Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine the asymmetrical relationships among information-sharing desire, moral attitudes, lack of concern, relative advantage, market maven tendency and complexity as the antecedents of E-waste-word of mouth (EW-WOM) generation. Design/methodology/approach To obtain a holistic view and the interrelationships between conditions, the configural analysis was conducted to assess the asymmetrical relationships using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA). In addition, construct validity, reliability and symmetrical relationships between antecedent conditions (i.e. exogenous constructs) and outcome conditions (i.e. endogenous constructs) are examined using variance-based structural equation modeling (VB-SEM) technique. Findings Results imply that market maven tendency accounts for 86.8% of the sum of the memberships in EW-WOM generation. In total, 11 configurations show sufficiency in constructing EW-WOM generation. The configuration of relativeadvantamoralattitudesmarketmaventend shows the highest consistency value (0.939684) in producing EW-WOM generation (outcome condition). The similar to relativeadvanta moralattitudescomplexity*similar to lackfconcern with raw coverage of 0.626757 and consistency value of 0.864088 show the most sufficient configuration path in producing the outcome. Originality/value Product review and recommendation are easily shared in various communication formats and consumers are prone to disseminate information and their experiences with other market segments. However, the role and phenomena of such viral communication in preventing environmental issues caused by electronic and electrical devices (i.e. E-waste) are not well understood. This study is among a few attempts at understanding consumer's decision-making process to engage in E-waste activities such as the reduction of garbage, recycling, compositing and the reuse of electronic or electrical devices. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at:


Authors

Rezaei, Sajad;  Ho, Ree Chan

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 1 author
  • 2 reviewers
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2021/03/15

    15-Mar-2021

    Dear Rezaei, Sajad; Ho, Ree

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-11-2019-0343.R2, entitled "Ewaste- word of mouth (EW-WOM) generation: A fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA)" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Online Information Review, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie


    Tell us how we're doing! We’d love to hear your feedback on the submission and review process to help us to continue to support your needs on the publishing journey.

    Simply click this link https://eu.surveymonkey.com/r/F8GZ2XW to complete a short survey and as a thank you for taking part you have the option to be entered into a prize draw to win £100 in Amazon vouchers. To enter the prize draw you will need to provide your email address.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/03/04

    Congratulation! Well-done

    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2021/03/03

    Manuscript ID: OIR-11-2019-0343.R1
    Manuscript title: "Ewaste- word of mouth (EW-WOM) generation: A fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA)
    Journal: Online Information Review

    Respond to the reviewer’s comments:
    We thank the reviewers of Online Information Review for helping us to improve this article and we also thank the editor of Online Information Review for giving us the chance to revise and resubmit the paper. We have made amendments to the manuscript and believe that we have addressed all the concerns raised by reviewers. In our response to the reviewers’ comments, we tabulate some of the key response in respond to the reviewer’s comments Table.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2021/02/25

    25-Feb-2021

    Dear Dr. Rezaei,

    Manuscript ID OIR-11-2019-0343.R1 entitled "Ewaste- word of mouth (EW-WOM) generation: A fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA)" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID;=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    This is an interesting study that has been substantially improved. Yet,
    1-In introduction the authors need to clearly present the research question.
    2-In the last part of the paper, section 4, please consider discussion and implications. Please divide section 4 into discussion, theoretical contribution, limitations and future research.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: yes

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: yes

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: yes

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Need to be improved.
    This is an interesting study that has been substantially improved. Yet,
    1-In introduction the authors need to clearly present the research question.
    2-In the last part of the paper, section 4, please consider discussion and implications. Please divide section 4 into discussion, theoretical contribution, limitations and future research.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Need to be done.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/02/23

    This is an interesting study that has been substantially improved. Yet,
    1-In introduction the authors need to clearly present the research question.
    2-In the last part of the paper, section 4, please consider discussion and implications. Please divide section 4 into discussion, theoretical contribution, limitations and future research.

