Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Tourism Industry: Applying TRIZ and DEMATEL to Construct a Decision-Making Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is not a strong (actually, it is a marginal) paper. The study breaks no ground but the findings are unique in the geographical context. As such, a significantly revised version could be of interest to some readers. 

Apparently, these terms were interchangeably used: "tourism and hospitality", "travel and tourism", "hospitality", and "tourism" but they carry different meanings. Other areas that need improvement are: very stilted presentation, missing some important references in the recent tourism literature, and vague reasons for choosing the participants.

Lastly, the "So What?" question was virtually not answered. 

Author Response

Dear Reviwer:

Please see the attachment. Thanks.

Wei De. Wu

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Author’s article is well-structured, easy to read, transparent. The research objectives, hypotheses and research questions are well formulated. The literature review presents many important areas related to the research topic. The Methodology is well traceable and consistently structured. The Author used very important statistics methods, which clearly demonstrates the Author’s proficiency in these statistical methods. In terms of scope, the study was a bit lengthy. Overall, the reviewer was able to read an interesting and meaningful article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Please see the attachment

Wei De. Wu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting and current. The methodology is also ok. But the presentation of the ideas is very bad. Authors must rewrite some parts of the paper and consult to an English native speaker for the translation.

Some aspects to improve are:

ABSTRACT

-...the implementation of [¿the model about?] tourism stakeholders (GMTS)...

-It's not complete: more concrete results and conclusions have to be exposed.

-Where is the study done? It does not appear neither in th abstract, neither in Keywords.

-My recommendation is to write again the abstract.

INTRODUCTION

-Writing is very bad. There are some sentences that are not complete. For example: The disappearence of international tourists / Tourism management issues and related strategies / Tourism satisfaction / etc.

-Different format for dates. For example, January 30 / MAR11.

-The idea that COVID-19 affected the tourism industry worldwide is too much repeated.

-Some quotes need a space between words and brackets. For example, devastating[17] / industries[21] / etc.

-L93. Authors introduce TRIZ but they don't define the acronym (it's the first time it appears in the text).

-The sentence: "Solving complex problems and decision-making criteria is significant." Is significant?

-L108. GMTS is defined in the abstract, but not in the text.

-The last paragraph can be a part of the methodology.

-L118. ...industry. on...

-L119. When a pandemic... How do you know this. I think it's not a very scientific sentence, authors don't have data.

LITERATURE REVIEW

-L129. A number... is not understandable.

-L135. In China... and L138. In India... are not complete sentences.

-L139. ...impact[74]. An space is missed.

-L153. The Dregow.info... is not well quoted, authors have to write brackets with numbers.

-L173. Repeated idea. The same has been written in Introduction.

-L185. ...pratitioners[90]. An space is missed. ...assessed. the... A capital letter is missed.

-L188 ...businesses. Finders...

-L185-L190 is one sentence, too long.

-L255-L226. ...etc. The previous...

METHODS

-L265. Teorija... in italics, because it's a different language than the one of the main text.

-L272. ...problems[60]. A space is missed.

-L276. Government is not a discipline, maybe you want to say politics?

-P278-L281. Authors quote a paper from 2012. Data should be different today.

-L281. The same idea is written before.

-L294. ARIZ ¿?

-L297. The successful... is not an understandable sentence.

-DEMATEL method. I suggest authors to draw a figure with the steps.

-L346. Analysis results?

EVALUATING...

-The expert has a subjective opinion, isn't he/she? In L364 authors refers to objectivity.

-L382. touists

-Table 1 and following. Do they need the arrow drawn in the middle of the text?

-L538. The experts from the university are the same as in L534?

RESULTS

-Table 8. Authors can highlight some numbers? If not, maybe it's not important to show this table (or show it in an annex).

-The order in L581-L582 does any relation with the treshold? Criteria are not the same as in Table 10.

DISCUSSION

-Not complete sentences. L660: GMTS is conversion policy / _698 In hong Kong... / L703 In the Pacific...

-L689. Quote using brackets, no names.

-L700 and following. Bubble zones, in quotation marks?

-L735. Reference 141 does not exist.

CONCLUSIONS

-L807. Authors should discuss... when? This is the paper!

REFERENCES

-Revise the format of the references according to the journal requirements. It's mistaken in some of them.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Please see the attachment

Wei De. Wu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the authors made some changes. The revision is still not satisfactory. For example, plenty of faults in language use are still found in the revised paper and revision summary (e.g. "We rewrote and improve som parts.", "the discussion database related papers analyzes the...", .....).

The use of different terminologies still does not seem right. The authors should find a scholar from tourism and hospitality to read the revised paper before the resubmission.

 

Author Response

Dear Rewier:

  Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has improved a lot with the suggestions of reviewers. Authors just have to correct few things:

-L330. The four STEPS of DEMATEL [are] illustrated...

-Item 4.1. I suggest to write numbers and letters in two different level in order to have a better structure.

-L439. It's missing ??

-L822. We solve three...

-L823. the research has identifie[d]

-L825-826. I cannot understand this sentence.

-L827/L829. Critera factor. Are critera and factor the same?

-The last paragraph of 7.1 needs a professional English revision.

Author Response

Dear Rewier:

  Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf