Advance
ReportAssignment No: ABCDEThis report summarizes the overall quality of your edited
manuscript. For each section, we provide specific comments on thequality and these are substantiated by examples (where available).

enago.jp

Table of Content
Structural Review

3-6Overall Manuscript
Title & Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion

Peripheral Text Review

7

Figures and/or Tables
Bibliography

Content, Terminology, Style, and Format Review
Terminology
StyleFormatting

2
Disclaimer: The evaluation is based on the subjective opinion of each editor, and should be used only as reference material.
©2005-2024 Enago | Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. | www.enago.jp

8-9

enago.jp

Structural Review
Overall Manuscript
Is the paper written in a way that is accessible and understandable to the intended audience? If
not, have any changes been made to improve the clarity and readability of the paper?

Are there parts in certain sections (e.g., Introduction, Methods, etc.) that should be moved toanother section?
We suggest moving some content to improve the paper's overall clarity and coherence.

(We found many passages in the Results section that could be moved to the Discussion section tomake the latter section robust. We have added detailed comments in the manuscript explaining ourrationale.)
Does the paper have a logical structure that helps the reader follow the author(s)'s arguments? If
not, does the author need to rearrange, rewrite, expand, or summarize any sections to improve
the logical flow of the paper?
The manuscript currently is not logically structured. Consider reorganizing, rephrasing, expanding,
and/or summarizing certain sections based on our remark(s) for guidance.

(After moving passages from Results to Discussion, the findings will need to be expanded to makethe section more detailed.)
Does the paper provide a clear and concise overview of the research question, methods/
approaches, findings, and implications?

Are there any content gaps or missing critical research points in the manuscript?
There are many content gaps and missing critical research points in the manuscript. To improve
comprehensiveness, please address these gaps through additional research and content
integration; refer to our remark(s) for details.

(The review of literature primarily consists of antiquated literature. It should be supplemented withmore recent research.)

3Disclaimer: The evaluation is based on the subjective opinion of each editor, and should be used only as reference material.
©2005-2024 Enago | Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. | www.enago.jp

enago.jp

Title
Is the title concise and grammatically accurate?

Does the title accurately reflect the content of the paper?
The title requires further changes to reflect the content of the paper. Refer to our detailed
remark(s). 

(As the study is an overview of consumer behavior in the e-commerce market, consider revising thetitle to clearly indicate this focus. Currently, the title refers to consumer behavior without specifying
which the market.)

Abstract
Does the abstract offer a succinct overview of the paper, effectively summarizing its key aspects,
and follow a logical order?

Are the following stated: Purpose, Methods and Materials, Results, Conclusions?

Does the abstract include relevant field-specific keywords and terminology?
The abstract lacks field-specific keywords and terminology. Consider revising it to enhance its
resonance within the field.

(For example, use terms such as "e-commerce retailing" instead of “online shopping." Similarsuggestions have been added in the manuscript.)

Introduction
Is the scope of the study appropriately outlined?
Information about the scope of the study needs to be included in the Introduction.

(Kindly include this detail prior to submitting your manuscript to a journal.)
Does the paper acknowledge the limitations of other studies in this field of research?

4Disclaimer: The evaluation is based on the subjective opinion of each editor, and should be used only as reference material.
©2005-2024 Enago | Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. | www.enago.jp

enago.jp

Materials & Methods
Is the methodology described in enough detail that another researcher could replicate the study?

Is the research methodology robust and devoid of any intentional bias (e.g., randomization ofsamples)?

Are all key techniques/approaches employed discussed in the Methods or another relevant section?
The key techniques and approaches employed in the study are not sufficiently addressed in theMethods section or another relevant section. Consider revising the Methods section to include thesetechniques and approaches.

(You have employed empirical analysis for hypothesis testing. However, the inclusion and exclusion
criteria for data points need to be elaborated on.)Are the evaluation techniques and/or parameters/variables clearly outlined?

Was statistical significance of the data appropriate?

Are the statistical analyses in the text appropriate and do they support the findings?

Results
Does the language used in presenting results facilitate understanding without unnecessary
jargon or ambiguity?

5Disclaimer: The evaluation is based on the subjective opinion of each editor, and should be used only as reference material.
©2005-2024 Enago | Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. | www.enago.jp

enago.jp

Is there a clear separation between presenting results and interpreting their implications?
Further refinement is required to separate the presentation of results from their interpretation.
Please refer to our remark(s).

