The study reflects work from a composed and well-researched author/author team. Though I came across several grammar, punctuation, contextual spelling mistakes, and passive sentences, I expect that would be corrected in the editorial process. This is a decently written paper. I feel it lacks academic writing skills and some times I felt as if it’s informal verbal communication. This may not be accepted by the journal. Like say page 2 at line number 26 (it is not the valences of WOM per se, but whether it is);page 3 at line 57-58 (For instance, in terms of user judgment, product); and multiple use of “we belive..” , “obviously” in conclusion, etc.
I see the use of the word, “ Creative Good” in “…of creative goods such as books, movies, and music, increase the uncertainty involved in their judgment..”. Please cite specifically defining what you mean by creative good? You may check “Wieman, H. N. (1995). The source of human good (Vol. 8). Oxford University Press, USA.” But I suggest to also cite some recent journal paper and define “Creative good” in the very start only. I am not clear if you are suggesting creative good only or you are also talking about creative services in the creative economy context. I think you are talking both. Today movies and music are more a service than a good. I would just like to ask the authors to discuss and give a rationale behind their choice of words.
The cited paper Nickerson (1998) confirmation bias is a good paper but I suggest to use a more recent journal paper. I see that the authors have used lots of old papers. I don’t have any issues if the authors are using old papers but only if they could justify them as classic literature in the domain. I think the authors should use at least a few recent apers to demonstrate that they are well aware of recent literature.
At the end of the introduction, the authors may give a paragraph discussing the structure of the paper and briefly what they are going to do. It seems abrupt that it is ending with a sudden discussion on methodology.

On page 2 at lines 48-55, is it really necessary to use so many citations? Referring to “Chua & Banerjee, 2016; King, Racherla, & Bush, 2014; Cheung & Thadani, 2012; Doh, & Hwang, 2009; Lee & Yun, 2009; Park & Kim, 2008; Liu, 2006; Sen & Lerman, 2007; Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006; Smith, Menon, & Sivakumar, 2005; Dellarocas, 2003; Ha, 2002)”. Few but good citations are enough than multiple but redundant.
For the purpose of better readability, please divide the literature review section into parts under subheadings. Please start in the review by stating what will be there in the body. You understand that it’s a long review.
Further, I understand that it's more readable and rational to bring out the hypothesis while doing the review itself. That is building the paragraphs “XYZ” to justifying a hypothesis and then put the hypothesis there itself and continue with the next. This is my recommendation but not necessary that you incorporate as there are no journal guidelines stating so to the limits of my knowledge.
I am not very convinced with the experimental design. First, define what type of experimental research you are doing? Please justify how you are confident that the intervention was properly designed and that it's working as planned? I suggest please discuss reliability and validity of your work. Do you think single-paper meta-analyses were required? Please give some more details of the methodology and cite experimental research papers. You need to elaborate on sample selection. If someone read a relevant book once for the first time last one year and he or she never read a second book, will this be okay? Is it a valid source of information? In page 9 at lines 53-55 (low to ensure our sample contained users with a wide spectrum of involvement in reading mystery fiction… sample would have a higher level of involvement in such fiction than the general population…). Is this really ensuring its? How? Explain.
The result section is well written and seems to have an extension from the methodology section. But this section is better from and well justified than the previous methodology section. Even the conclusion is well written but needs more academic writing style. I think is recommendable to have the conclusion divided into sections. It would be nice if the authors discuss separately in a paragraph in which literature and to what extent they are contributing. Though I see they have made some attempt but it needs more structure.
In general, the authors have referred to very good journals. But could have reduced publication bias my incorporating more book chapters and recent conferences. But I don’t have many reservations about that.
You must add more recent papers i.e. Current developments. “in recent years”. As I said above, if you could justify the paper as classic it's fine. Otherwise old papers are often outdated. You may well know how marketing and more importantly consumers have changed. Please try to give some rationale on the relevance and importance of the study citing some news articles or statistics. Are your work really important? If possible try to cite and get inspiration from cross areas.
Please distinguish among, discussions, conclusions, and limitations. Try to give a nice future research direction in a theoretically grounded way. How are you contributing to theory? Elaborate
I compliment the author/s on their ability to present arguments in a decent fashion. The arguments are decently supported with references, which adds to the overall quality of the paper. Additionally, the paper draws attention to an important scenerio. I believe that this is an area of research that deserves to be supported and encouraged.
With my appreciation for the paper, i am not calling for any ‘major revisions’ simply because the revisions i call for can be categorized as minor. But i do believe that the author(s) can (should they choose to do so) address these without too much difficulty.
The author could have explained in details the applications and generalizability of the study in other parts of the world/or another economy. This is because may assumptions could be void in different geographies and mainly due to different culture. The limitations of the study were well stated, and the structure of the work was only decently designed. The utility part of the work could have been included in the work. The aims and objectives were clear, and the background of the objectives was decently set and fairly detailed.
The framework for the literature review was not very well explained. The number of cited papers is good. The boundaries of the review were clearly not defined, but it seems that the review needs to be cut short in length and could have been presented in a much systematic way like following some established review guidelines and conceptual mapping could have been used. The review could have been more systematic. The hypotheses were well-cited but not very clear and connecting with the review and a lack a logical flow. The hypothesis matched the objectives of the study. The author/s displayed adequate knowledge of the subject matter. The author/s didn’t provide much evidence that the field has been surveyed thoroughly. The author/s couldn’t display sufficient knowledge of the methodology used. The author/s could display an awareness of the shortcomings of the work presented. The author/s demonstrates decent critical and analytical skills. The author/s could have considered alternative theories and should have given a persuasive argument for disregarding alternative theories.
The sample selection is not found to be very appropriate or properly justified for the hypothesis. The issues dealing with data limitations seem to be unclear. Clarify the criteria for sample selection. The sampling design is not so clear though briefly stated. More details are needed.
The paper lacks a proper theory section.
The work makes a value-added contribution to the existing knowledge and has the potential to be the journal article. When compared with a come standard journal, this paper does read well in few sections, and the use of language may seems to be inadequate.

Do the results from your paper differ from previous research conducted by other authors? Highlight how a typical company can learn and improve from this study?

Best wishes to the author/s.

Please try to follow the OIR/Emerald structure. Develop an appropriate abstract as per journal format. I wished to see more recent literature. Why don't you suggest them as further reading (Like JM have some recent work)? Including recent relevant eWOM papers from OIR? This will help you position the paper nicely. Just a suggestion (optional-consult editor). Otherwise, I see significant improvements from the last version. I wish you all the best for your research!