The Spatial Network Structure of Tourism Efficiency and Its Influencing Factors in China: A Social Network Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic raised in the framework of the research for which the paper entitled "Spatial network structure of tourism efficiency and its influencing factors in China: A social network analysis" was sent is relevant and important.
In my opinion, the Sustainability journal can be thematically consistent with the content of the submitted work, if the authors emphasize the relationship between your topic and sustainable development. The study can be considered for publication after major adjustments.
However, I have a few comments that make the results of the obtained research not clear to me at this stage.
At the beginning, you write about the fact that the indicators that you chose for the analysis are selected on the basis of the literature. Unfortunately, there are no references to the literature or justification for the selection of indicators. This may give the impression that the data that was available has been selected and adapted to the model.
In my opinion, there is also a lack of the model itself, which would show how these indicators are correlated with each other and what they affect.
In section "3.1 Provincial tourism efficiency trends" the results are described, but without a model or table with data, it is difficult to interpret and verify their correctness. I have a feeling that we have to take your word for it that the results of the calculations are consistent with what you give. It is more like a conclusion.
Maps are good at visualizing effects and changes over time, but I don't understand where these colors came from. Of course I can see the pattern, but it is very unclear to me. Perhaps it is better to reverse the order to clarify in advance where some conclusions come from. Only later are the correlations and extensive tables presented.
In my opinion, the article is very interesting, but the explanation of the method needs to be refined so that others can understand what has been presented.
Finally, I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read their work and provide me with interesting information on the topic. I hope that after the corrections are made, the article will be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. I have made changes according to your comments, please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done a good research work and the results are acceptable. They have also made good suggestions for the government. But it is necessary to discuss more about the research issue and research literature in the introduction section. They have done a good background check of the research topic, but less focused on the literature. Some other minor points are highlighted in the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. I have made changes according to your comments, please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents information of interest, and it is relevant for sustainability concerns.
In 3.1 Provincial tourism efficiency trends, it would be interesting to mention what possibly caused the fluctuating trend. It is not clear if by tourism the authors refer to domestic tourists, or foreign ones. I could be helpful to mention the percentage as well for the 2 categories.
The way it is presented, the paper can be of interest to many people, and the information is explained in such a way that non-specialists can understand it.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. I have made changes according to your comments, please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for all the changes made. In my opinion, the article is now more readable and can be published in this form. The research itself is very interesting and timely.
