Tourist Experience and Innovative Hospitality Management in Different Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
This research paper describes the important and actual topic – Tourist Experience and InnovativeHospitality Management in Different Cities. Thus, authors seek to examine how an urban hospitality organization emphasizes community and social values in its hostels, and how the tourist experience is adapted to each city's culture and atmosphere (Nazareth, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv). Authors notice, that the findings of this study are adding a new dimension to the existing knowledge, namely the role of creativity and innovation in helping the management of an urban hospitality organization to shape the tourist experience.
And I would like to share with authors some doubts too: there is not clear where the methodology section ends and starts the results section, as well as the clear integration of disussion section would help to seek better readability of the article. When developing the discussion it would be suggested to include to the debate more theoretical implications from recent years, thus accessing deeper concluding insights.
Author Response
I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for your corrections and comments, and to express my appreciation for your professional approach to the article. Following is a list of the corrections made in accordance with your comments.
Reviewer 1:
There is not clear where the methodology section ends and starts the results section, as well as the clear integration of disussion section would help to seek better readability of the article.
Additional sub-titles were added to make it clear.
When developing the discussion it would be suggested to include to the debate more theoretical implications from recent years, thus accessing deeper concluding insights.
The insights of three references were added from studies of hostels conducted recent years: Barroso )2021) – p. 13 #550; Shepherd and Laven (2020) p. 13 #558; Veríssimo (2018) – p. 16 #658.
Reviewer 2 Report
This study focuses on the case of a community-based hostel that is developing in Israel. Data were obtained from the managers/staff of the target company (six in-depth interviews), on-site observations, media reports like newspaper articles, and online reviews by guests. The author provides a qualitative analysis of these data.
In particular, this case is an intriguing effort to address how travelers are assimilated to a different local culture. The data contains very meaningful research content to consider how travelers experience local services, interact with other travelers, and gain authentic experiences through exposure to orthodox local culture.
However, when viewed as an academic paper, there are major problems with the structure, explanation of literature review, methodology, explanation of results, and implications, which require significant revision.
First, in general, the introduction should identify the research gap that this study will address, and then position the research questions that this study will address. This manuscript is not structured in such a way that it does not explain in detail the gaps that this study addresses, such as what are the unresolved areas in the related research efforts.
In the literature review part, the description should include more detailed literature content in areas related to the establishment of the research gap for this study.
In terms of methodology and analysis, this study is a qualitative study, but there is not enough explanation on how to analyze the data. In general business-related qualitative research, text data is coded based on thematic analysis, etc., and a research model for the target problem is extracted. However, in this study, it seemed like the author only descriptively applied the items of the research case to the three predetermined dimensions. In particular, it is unclear how the model proposed by this article is tied to the data obtained in this study, and the benefits of qualitative research are not fully apparent.
In addition, the qualitative research is expected to present a theoretical hypothesis (proposition) that will be addressed in the next quantitative research, but no such perspective for future theoretical expansion has been presented.
As a discussion, it is expected that novel results of this study, theoretical and practical implications based on the novel results will be discussed considering the extant literature. But the explanation of the points is not sufficient in this article. There is also a need for discussion on sustainability in terms of submission to this journal.
The following are comments on the detailed perspectives tied to the line numbers.
-----------------
#15: In the abstract, please explain briefly in detail what novel results were obtained from this study as well.
#26: There is no period.
#66: Incorrect grammar.
#82: Explain the research purpose of this study, positioning in the research gap of this study based on the extant literature.
#104: Explaining the research gap is important, so please explain it in more detail and tie the purpose of this study and the research question to that research gap.
#206: Extra comma.
#368: Table 1. What point in time is the occupancy data here?
#468: Table 2. What is the percentage against all review data in this survey?
#544: Isn't the section symbol "b"?
#554: There is no period.
#613: Isn't the section symbol "c"?
#697: Figure 4. What do the arrows here mean? Is it a causal relationship? Normally, in qualitative business research, we would show the coding results of how the acquired qualitative data is categorized for such a research model which has variables (constructs).
#768: The indentation at the beginning is off.
#838: The capitalized part of the journal-title does not match the rest of the literature.
#844: The indentation at the beginning is off.
#871: The indentation at the beginning is off.
#886: The indentation at the beginning is off.
---------------
Author Response
I would like to thank Reviewer 2 for your corrections and comments, and to express my appreciation for your professional approach to the article. Following is a list of the corrections made in accordance with your comments.
Reviewer 2:
#15: In the abstract, please explain briefly in detail what novel results were obtained from this study as well.
It was added
#26: There is no period.
It was corrected
#66: Incorrect grammar.
It was corrected
#82: Explain the research purpose of this study, positioning in the research gap of this study based on the extant literature.
An additional paragraph with the necessary explanations was added. See p. 2 From #91.
#104: Explaining the research gap is important, so please explain it in more detail and tie the purpose of this study and the research question to that research gap.
An additional paragraph with the necessary explanations was added. See p. 3 From #124.
#206: Extra comma.
It was corrected
#368: Table 1. What point in time is the occupancy data here?
It was added
#468: Table 2. What is the percentage against all review data in this survey?
It was added
#544: Isn't the section symbol "b"?
It was corrected
#554: There is no period.
It was corrected
#613: Isn't the section symbol "c"?
