Organizational Structure, Public-Private Relationships, and Operational Performance of Large-Scale Stadiums: Evidence from Local Governments in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this research. The research provides interesting insights into the role of organizational structure and public-private partnerships in the management of large-scale sports stadiums. Nonetheless, there are a few issues I would want the authors to address.

In the introduction, the authors do a good job detailing the context within which this study is being conducted as well as its relevance.

Because much of the literature review centers around the Chinese context, the proposed Model 1 for which the authors state to be “factors affecting the operational performance of large-scale stadiums under the Western theoretical framework” is not relevant to this study. The authors do not provide much insight into how this model was developed besides a simple phrase that it came about as a result of “an extensive literature review”. Thus, it would be best to focus on the proposed model 2 to make a stronger contribution to the literature and tell a more cohesive story.

Were the interviews conducted in Chinese and translated into English? This should be clarified.   

The authors should explain what they mean by operational performance and how this variable was measured within the context of this study.

In line 564, the authors note that “Our findings make no direct contribution to the theory of public-private cooperation but follow the track of GHM theory, HSV theory, BG theory, and FM theory [18,31,73-75].”

The full meaning of the acronyms must be stated as that is the first time they appear in the text. Again, the authors should complete the statement by specifying in which way the study aligns with the theories specified.

The study limitations should be addressed.

Additional proofreading should be done to correct some minor errors in the manuscript.

Good Luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this sort of case study is useful. I think the authors need to make the paper more useful to readers.

There is little specific for them to grab on to. I think there needs to be more specific points made in the abstract, intro and conclusion. we want the reader to say wow.

Here is an important point with a dramatic illustration.

The authors have worked hard on this paper and it is carefully written, but it needs to be juicier and more specific to capture the attention of the reader.

The authors need to pretend they are talking to their mothers on the phone and are imparting really interesting stuff to them that they will want to pass on to their neighbors. writing in specifics is better than writing in generalities.

The reader must be able to visualize. so tell a story and then say this illustrates the general point.....

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the paper is ready for publication. nice job of writing.