Untangling the Potential of Sustainable Online Information Sources in Shaping Visitors’ Intentions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Untangling the potential of sustainable online information sources in shaping visitors' sustainable intention with the integration of perceived image and motivation
Reviewer Comments
The manuscript with the title “Untangling the potential of sustainable online information sources in shaping visitors' sustainable intention with the integration of perceived image and motivation” reflects contemporary issues in the modern business world. The researchers have chosen a less explored sector, i.e., the Tourism sector, which is also laudable. However, there are a few areas to be improved.
§ The abstract is well-presented and clearly written.
§ Though the introduction explains the gaps in the specific area, I suggest that the authors add more recent literature on sustainable information sources, which helps to build a better argument for travel motivation and intention to visit and identify the critical channels for highlighting the significance of this research.
§ The methodology is sound and well organized, followed by a comprehensive analysis. The authors have shown their expertise in employing PLS-SEM comprehensively. I can see that the values presented to describe both structural and measurement models meet the standard values.
§ The discussion and conclusion sections are also well organized and contain the needed information, which must be a part of sound scientific research. But, the theoretical contribution in its current form is general; I would suggest reconsidering this section, and authors must base their arguments on the back of chosen theories.
§ The writing style and language of this work need to be improved. The paper contains a few awkward sentences and mistakes in English usage and grammar.
I wish all the authors the best of luck and hope my suggestions can help improve the manuscript published in Sustainability.
need minor improvements.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer-1
- The abstract is well-presented and clearly written.
Authors' Response: Thank you for your appreciation; no action is required.
- Though the introduction explains the gaps in the specific area, I suggest that the authors add more recent literature on sustainable information sources, which helps to build a better argument for travel motivation and intention to visit and identify the critical channels for highlighting the significance of this research.
Authors' Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. In the introduction section and in the relevant part of the manuscript, we have included new literature and cited the latest apt references related to sustainable information sources. Changes are highlighted in RED throughout the article.
- The methodology is sound and well organized, followed by a comprehensive analysis. The authors have shown their expertise in employing PLS-SEM comprehensively. I can see that the values presented to describe both structural and measurement models meet the standard values.
Authors' Response: Thanks for your appreciation, and no action is required.
- The discussion and conclusion sections are also well organized and contain the needed information, which must be a part of sound scientific research. But, the theoretical contribution in its current form is general; I would suggest reconsidering this section, and authors must base their arguments on the back of chosen theories.
Authors' Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The theoretical section is completely revised and highlighted in RED on the page # 13-14. Now, a separate conclusion section is also integrated into the revised manuscript on pages # 15.
- The writing style and language of this work need to be improved. The paper contains a few awkward sentences and mistakes in English usage and grammar.
Authors' Response: This revised manuscript has been reviewed by a professional editor (native English speaker) to eliminate language errors. We have thoroughly checked the text and carefully eliminated all the mistakes. We hope that the article is error-free now.
Thank you for your constructive comments. We hope that you find our revisions have successfully addressed all your concerns.
Reviewer 2 Report
An attempt at a theoretical approach to the topic was not entirely successful due to the uniform literature.
Introduction
Line 32 to 39 known data for 2019. repeated like all other papers. Nothing new or significant has been introduced here. There is no reference to 2021 and 2022.
Line 66
Prior literature on IS.
This conclusion cannot be made by citing three literary units alone.
The paper uses the term "The prior research..." in many places, which is not directly related to the concepts. That should be changed and pointed to what is meant.
Lines 80/101
2.1 in the title is the term Sustainable. However, the text does not discuss the concept of sustainability or its impact.
Line 103
The topic of DI is covered by tourism literature.
What literature?
Lines 119/121
It is not clear in the text which countries it is about. There are a lot of such hints, so it is not clear to the readers.
Line 145
Again, the word 'Sustainable' is used in the title, but there is no indication of sustainability in the paragraph.
Lines 277/279
The intended population of our study was Chinese citizens and expatriates living in China who were older than 18 years. A self-administered online questionnaire was established for this study. We received a total of 260 responses.