(The main findings are generally included in the Results section, and the interpretation of the findings
and its applicability are mentioned in the Discussion section.)
Have the key findings from tables and figures been effectively summarized within the main text?

Discussion
Does the paper discuss the implications of the findings and how they contribute to the existing bodyof knowledge?

Are all the key results convincingly discussed in light of whether they did or did not support thehypotheses?
Some of the arguments in the Discussion section regarding the key results that support the central
hypothesis are not persuasive. Please see our remark(s) for details.

(There is a gap between your hypothesis and finding and their interpretation. We have highlighted
these gaps and specified ways to bridge them in order to strengthen your contention.)
Are the conclusions of the paper clear and concise?
Some of the conclusions are unclear and need to be made concise.

(Currently, the conclusions are unclear owing to wordiness. We have added suggestions in themanuscript to delete sentences and/or phrases to enhance clarity and conciseness.)
Are there any conclusions that are not supported by current study findings or a literature review?
There are some conclusions in the paper that are not supported by the findings or relevant literature.
Please refer to our remark(s) for details.

(After addressing the gap between findings and interpretation, as stated above, this aspect will beclear and evident.)
Are the limitations of the study mentioned in the conclusion section, informing the direction offuture research?

6Disclaimer: The evaluation is based on the subjective opinion of each editor, and should be used only as reference material.
©2005-2024 Enago | Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. | www.enago.jp

enago.jp

Peripheral Text Review
Figures and Tables
Do the content and presentation of the figures/tables complement the narrative in themanuscript?

Are all the tables and figures cited in the main text?
Some of the Figures and/or Tables are not cited in the main text.

(Figures 1 and 3 as well as Table 5 need to cited in the main text before they are presented in themanuscript.)
Do table and figure legends provide all the necessary information?
While Table/Figure legends are generally clear, concise, and accurate, there may be some instanceswhere they lack essential information.

(The legends for Figures 1 and 2 need to spell out all abbreviations used.)an each figure/table stand alone without reference to the text?

Cibliography

B

Are factual statements appropriately supported with references?
Some of the factual statements in the paper are not supported by citations.

(We have highlighted statements in the manuscript that require citations.)s the cited literature directly relevant to the scope of the study?

IThe majority of the literature that is cited in the paper is relevant to the study, but there may be
few minor exceptions.

(The literature cited also needs to include more recent research, as the antiquated ones may not bedirectly relevant owing to advances in the field.)s the citation style consistent throughout the paper?

I

ost of the references in the paper are cited in a consistent format, but there were few minor
exceptions.

(We have formatted the manuscript and made the citation style consistent overall.)M

7
Disclaimer: The evaluation is based on the subjective opinion of each editor, and should be used only as reference material.
©2005-2024 Enago | Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. | www.enago.jp

enago.jp

Content, Terminology, Style, and Format Review
Terminology
Are the terms used in the paper valid in the field or have they been newly coined? If they havebeen newly coined, have they been defined?
While most of the terminology in the paper is well-established, a few terms could benefit fromfurther clarification or definition.

(For instance, the term "neuromarketing," needs detailed description at the first instance for acomprehensive background.)Is the technical nomenclature used in the paper appropriate and consistent?
The technical nomenclature in the paper is somewhat appropriate and consistent.

(Technical terms could be more field-specific. We have added remarks at relevant instances that willaid in making the necessary changes.)

Style
Does the capitalization, italicization, and number style used in the paper follow theconventions of the subject area?

Formatting
Does the structure and length of each manuscript section conform to all other journal
guidelines?

If a style guide has been stipulated by the journal guidelines (Chicago, AMA, APA, ACS, etc.),
was it followed? If yes, mention the style guide and version.
The style guide outlined in the guidelines was adhered to as applicable, but the author(s) should
review certain aspects.

(These aspects have been highlighted in the manuscript along with detailed comments and nextsteps.)

8Disclaimer: The evaluation is based on the subjective opinion of each editor, and should be used only as reference material.
©2005-2024 Enago | Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. | www.enago.jp

enago.jp

If a template has been provided by the journal, was it applied as per guidelines?

If additional materials (e.g., highlights) are required by the journal, have they been provided
and are these consistent with the journal guidelines?

Does the manuscript follow all the guidelines of its target journal? If not, have you provided
the necessary remark(s)s for the author(s) to address the gaps?

9Disclaimer: The evaluation is based on the subjective opinion of each editor, and should be used only as reference material.
©2005-2024 Enago | Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. | www.enago.jp