Research on Customer Loyalty - A Case Study of i.t fashion chain store in Hong Kong
Please revise the whole paper accordingly, need to keep the paper at around 17000 words
Wrong title: The case of, not the cast study of......case study means you are using qualitative method
Pg 4 - Abstract means summary.....one page only
Pg 5 - you do notneed to add so much details and procedures, read a good journal paper and see how "short" its. abstract is may be half page only
Pg 7 -comment 1 : too long > > comment 2 : Abstract is made up of four or five paragraphs only , each paragraphs two or three lines only > > > Background > > Purpose > > methodolodgy Findings > > Summary > > Keywords: 4 or 5
> > > Pg 18 - comment 1 : fair enough\ > > comment 2 : fair enough(no questionable area so far
> > > Pg 19 - Elaborate more into details
> > > Pg 23 - comment 1 : Can you blend all these 4 points into on paragraphy if they are all from Kelly(1993) ??? > > comment 2 : Apply theories, not restating theories > > comment 3 : Be precies and specific
> > > Pg 24 - comment 1 : lacking a clear thinking path of deduction of logic and a critical use of theories, literature review is to review the research findings in the past or criticize/ agree their opinions or results with your reasoning not wiriting summary of textbook comment 2 - if there are so many repetitive defintion discourses summarize them into a paragraphy since these are all from Randall (1997)
> > > Pg 25 - comment 1: no citations > > comment 2 : Overdescriptive > > comment 3 : No figurative pronounces no"I", "you", "He", "She" > > comment 4: All from Kolter (2000) only? > > comment 5: More diverse sources to be used
> > > Pg 26 - comment 1: Be precise and specific > > comment 2: Need critical evaluation
> > > Pg 27 - Need critical evaluation
> > > Pg 28 - comment 1: Need critical evaluation, why not to use a table of literature findings/ definitions, your writing is very clumsy
> > comment 2: lacking a clear thinking path of deduction of logic and a critical use of theories
> > comment 3: Be precise and specific, do not describe each research in detail group similar writing and views into a prose or short paragraphy.
> > comment 4: each page should have at least tow or three paragraphy, your writing readability is poor. write in short paragraphy
> > > Pg 29 - comment 1: you do not need write about how each author operationalize the same construct. you can summarize them in a table of comparision
> > comment 2: Are these all well understand and do not need to wirte in a listing style
> > comment 3: Overdescriptive, You just repeat again and again for customer satisfaction's items. You do not need to report all these in detail. Put them in a table if you wish
> > > Pg 30 - comment 1: I think you miss the point. You do not to list out all these definition measurements. At most you ahould write in two A4 sides. Put the details into tables and focus on your observation and evaluation
> > comment 2: Overdescriptive
> > > Pg 31 - comment 1: sww my comments in cs, same here
> > comment 2: could you tell us what are the trend of research involving variable over the year ? What are their common conclusion in each era? How has the concept evolved over the year
> > > Pg 32 - comment 1: be precise and critical. Focused on your question: Plan before you write. Why you summarize all these findings(10pts) into one or two paragraphs.
> > comment 2: dont use point form
> > > Pg 33 - Any meaningful conclusions? Its seems your writing is not chronological ? Reflecting research findings over the year
> > > Pg 34 - comment 1: Put this Chapter 3
> > comment 2: If you do not intend to use all these definitions , then you do not need to write everything you know about the variable
> > comment 3: Irrelevant between discussion or being vague and lack of strong logical reasoning and linkage
> > > Pg 35 - comment 1: Just one Addulah et al (2000) supports your hopothesis really no more citation over so many years? Is this Abdullah et al (2000) a highly cited one? No more recent citations to support (2012+)
> > comment 2: Not sufficient support evidence, you should pay more effort onto arguing for your hypothesis. You wrote 3 to 4 pages for each definitions but only 2 citations for one hypothesis. The evidence is too weak to justify for your hypothesis, normally a dozen of citations is need
> > comment 3: Only one single study from 30 years ago to support your hypothesis comment 4: No sufficient support evidence, see my hypotheseis 1
> > > Pg 36 - comment 1: Not sufficient support evidence, too short, not enough update citations
> > comment 2: No sufficient support evidence
> > > Pg 37 - Apply theories, not restating theories. Yes, we know the above. But can you tell me how the above DO TOUR STUDY? you just repeated research textbook definitions of the two, three are not justification
> > > Pg 39 - Are there any recent studies also use these scales. what were their reasons to use these scale, explain did they show good validity and realiability in the past
> > > Pg 43 - fair enough
> > > Pg 47 - comment 1: How do you ensure your scales selected have met all these validity criteria > > comment 2: You completely missed out ethical issues in research design
> > > Pg 62 - comment 1, 2, 3: p<0.05! Not r!! A fundamental mistake in statistics > > > Pg 63 - p<0.05! Not r!! A fundamental mistake in statistics
> > > Pg 66 - comment 1: Any 2015+ or new findings also support his > > comment 2, 3: Any newer support > > comment 4: Lack of using academic source, I expect at least 6 to 8 post, 2012 source to support each of your finding
> > > Pg 67 - didn't put r here > > > Pg 68 - comment 1: At least you cite 5 to 10 recent studies that support your finding ?? No citation at all?? > > comment 2: lack of theories, why no citation, especially from methodological papers
> > > Pg 69 - comment 1: lack of using academic sources > > comment 2: why not citation at all > > comment 3: At least 5 or 6 citations after 2010 > > > Pg 70 - comment 1, 2 - same as above
Attachment:- Dissertation-Chow Wai Shing.rar