Considering that the Chinese citizens were examined, the sample of 260 respondents is very small to obtain adequate results.
The Conclusion chapter, which is mandatory for this work, is missing.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer-2
- An attempt at a theoretical approach to the topic was not entirely successful due to the uniform literature. Introduction Line 32 to 39 known data for 2019. repeated like all other papers. Nothing new or significant has been introduced here. There is no reference to 2021 and 2022. Line 66
Authors' Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. In the above-mentioned sections, we have included new literature and cited the latest apt references to illustrate our research lucidly. Changes are highlighted in RED throughout the article.
- Prior literature on IS. This conclusion cannot be made by citing three literary units alone. The paper uses the term "The prior research..." in many places, which is not directly related to the concepts. That should be changed and pointed to what is meant. Lines 80/101. 2.1 in the title is the term Sustainable. However, the text does not discuss the concept of sustainability or its impact. Line 103
Authors' Response: Following your worthy suggestions, we have included new literature and cited the latest apt references related to sustainability in the introduction section and the relevant part of the manuscript. Changes are highlighted in RED throughout the article.
- The topic of DI is covered by tourism literature. What literature? Lines 119/121. It is not clear in the text which countries it is about. There are a lot of such hints, so it is not clear to the readers. Line 145
Authors' Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have revised the aforementioned section, and more literature is included in the manuscript on DI to address your concerns. The revised manuscript highlights said details to enhance the lucidity of the article.
- 4. Again, the word 'Sustainable' is used in the title, but there is no indication of sustainability in the paragraph. Lines 277/279
Authors' Response: Thank you for your worthy suggestion. We have revised and explicated the mentioned lines by incorporating sustainable literature for practical understanding in the given context. Changes are highlighted in RED throughout the article.
- 5. The intended population of our study was Chinese citizens and expatriates living in China who were older than 18 years. A self-administered online questionnaire was established for this study. We received a total of 260 responses. Considering that the Chinese citizens were examined, the sample of 260 respondents is very small to obtain adequate results.
Authors' Response: We have analyzed the existing published literature from top-tier journals and cite new references suggesting that the employed sample size is adequate for our research model, particularly in the context of PLS-SEM. However, we have also included a few lines on page 8 and page 9 regarding PLS-SEM and sample size.
- The Conclusion chapter, which is mandatory for this work, is missing.
Authors' Response: Following your constructive comment, the conclusion section is integrated into the manuscript as given below and mentioned in the manuscript on page # 15.
Thank you for your constructive comments. We hope that you find our revisions have successfully addressed all your concerns.
Reviewer 3 Report
There are many typos and writing errors in the manuscript. The paper writing should be significantly improved. For example, why H1, H2, etc. use different font size?
The title is a bit long and difficult to understand.
The literature review section should be concise and highlight the research gap in the existing studies.
Section 3.2, how to ensure that the online survey data can represent the whole population.
What are the “EE”, “HES”, “IS”, “IV”, etc. in Tables 3 and 4?
The analysis approaches are simple and should be complicated.
What are the conclusions of this study?
The paper writing should be significantly improved.
Author Response
Reviewer 3: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- There are many typos and writing errors in the manuscript. The paper writing should be significantly improved. For example, why H1, H2, etc. use different font size?
Authors' Response: Please accept our apologies that the first manuscript draft contains typos. We have thoroughly checked the manuscript, now there isn't any such mistake.
- The title is a bit long and difficult to understand.
Authors' Response: Following your valuable suggestion, we have revised the title as mentioned below:
Untangling the potential of sustainable online information sources in shaping visitors' intention
- The literature review section should be concise and highlight the research gap in the existing studies.
Authors' Response: Thank you for your worthy comment. We have revised the literature review, particularly the last paragraph, which unveils the research gap as mentioned on page # 3.
- Section 3.2, how to ensure that the online survey data can represent the whole population.
Authors' Response: Sorry for the confusion. Though data is collected online, we have tried to minimize the biases so our findings can be generalized by integrating screening questions; however, following your valuable suggestion, we have highlighted the methodology in detail, included a few lines in the relevant section, and added a few lines in limitations as given on page # 8 and pages # 14 and 15.
