Bridging the Perception Gap between Management and Customers on DINESERV Attributes: The Korean All-You-Can-Eat Buffet
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Both the title and abstract of the work are adequate, advancing the subject and object of study. Even so it is suggested to relocate to the order of the abstract, following the same order of work (not first the empirical part, then mention that a theoretical review is made ... and should end with a main result obtained in the work).
The introduction is correct, advancing the topic and setting the objectives of the work. The theoretical review is complete and updated. The methodology and results are the key part of the work, being detailed and extensive.
Table 5 of the discussion is very visual and adequate. Simply discuss and conclude by referring to previous studies on the subject, verifying if what is already proposed by others is fulfilled.
In general it is a complete and detailed work.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REFEREE #1’s COMMENTS:
Journal: Sustainability
Manuscript #: sustainability-599601
Title of Paper: Bridging the Perception Gap between Management and Customers on DINESERV Attributes: The Korean All-You-Can-Eat Buffet
Date Sent: 5 September 2019
We are very excited to have been given the opportunity to revise our manuscript, which we now entitle, “Bridging the Perception Gap between Management and Customers on DINESERV Attributes: The Korean All-You-Can-Eat Buffet,” for SUSTAINABILITY Journal. We carefully considered your comments as well as those offered by the two reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that you and the reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in SUSTAINABILITY Journal. Next, we offer detailed responses to your comments as well as those of the reviewers.
(COMMENT 1) Both the title and abstract of the work are adequate, advancing the subject and object of study. (1) Even so it is suggested to relocate to the order of the abstract, following the same order of work (not first the empirical part, then mention that a theoretical review is made ... and should end with a main result obtained in the work).
→ (Author Response & Correction 1) Thank you for your comments, we agree with your opinion. Thus we relocated the order of the abstract in Abstract section.
→ (Related page) Page 1 line 10-line 15
(COMMENT 2) The introduction is correct, advancing the topic and setting the objectives of the work. The theoretical review is complete and updated. The methodology and results are the key part of the work, being detailed and extensive. Table 5 of the discussion is very visual and adequate. (2) Simply discuss and conclude by referring to previous studies on the subject, verifying if what is already proposed by others is fulfilled. In general, it is a complete and detailed work.
→ (Author Response & Correction 2) Thank you for thoughtful advice. We agree with your opinion (2), Thus, we added the related sentences and references on the ‘7. Discussion and Conclusions’ section, as follows.
“First, most previous IPA related restaurant studies were primarily focused on the importance and performance of service attributes from the perspective on customers [6-7,23,25,34,45]. …(omitted)… The actionable results provide intuitively appealing strategies for managers and operators in Korean buffet restaurants to set priorities for increasing customer satisfaction and improving financial/non-financial performances through food service attributes.”
→ (Related page) Page 15 line 76-Page 16 line 99
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I read the paper thoroughly. It seems that the paper could be improved. This research work, although interesting, needs to incorporate a series of recommendations so that it can be published. The literature review is too shallow and unsatisfactory. The methodology is overly simplistic. I would suggest to the author to read so many top research papers and improve the work substantially. The manuscript could be reconsider after major revision.
This paper lacks originality and this substantially reduces its value as a paper that could be published in sustainability. So far as I can judge, nothing in the paper would inform most readers of sustainability of anything they did not know already. It uses well-known items from the literature, does not add any critical insights to what they contain. It uses well-known research methods. Its findings are not in any sense novel.
You need to go beyond describing a series of relevant references, and tell us how your interpretation of the literature shows the gaps that exist, and how the proposed approach to the literature brings about novel opportunities to reinterpret the literature that will allow an advancement in our understanding in the field. This feels mechanical and lacking in originality. Here you need to build your argument for the relevant literature relating the research as well as show the contribution to knowledge.
The discussion and conclusions do not provide enough detail. The discussion needs to be more than sequencing data and some related references, it needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what you have found to the wider world.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REFEREE #2’s COMMENTS:
Journal: Sustainability
Manuscript #: sustainability-599601
Title of Paper: Bridging the Perception Gap between Management and Customers on DINESERV Attributes: The Korean All-You-Can-Eat Buffet
Date Sent: 5 September 2019
We are very excited to have been given the opportunity to revise our manuscript, which we now entitle, “Bridging the Perception Gap between Management and Customers on DINESERV Attributes: The Korean All-You-Can-Eat Buffet,” for SUSTAINABILITY Journal. We carefully considered your comments as well as those offered by the two reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that you and the reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in SUSTAINABILITY Journal. Next, we offer detailed responses to your comments as well as those of the reviewers.