It was corrected
#697: Figure 4. What do the arrows here mean? Is it a causal relationship? Normally, in qualitative business research, we would show the coding results of how the acquired qualitative data is categorized for such a research model which has variables (constructs).
An additional paragraph with the necessary explanations was added. See p. 18 From #760.
#768: The indentation at the beginning is off.
It was corrected
#838: The capitalized part of the journal-title does not match the rest of the literature.
It was corrected
#844: The indentation at the beginning is off.
It was corrected
#871: The indentation at the beginning is off.
It was corrected
#886: The indentation at the beginning is off.
It was corrected
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations for your efforts to review the article. It's seems better now.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and efforts as well as for your support.
Reviewer 2 Report
There are still major problems with the structure, explanation of literature review, methodology, explanation of results, and implications, which require significant revision.
There are two issues related to setting the research gap in the Introduction.
Normally, the research gap should be tied to the previous studies. However, it is not clear how the description of the literature review in this manuscript consists of this research gap. The second point is that research questions are usually set to solve research gaps. However, the logic of why solving the research questions in this study will close the research gap and produce novel results is not clear.
Also, in terms of Methodology, the response to the previous comment was not addressed.
In the results section, the authors have mixed the results and discussion for each case. I think it might lead to an unclear explanation of what the novel results of the paper as a whole are, and what the theoretical and practical contributions associated with those novel results are.
In addition, the manuscript contains non-English paragraphs. The manuscript doesn't look completely revised. You must proofread your manuscript before submitting it.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewers for their corrections and comments, and to express my appreciation for their professional approach to the article. Following is a list of the corrections made in accordance with their comments.
Reviewer 2:
1 - There are two issues related to setting the research gap in the Introduction. Normally, the research gap should be tied to the previous studies. However, it is not clear how the description of the literature review in this manuscript consists of this research gap.
Additional paragraphs with the necessary explanations were added.
See p.2 From #46; p.2 From #94; and see p.3 From #118.
2 - The second point is that research questions are usually set to solve research gaps. However, the logic of why solving the research questions in this study will close the research gap and produce novel results is not clear.
An additional paragraph with the necessary explanations were added.
See p.3 From #127
3 - Also, in terms of Methodology, the response to the previous comment was not addressed.
The previous comment:
#697: Figure 4. What do the arrows here mean? Is it a causal relationship? Normally, in qualitative business research, we would show the coding results of how the acquired qualitative data is categorized for such a research model which has variables (constructs).
I am so sorry that the response for your previous comment was missing - it was my mistake to attach a wrong draft file of the paper.
Additional paragraphs with the necessary explanations were added.
See p.10 From #440; p.17 From #777
4 - In the results section, the authors have mixed the results and discussion for each case. I think it might lead to an unclear explanation of what the novel results of the paper as a whole are, and what the theoretical and practical contributions associated with those novel results are.
Following your suggestion, the findings and the discussion were separated.
5 - In addition, the manuscript contains non-English paragraphs. The manuscript doesn't look completely revised. You must proofread your manuscript before submitting it.
I am sorry about it and must mention that I feel quite embarrassed about my mistake of attaching a wrong draft file with some non-English texts, instead of the completed clean one. It was corrected.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for revising the manuscript.
It looks much more organized now.
But since the authors have clearly stated the research questions, you have to discuss the answers to those questions as well.
The specific comments are shown below, linked to the page and line numbers.
-----------------
page 3, 127: This is the second time the research question description has appeared, so it is redundant. Would you summarize the explanation of them?
page 4, 186: Other <- other?
page 6, 290: Is there a comma missing from the headline?
page 7, 333: By whom was the third dimension added?
page 11, 489: The heading here is redundant. Please correct it (same below as well).
page 13, 557: The word (``per-formances'') has an improper hyphen in it. Please check all of them as similar words are found all over the document.
page 14, 572: In my environment, Figure 3. is not displayed in the manuscript.
page 15, 626: Since the authors have explicitly set research questions, could you also discuss the answers to these questions in the discussion?
page 15, 630: The heading here is redundant. Please correct it (same below as well).
page 19, 830: A research paper usually needs to describe the limitations of this study and the future work against them as well.
-----------------
Author Response
I would like to thank reviewer 2 for your corrections and comments, and to express my appreciation for your professional approach to the article. Following is a list of the corrections made in accordance with your last comments.
page 3, 127: This is the second time the research question description has appeared, so it is redundant. Would you summarize the explanation of them?
It was corrected
page 4, 186: Other <- other?
It was corrected
page 6, 290: Is there a comma missing from the headline?
It was corrected
page 7, 333: By whom was the third dimension added?
It was corrected
page 11, 489: The heading here is redundant. Please correct it (same below as well).
It was corrected
page 13, 557: The word (``per-formances'') has an improper hyphen in it. Please check all of them as similar words are found all over the document.
It was corrected
page 14, 572: In my environment, Figure 3. is not displayed in the manuscript.
It was corrected – the figure 3 is in the file.
page 15, 626: Since the authors have explicitly set research questions, could you also discuss the answers to these questions in the discussion?
It was added. See p.16 #674; p. 16 From #682; P. 16#702.
page 15, 630: The heading here is redundant. Please correct it (same below as well).
It was corrected
page 19, 830: A research paper usually needs to describe the limitations of this study and the future work against them as well.
It was added. See p. 20 From #820.