- What are the "EE", "HES", "IS", "IV", etc. in Tables 3 and 4? The analysis approaches are simple and should be complicated.
Authors' Response: Please accept our apologies. Considering your valuable suggestion, we have added the captions under every table. We have carefully checked the whole manuscript to improve its consistency.
- What are the conclusions of this study?
Authors' Response: Following your constructive comment, the conclusion section is integrated into the manuscript as given below and mentioned on page # 15.
- The paper writing should be significantly improved.
Authors' Response: This revised manuscript has been reviewed by a professional editor (native English speaker) to eliminate language errors. We have thoroughly checked the text and carefully eliminated all the mistakes. We hope that the article is error-free now.
Thank you for your constructive comments. We hope that you find our revisions have successfully addressed all your concerns.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper talks about sustainable information sources, but never explains what makes an information source sustainable. Although the paper uses the word sustainable often, I fail to see any connection between what the paper analyzes and sustainability.
Regarding the paper's conclusions, my thought is that the most important conclusion is that a country's image has a substantial impact on the destination image and the intention to visit. If countries want to increase tourist visits, advertising the desirability of tourist destinations will be ineffective if the country as a whole has a poor image. The paper finds this, but that conclusion could be emphasized more.
The paper would have more of an impact if it emphasized its key conclusion: a country will have trouble enticing people to visit its tourist destinations if the country as a whole does not have a good image.
To make the paper more accessible to readers, the conclusion should be able to be read on its own. Some readers will go to the conclusion first to see if they think the entire paper is worth the time to read. This paper's conclusion uses abbreviations that the reader will not know without reading the paper (and might forget even if having read the whole paper). Abbreviations like ITV, H5c, CI, and DI, are barriers to having the paper read. The concluding section should be written in plain English, and understandable without having read the entire paper.
The English is adequate.
Author Response
Reviewer 4: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- The paper talks about sustainable information sources, but never explains what makes an information source sustainable. Although the paper uses the word sustainable often, I fail to see any connection between what the paper analyzes and sustainability.
Authors' Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. In the introduction section and in the relevant part of the manuscript, we have included new literature and cited the latest apt references related to sustainable information sources. Changes are highlighted in RED throughout the article.
- Regarding the paper's conclusions, my thought is that the most important conclusion is that a country's image has a substantial impact on the destination image and the intention to visit. If countries want to increase tourist visits, advertising the desirability of tourist destinations will be ineffective if the country as a whole has a poor image. The paper finds this, but that conclusion could be emphasized more. The paper would have more of an impact if it emphasized its key conclusion: a country will have trouble enticing people to visit its tourist destinations if the country as a whole does not have a good image. To make the paper more accessible to readers, the conclusion should be able to be read on its own. Some readers will go to the conclusion first to see if they think the entire paper is worth the time to read. This paper's conclusion uses abbreviations that the reader will not know without reading the paper (and might forget even if having read the whole paper). Abbreviations like ITV, H5c, CI, and DI, are barriers to having the paper read. The concluding section should be written in plain English, and understandable without having read the entire paper.
Authors' Response: Following your constructive comment, the conclusion section is integrated into the manuscript on pages # 15. These abbreviations assist the author in controlling the length of the manuscript, which is quite crucial for journals. We hope you will understand our perspective. If you still think so, we can revise it. Besides, we have carefully checked the whole manuscript to improve its consistency.
- The English is adequate.
Authors' Response: Thank you for your appreciation; no action is required.
Thank you for your constructive comments. We hope that you find our revisions have successfully addressed all your concerns.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors should continue their research.
Author Response
- Authors should continue their research.
Authors' Response: Thank you for your appreciation and acceptance; no action is required.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript should be significantly revised as follows:
The paper writing should be significantly improved. There are still many typos, and language mistakes in the manuscript.
The study used 205 data samples collected in China to reflect the visitor’s intention. Thus, the findings are limited. This should be reflected in the abstract.
Line 128, “Image” should be “image”.
