Emergency Planning and Disaster Recovery Management Model in Hospitality—Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript offers a timely discussion on a very important topic for the hospitality industry worldwide. However, as it is currently written, the manuscript lacks a review of other research on emergency planning and disaster recovery management in tourism and hospitality. Which other theories/models have been used to study this topic and why did you opt for the PDCA approach? Surprisingly, the manuscript lacks the literature review section.
On a related note, the authors need to discuss the implications of their findings. For instance, who can benefit from your study's results and how.
Finally, this otherwise interesting read is written in poor English throughout and thus very difficult on the eyes. Hence, it requires major editing and proofreading.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing us to revise and resubmit this manuscript. The authors appreciate the time and details provided by the reviewer. The insightful suggestions have certainly improved the manuscript. Below, you will find the detailed response to reviewer comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper provides a good overview of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the tourism and hospitality industry, as well as the importance of emergency planning and disaster recovery management in this sector. However, there are a few areas where the text could be improved:
The text could benefit from better organization and clearer transitions between paragraphs. It would also help to provide more context and background information to help readers understand the significance of the topic.
There are several grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures that could be improved. For example, sentence 33 could be rephrased as "In recent decades, there have been numerous disasters and emergencies that have affected the tourism and hospitality industry worldwide." Additionally, the text could benefit from using more active voice and varying sentence length and structure to improve readability.
The text includes several references, but it would be helpful to provide more studies referenced. i.e:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093838
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912151
Discussion and results: these sections should be separated and improved.
Again, use more descriptive language: Instead of simply presenting the results, try to use more descriptive language to explain what the results mean. For example, instead of saying that "the average level of application for the whole survey is 35.80%," you could say "the majority of hotels surveyed demonstrated a low level of application for EPDRM, with an average score of only 35.80%."
After presenting the results, it would be helpful to provide some actionable recommendations for hotel managers and decision-makers. This could include suggestions for improving emergency planning and disaster recovery management, based on the findings of the research. Like it said the text could benefit from a clearer statement of the main findings and recommendations based on the research presented. This would help readers understand the significance of the research and how it can be applied in practice.
Overall, the text provides a good foundation for further research and discussion on the importance of emergency planning and disaster recovery management in the tourism and hospitality industry. However, it could be improved with clearer organization, better grammar and style, more detailed referencing, and stronger conclusions and recommendations.
Also there is no information about limitations of this research
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing us to revise and resubmit this manuscript. The authors appreciate the time and details provided by the reviewer. The insightful suggestions have certainly improved the manuscript. Below, you will find the detailed response to reviewer comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the paper presents a relevant topic in the current context of the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on the hospitality industry. The proposed emergency planning and disaster recovery management model is also important for ensuring the sustainability of the hospitality businesses. However, there are some areas where the paper could be improved:
1. The paper lacks a clear research question or hypothesis. It would be helpful to clearly state what the authors wanted to investigate or prove through this study.
2. The paper would benefit from a more detailed methodology section, which includes information about how the sample of hotels was selected, how the survey was conducted, and how the data was analyzed.
3. The paper could be more concise and focused. There are some sections, such as the literature review, that could be enhance in readability.
4. The paper could be more specific about the results of the study. While the authors report an average application level of 35.80%, it is not clear what this means in terms of specific emergency planning and disaster recovery practices. It would also be helpful to provide more information about the differences in application levels between ISO-certified and non-certified hotels, as well as between different types of hotel properties.
5. The paper would benefit from more discussion and analysis of the results. For example, the authors mention the potential for alternative tourism in response to Covid-19, but do not provide any further information or analysis on this topic.
6. The paper could be improved by providing more context on the hospitality industry in Serbia and how it has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. This would help readers understand the relevance and importance of the proposed emergency planning and disaster recovery management model in this specific context.
7. There are some minor grammatical and formatting errors throughout the paper that could be corrected in revision.
Overall, the paper has potential to make a valuable contribution to the field of hospitality management, but would benefit from some revisions to strengthen the research methodology, clarify the results, and provide more context and analysis.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing us to revise and resubmit this manuscript. The authors appreciate the time and details provided by the reviewer. The insightful suggestions have certainly improved the manuscript. Below, you will find the detailed response to reviewer comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Please see the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing us to revise and resubmit this manuscript. The authors appreciate the time and details provided by the reviewer. The insightful suggestions have certainly improved the manuscript. Below, you will find the detailed response to reviewer comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After reading your re-submitted (i.e., second) draft of the manuscript, it is clear that you've addressed some of the comments in the first review. However, in my opinion, the manscruipt requires major additional revisions in order to be deemed acceptable for publication.
Specifically, in the last paragraph in the introduction, you state that (line 129)" Section 2 presents the literature review and research gaps." Yet, in the last paragraph in the literature review, there is only one "gap", not gaps. More importantly, as it is currently written, "There are no similar studies found in the literature on the emergency planning and disaster recovery management model in hospitality in the region of South-eastern Europe," this is not a research gap. A research gap is a question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within your field. Thus, it is not enough to simply write that your selected topic has not been studied in Southeastern Europe (SEE). You need to provide a sound rationale what is so unique about SEE that warrants an additional investigation of the issue that has already been researched elsewhere. Can a different geographic setting provide insights into the research question that have not been explored in the existing literature? Provide specific examples of how the different geographic setting could enhance the research question. For example, you could point to a similar study conducted in a different geographic setting that yielded different results or insights.
In the findings section, please add the result(s) of the reliability (i.e., Cronbach's alpha) test.
In Table 1, under the "years on the market" variable, you have two overelapping answer options - i.e. 3-5 years and 5-10 years. The answer options must be mutually exclusive, otherwise the results and their interpretation are not valid.
Author Response
Thank You for Your valuable comments. We have provided the answers to your remarks. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for incorporating my comments into your revised paper. I have one minor suggestion regarding the structure of the paper. The limitations that were added to the conclusions section do not seem to fit there. Instead, it would be more appropriate to create a separate section after the discussion and before the conclusions where you can present the limitations of your study.
Additionally, I noticed that the conclusion section is quite lengthy. To improve its readability and clarity, you might consider making it more concise and to-the-point. A more synthetic conclusion section will make it easier for readers to understand the main takeaways from your study
Author Response
Thank You for Your valuable comments. We have provided the answers to your remarks. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
Author Response
Thank You so much for Your valuable comments, and the effort to make the manuscript acceptable.
Reviewer 4 Report
1. References for Mann-Whitney U test, and Kruskal-Wallis is missing. It should be referenced once the method is mentioned in the article.
2. In the flowchart, the detailed elaboration of steps that come after the collection and processing of data is missing, like what statistical method you used to evaluate your data. Then some steps like discussion, limitation, and conclusion.
3. The correlation analysis you sent had an analysis of 123 variables, both dependent and independent. You don't need to include all of them. All you need to do is choose the independent variables, and then make the correlation analysis based on the Pearson correlation coefficient or the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, depending on the nature of your data.
Author Response
Thank You for Your valuable comments. We have provided the answers to your remarks. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The "extensive editing of English language and style required" recommendation refers only to the latest revisions.
