. The objectives of this study are to characterize the consumer decision-making styles of young internet users and to create a profile of their online shopping styles. However, the manuscript will have to be heavily improved / rethought to ensure publication potential. The size and depth of the manuscript are not guaranteed. The document does not present a robust discussion and does not present real contributions (for theory and for practice). The manuscript needs a deeper, more robust and more current theoretical framework. It will be convenient to develop lines of future research and limitations of the study. The conclusions of the manuscript are modest and insufficient. The manuscript has publication potential, however further scientific development is needed.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

I have noticed that the manuscript has benn improved according to the suggestions 

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.

Kind regards,
Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

After revision the paper gained a higher quality, I agree with its publishing.

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.

Kind regards,
Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest that the manuscript has publication potential after the changes made. English should be proofread carefully. I congratulate the authors.