Line 146, “concepts[2]” should be “concepts [2]”.
There are 205 truly valid online questionaries. How to define the valid and invalid data?
Table 1 should also list the income as one attribute.
“Countryity” should be “Nationality”. Expats should be replaced with an appropriate word.
Table 2 is still confusing and not easy to understand.
Table 5, DESI -> ITV, t-value is insignificant.
The analysis section is not sufficient to support the contents in the discussion and implication section.
The development of advanced transportation system can also improve the destination image. The authors are suggested to expand literature in this aspect. For example, the autonomous vehicles, the high-speed train, etc. See: Operation analysis of freeway mixed traffic flow based on catch-up coordination platoon. Accident Analysis & Prevention. How does high-speed rail affect tourism development? The case of the Sichuan-Chongqing Economic Circle. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
The online questionnaire should be added in the appendix in the manuscript.
The paper should be improved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer-3: Round 2
The manuscript should be significantly revised as follows:
Authors' Response: Following your valued comments, we have revised the manuscripts. Details are given below:
The paper writing should be significantly improved. There are still many typos, and language mistakes in the manuscript.
Authors' Response: Accept our apologies for any grammatical mistakes. This revised manuscript has been reviewed by a professional editor (native English speaker) to eliminate language errors. We have thoroughly checked the text and carefully eliminated all the mistakes. We hope that the article is error-free now.
The study used 205 data samples collected in China to reflect the visitor’s intention. Thus, the findings are limited. This should be reflected in the Abstract.
Authors' Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. In the Abstract, we have included another sentence regarding the limitations of our research. Changes are highlighted in RED in the article.
Line 128, “Image” should be “image”. Line 146, “concepts[2]” should be “concepts [2]”.
Authors' Response: Thanks for highlighting such mistakes. We have carefully checked the text and carefully eliminated all the mistakes. We hope that the article is error-free now.
There are 205 truly valid online questionaries. How to define the valid and invalid data?
Authors' Response: Sorry for any confusion. We have highlighted in RED the reason on page 8 which explains that incomplete questionnaires were considered as invalid. Therefore valid data only contains 205 respondents.
Table 1 should also list the income as one attribute. “Countryity” should be “Nationality”. Expats should be replaced with an appropriate word.
Authors' Response: Following your valuable comment, income is mentioned in the Table-1 “Countryity” is changed into “Nationality”. Expat is replaced with foreigner. Changes are highlighted in RED on page 9.
Table 2 is still confusing and not easy to understand.
Authors' Response: Table-2 is revised for better clarity. Changes are highlighted in RED on pages 10 and 11.
Table 5, DESI -> ITV, t-value is insignificant.
Authors' Response: This hypothesis is supported based on 90% level of confidence. If you think, 90% interval isn’t appropriate, we are willing to change. We hope you will understand our perspective.
The analysis section is not sufficient to support the contents in the discussion and implication section. The development of advanced transportation system can also improve the destination image. The authors are suggested to expand literature in this aspect. For example, the autonomous vehicles, the high-speed train, etc. See: Operation analysis of freeway mixed traffic flow based on catch-up coordination platoon.
Accident Analysis & Prevention. How does high-speed rail affect tourism development? The case of the Sichuan-Chongqing Economic Circle. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
Authors' Response: Thanks for recommending worthy literature for discussion section. In analysis we have employed the PLS-SEM methodology following the notable studies of the field. We have included another section i.e., 4.1 in analysis section. Besides, the particular reason is provided to explicate why specific methodology was used to assess the hypothesis. Furthermore, mentioned literature is integrated to expand the discussion and implication. Changes are highlighted in RED on page 9, 14 and 15.
The online questionnaire should be added in the appendix in the manuscript.
Authors' Response: Thanks for your comment. All the links of questionnaire are provided on page 7. Questionnaire isn’t included because it will increase the length of the manuscript which wouldn’t match with journal word’s requirement. We hope you will understand our perspective.
Thank you for your constructive comments. We hope that you find our revisions have successfully addressed all your concerns.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments are well addressed.
