All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Congratulations on the acceptance of your paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors incorporated all the given suggestions.
The authors incorporated all the given suggestions.
The authors incorporated all the given suggestions.
The revisions are satisfactory and the manuscript can be accepted now.
The revisions are satisfactory and the manuscript can be accepted now.
The revisions are satisfactory and the manuscript can be accepted now.
No further comments.
You are advised to prepare the revised version of your paper, keeping in view the suggestions of the experts and resubmit according to their instructions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
- In this paper, the authors proposed a study to test the impact of dimensions of M-Interactivity on customers’ engagement in m-commerce and the effect of customers’ attention in m-commerce on customer loyalty towards m-commerce applications. The idea is good and could be beneficial for the commerce community in general. There are some improvement suggestions as follows
- The use of ‘M’ and ‘m’ for multidimensionality may be consistent throughout the manuscript.
- Figure 2 is not cited in the manuscript.
- Tables 3, 6, 7, and 8 are not cited.
- The author must describe the contribution in the introduction section.
- The author must include a paragraph at the end of the introduction section describing the paper's layout.
- Before the citation check, the author used double inverted commas ‘ ” ’ at many places.
- Use the inverted commas correctly, such as on page 3, line 119,”engaged customers,” should be “engaged customers”.
- On page 3, line 146, clients’ recommendations should be client’s recommendations.
- On page 8, line no. 293, the authors write, “see the figure and table below” the authors must cite the figure and table.
- There are many grammatical mistakes present in the paper. The paper must be proofread very carefully.
- The authors assigned different values to experiment parameters but did not explain why they used these values.
- The author used different statistical methods to validate the results but did not explain the results given in Tables 3 to 6. Presenting the results (What mean of these values) is recommended.
- Included in Basic reporting.
This paper presents a study related to customer engagement in m-commerce applications. A questionnaire sample of 500 users was distributed. The acquired results were analyzed using the Partial least squares (PLS) technique. For the improvement of the work following are my suggestions:
• Introduction Section is too brief. The authors should extend the introduction section and add motivation-related discussion.
• Related work section needs an extension. Add more papers relevant to the topic. The literature should be recent from reputed Journal/conference venues.
o A table of comparison of these related approaches should be highly beneficial.
• Section 2.1.5 Personalization (PR) and 2.1.6 Synchronicity (SY) do not refer to any existing related study. Add appropriate references.
• Authors mention that they examine 6 mobile interaction factors. The rationale of using these 6 interaction factors is not clear. Add a related discussion on why only these 6 interactions were considered for the proposed model.
• Figures and Table's names should be in sentence case. For example, the caption of Table 1 needs correction.
• Interpretation of results depicted in Table 3. R-Square Values were not discussed. Add relevant discussion.
• Table 4 has many fields empty, these must be filled. For those fields where a valid value does not exist the terms N/A or “-“ symbol could be inserted.
• Table 6 is not referred to in the paper text. Refer to it and discuss it accordingly.
• There paper needs a full revision of the text to improve the language.
Comments have been mentioned in the basic reporting form.
Comments have been mentioned in the basic reporting form.
Comments have been mentioned in the basic reporting form.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.