Customer Perception on Last-Mile Delivery Services Using Kansei Engineering and Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study of Indonesian Logistics Providers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• Is any informal or formal questionnaire?  The whole sentence needs to be fixed.

  In general, the author needs to improve the abstract. Write properly as the abstract as the entry point to attract readers to read further

• The paper needs proper proofreading, many sentences are not properly written and have grammar problems. 
• Add the structure/content of your paper in the last paragraph of your introduction.

• You should specify the location within Indonesia, as you have only 100 respondents in your study, which is small as compared to the population of Indonesia.

  You should add limitations of your study and make suggestions to overcome them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and has a certain potential but some improvements are needed.

It would be proper to also highlight from the abstract how the paper adds value to any existing theory or approach

Introduction

It should be clear what the research gap is, how the research gap relates to the research question and how the research question is a. linked to any theory - approach - model which the paper is enhancing and b. implemented in the paper, especially in the methodology - practical part of the paper.

The introduction must also detail the research context and explain how the paper is novel - original.

The last paragraph of the intro should contain a brief description of the next sections of the paper.

Lit review 

 

The relationship between cognitive attitudes and purchasing habits as regards customer perception on last-mile delivery services has not been covered, and thus such recent sources should be cited: Birtus, M., and Lăzăroiu, G. (2021). “The Neurobehavioral Economics of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Consumer Cognition, Perception, Sentiment, Choice, and Decision-Making,” Analysis and Metaphysics 20: 89–101. doi: 10.22381/am2020216. Rydell, L., and Kucera, J. (2021). “Cognitive Attitudes, Behavioral Choices, and Purchasing Habits during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 9(4): 35–47. doi: 10.22381/jsme9420213.   The relationship between behavioral intentions and cognitive algorithmic processes as regards customer perception on last-mile delivery services has not been covered, and thus such recent sources should be cited: Watson, R., and Popescu, G. H. (2021). “Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Lead to Long-Term Consumer Perceptions, Behavioral Intentions, and Acquisition Decisions?,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 16(4): 70–83. doi: 10.22381/emfm16420215. Andronie, M., Lăzăroiu, G., Ștefănescu, R., Ionescu, L., and Cocoșatu, M. (2021). “Neuromanagement Decision-Making and Cognitive Algorithmic Processes in the Technological Adoption of Mobile Commerce Apps,” Oeconomia Copernicana 12(4): 863–888. doi: 10.24136/oc.2021.028.   Section 2.4. is actually the research methodology, thus it should be reported / included there. 2.5. should be merge with 2.4. in Research methodology and research design   The research context must be detailed and explained more clear.   Table 3. ... from where have the aspects been taken?   3.5. Respondents profile ... should come between the methodology and the proper results actually as socio demographic characteristics The results must be detailed and brought in a closer relation to the business - economic perspectives   The paper is missing a clear section of discussions where the novelty of the paper is shown and where the own results are compared with previous findings from the literature.   Conclusions should consist of theoretical implications managerial contributions limitations future research perspectives 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review paper: “Customer Perception on Last-Mile Delivery Services using Kansei Engineering and Conjoint Analysis: A Case Study of Indonesian Logistics Providers”

The article's objective is very interesting to combine the Kansei Engineering and Conjoint Analysis methods. However, I have some suggestions for the author as follows:

1. What is the Kansei Engineering methodology effect in this research?
2. Why the authors choose this methodology in this research?
3. The dataset used in the case studies is not clearly defined. The analysis of the cases is not appealing and compelling.
4. Please explain some terminology in this study such as: SE (Standard of Error), Weighted Percentage (%), R count, r table.
5. Research Gap and research problem was not clearly.
6. What is the implication of this research?
7. Font size error.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for implementing most of my suggestions.

 

I still consider that the manuscript must be improved.

 

The results must be detailed and brought in a closer relation to the business - economic perspectives  

 

The paper is missing a clear section of discussions where the novelty of the paper is shown and where the own results are compared with previous findings from the literature.  

 

Conclusions should consist of

a. theoretical implications

b. managerial contributions

c. limitations

d. future research perspectives

 

Any references from conclusions MUST be dismissed.  

Author Response

Reviewer comments:

The paper is missing a clear section of discussions where the

novelty of the paper is shown and where the own results are

compared with previous findings from the literature.

Author respond:

Thank you, two paragraphs were added in the discussion section (green highlighted).

Reviewer comments:

Conclusions should consist of:

1. theoretical implications
2. managerial contributions
3. limitations
4. future research perspectives

Any references from conclusions MUST be dismissed.

Author respond:

Thank you. The conclusion section has been modified significantly as suggested by adding managerial contribution and theoretical implication. Further study and limitations of this study are also there without references. 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the paper considerably, so it can be accepted.