(COMMENT 1) I read the paper thoroughly. It seems that the paper could be improved. This research work, although interesting, needs to incorporate a series of recommendations so that it can be published. The literature review is too shallow and unsatisfactory. (1) The methodology is overly simplistic. (2) I would suggest to the author to read so many top research papers and improve the work substantially. The manuscript could be reconsider after major revision.
→ (RESPONSE 1) Thank you for thoughtful advice.
(1) This paper is empirically examined the perception differences on service attributes between managers and customers for buffet restaurant by combining well-known research methods such as AHP and IPA, not focused on the innovative new methodologies. Therefore, research methodologies in our first draft is simple. As followed your suggestion, we inserted the detailed description of the AHP technique in the Appendix A.
(Related page) Page 18 line 20-Page 19 line 55
(2) Furthermore, the literature of this paper is based on the many top research papers in the subject categories of Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management of ‘Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)’, such as Journal of Marketing, Tourism Management, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, etc.
(Related page) References section
(COMMENT 2) (3) This paper lacks originality and this substantially reduces its value as a paper that could be published in sustainability. So far as I can judge, nothing in the paper would inform most readers of sustainability of anything they did not know already. It uses well-known items from the literature, does not add any critical insights to what they contain. It uses well-known research methods. Its findings are not in any sense novel. You need to go beyond describing a series of relevant references, and tell us how your interpretation of the literature shows the gaps that exist, and how the proposed approach to the literature brings about novel opportunities to reinterpret the literature that will allow an advancement in our understanding in the field. (4) This feels mechanical and lacking in originality. Here you need to build your argument for the relevant literature relating the research as well as show the contribution to knowledge.
→ (RESPONSE 2) Thank you for your thoughtful advice.
(3) As followed your comments, we have inserted some sentences to highlight our research originality, as follows;
“Thus, this study is an unprecedented attempt to integrate the IPA and AHP, and to carry out this this unexplored research avenue on combined IPA-AHP matrix to measure the perception gap between restaurant managers and their customers.
…(omitted)... The actionable results provide intuitively appealing strategies for managers and operators in Korean buffet restaurants to set priorities for increasing customer satisfaction and improving financial/non-financial performances through food service attributes.”
(Related page) Page 15 line 87-Page 16 line 99
“In summary, this study outlines a way for Korean buffet restaurant practitioners to understand consumer key service attributes and to carry out efficient restaurant strategies from both a consumer and operators’ perspective. Moreover, this study addresses strategic operational plans tailored to individual buffet restaurant such as HBR, SBR, and CBR to reduce the perception gap on restaurant attributes between restaurant service operators and their customers.”
(Related page) Page 16 line 129- line 133
(4) As followed your comments, we have added some sentences to highlight the research gap between this paper and previous studies, as follows;
“First, most previous IPA related restaurant studies were primarily focused on the importance and performance of service attributes from the perspective on customers [6-7,23,25,34,45]. Furthermore, several AHP related restaurant studies have measured the ranking of strategic prioritization of operational resources [9,12,27,30-31 46]. …(omitted)… Thus, this study is an unprecedented attempt to integrate the IPA and AHP, and to carry out this this unexplored research avenue on combined IPA-AHP matrix to measure the perception gap between restaurant managers and their customers.”
(Related page) Page 15 line 76- line 89
(COMMENT 3) (5) The discussion and conclusions do not provide enough detail. The discussion needs to be more than sequencing data and some related references, it needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what you have found to the wider world.
→ (RESPONSE 3) Thank you for your thoughtful advice.
(5) As followed your comments, we have added some sentences to clarify implications for research, practice and/or society on the ‘7. Discussion and Conclusions’ section, as follows;
“This research model can be applied for other service industries as well as restaurant industry. By measuring perception discrepancies on various service quality between service managers and customer, these results may help service practitioner to identify their service level from the perspective of operator and customer. In addition, this study provides strategic service initiatives to increase customer satisfaction and improve financial/non-financial performance with more efficient internal resource allocation and coordination.”
(Related page) the yellow lines on the ‘7. Discussion and Conclusions’ section and Page 16 line 134- line 139.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-explained revision of the document. I think it will be a good contribution to our Journal and I recommend to accept the paper.