    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/07/27

    We thank the reviewers of Online Information Review for helping us to improve our research paper and we also thank the editor of Online Information Review for giving us the chance to revise and resubmit the paper. We have made significant amendments to the manuscript and believe that we have addressed all the concerns raised by reviewers. In doing so, we have now a much stronger manuscript, which we hope is now an acceptable standard to warrant publication in the Online Information Review. In our response to the reviewer comments, we tabulate some of the key response in “respond to the reviewer’s comments Table”.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/02/23

    &PHPSESSID23-Feb-2020;

    Dear Dr. Rezaei,

    Manuscript ID OIR-11-2019-0343 entitled "Ewaste- word of mouth (EW-WOM) generation: A fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA)" which you submitted to Online Information Review has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewers have recommended that you make major revisions to your manuscript prior to it being considered for publication.

    Please read their suggestions and if you choose to prepare a revised manuscript ensure that any changes that you make to your manuscript are highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.

    Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions" click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review. I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    The study explores a relevant question, the role of WOM in preventing environmental issues. However, there are several weaknesses which call for further enhancement.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: The contribution of the paper is not clear. Introduction deals with the importance of WOM, the importance of ewaste and it says that WOM has not been analyzed in this area. However, the determinants of WOM has been extensively researched. Why will these determinants be different in this context? In addition, the study analyzes the relationship between the generation of WOM in ewaste context and other variables, but causal relationships are not proposed, the study only proposed interrelationships. In my opinion, this approach should be followed when the topic has been understudy in order to know more about it. However, WOM has been analyzed since the fifties, so testing causal relationships reach higher contributions in this area.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Paper needs to improve literature review as follows:

    (1) The paper should be oriented to a causal study. Thus, hypotheses should be proposed and justified.
    (2) The paper needs a theoretical background that explain why information sharing desire, market maven tendency, moral attitudes, lack of concern, relative advantage and complexity explains WOM generation in this context.
    (3) Literature has previously analyzed the role of different types of individuals in WOM. In addition to market mavens, opinion leaders, hubs and innovators are also important in WOM. Thus, the use of market mavens in the model instead of other types of users should be justified.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Authors develop a qualitative comparative analysis. We suggest that this analysis will be complemented with a quantitative one. Specifically, SEM analysis should be developed in which ewaste-WOM will be introduced as dependent variable. Additionally, measurement should be validated. Convergent validity, composite reliability and discriminant validity should be showed.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: A SEM analysis should be developed in order to complement the qualitative analysis.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Conclusions could be improved if a causal analysis will be developed

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Implications for research could be improved if a causal analysis will be developed.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The paper overall reads well.

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    This study is lacking consistency to clarify the underlying concepts. I have given major revisions that needed to address my related concerns.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: This study is not clear enough to reveal the underlying motives. The introduction is very confusing for readers due to inconsistency among concepts. For example, Page 2 paragraph 2 and Page 3 Line 26 Paragraph 1 are not consistent with the theme of study. The authors should pay attention to it.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: The relevant literature is a very week to develop a better understanding. The page 4 line 52 has given examples of Theory of Reasoned Action and Motivation models. However, these theories are not well explained that could be associated with EW-WOM. It's better to justify your novel idea with related behavioral theories. Furthermore, literature is outdated which needs to be replaced with relevant updated literature. The study should develop hypotheses for a better understanding of the readers.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The research method is well designed and appropriately applied. However, the argumentation should be based on an appropriate theory. What is the specific advantage of employing the QCA technique over other methods?

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Results are truly justifiable.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The empirical findings should be discussed by referring to recent related work. Furthermore, the discussions are not strong enough to explain the core concepts. It should be aligned with the theme.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The results are explaining that market mavens account for 86.8% tendency towards EW-WOM. What should be the role of market maven for Malaysian Society? What is new in research implications which can be beneficial to both the government and the public, and shape their behavior towards electronic waste? It’s obvious that the market maven is always helpful to society. What is the impact of this study on society?

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: This research paper has issues with currency, readability, sentence structure, and grammar. It should be professionally edited.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/02/19

    This study is lacking consistency to clarify the underlying concepts. I have given major revisions that needed to address my related concerns.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2019/12/09

    The study explores a relevant question, the role of WOM in preventing environmental issues. However, there are several weaknesses which call for further enhancement.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.