Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very interesting, well written and well documented study with a novel interpretation of underlying psychological processes. However, there are several references, especially in the introduction but also throughout the paper that are missing from the reference list – this has made the checking of references a longer job than usual (this reviewer likes to check all references for accuracy and appropriateness). The statistical methodology is well explained and appropriate.

The English throughout is generally clear and grammatical (with a few slips: line 648 would be better to read “As the boundaries in consumption patterns between men and women become more permeable” or more simply “As differences between the consumption preferences of men and women become less distinct …”).  The occasional awkwardness can be traced back to referenced sources – for example at line 446, citing Chen and Hung (missing from the reference list), “a mediator and other mediator” (exactly as Chen and Hung have written) would sit more comfortably in English as “one mediator and another”. 

Suggest changing the labelling in Table 2 to match the better translated descriptors in the text itself.  It looks like a simple translation glitch under ‘Perceived behavioural control’. I would suggest the prefixed clause be amended to “If I wanted to” and move the “again” to the end, thus: “it would be easy for me to choose a cultural tourism holiday again” for example.  This would then make the 3 labels in this section consistent with the text and also be better English.

The structure of the model is well documented and explained.  This leads naturally into the discussion section, which wisely focussed on the two broad implications of the study: theoretical and managerial.  Both strands of the discussion contribute to the field well.  I do wonder whether there would be a difference between Italian and other tourists since reasons for choosing to visit Sicily may differ radically from the reasons for visiting, say Firenze or Pompeii.  This is pointed to in the limitations para (5.3) – especially with the preponderance of domestic tourists with prior knowledge in the sample and the absence of a measure of destination image.  The comments on post-pandemic tourism are of paramount economic, cultural and policy importance.

The authors are to be thanked for a very interesting paper that will provoke, I am sure, considerable debate and valuable future research.

I may have missed it, but was the survey conducted with an Italian language questionnaire or was it multilingual? This would have had an impact on the sample selection with respect to non-Italian tourists since many would not be Italian speakers.

Author Response

Please see attached for responses to all four reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of the abstract is not meeting the quality of scientific writing, which needs a high standard of writing to publish in outstanding journals like SUSTAINABILITY.

Please revise the whole article and remove English grammar problems. I suggest the authors take English editing services from some agencies to improve the quality of this study.

Introduction section

I suggest that authors read the suggested studies add the latest citations to the introduction, literature and method sections to enhance the quality of the study.

Azizi, M. R., Atlasi, R., Ziapour, & Naemi, R. (2021). Innovative human resource management strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic narrative review approach. Heliyon, 7(6)

Abbas, J., Mubeen, R., Iorember, P. T., Raza, S., & Mamirkulova, G. (2021). Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on tourism: transformational potential and implications for a sustainable recovery of the travel and leisure industry. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2, 100033.

Literature section:

Add literature section. You cannot delete this section. Read the suggested studies and cite these papers in the literature to enhance the quality of your work.

Abbas, J., Raza, S., Nurunnabi, M., Minai, M. S., & Bano, S. (2019). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Business Networks on Firms’ Performance Through a Mediating Role of Dynamic Capabilities. Sustainability, 11(11), 3006. doi:10.3390/su11113006

Mamirkulova, G., Mi, Mahmood, S., Mubeen, R., & Ziapour, A. (2020). New Silk Road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Global Ecology and Conservation, 24, e01194

Materials and Methods

This section is very weak. Please follow the suggested studies and improve your paper. The authors need to improve this section. I am recommending some good studies. Read the methods of these studies, improve your paper, and cite these studies in this section. Suggested useful articles citations:

Local Burden of Disease, H. I. V. C. (2021). Mapping subnational HIV mortality in six Latin American countries with incomplete vital registration systems. BMC Medicine, 19(1), 4. doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01876-4

Hussain, T., Wei, Z., Ahmad, S., Xuehao, B., & Gaoli, Z. (2021). Impact of Urban Village Disamenity on Neighboring Residential Properties: Empirical Evidence from Nanjing through Hedonic Pricing Model Appraisal. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(1), 04020055. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)up.1943-5444.0000645

Discussion section:

Make a separate heading of the Discussion section. It should be around one page and a half. Make it strong. See the recommended studies and improve your sections.

Conclusion

Highpoint creativity and scientific contribution of this study to the body of literature. The English level needs corrections to meet scientific merit for publication. I accept and endorse this manuscript for publication after minor corrections, as suggested

Author Response

Please see attached for responses to all four reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion the article is interesting but does not meet the minimum requirements for publication. This is due to the following flaws:

The bibliography is not in the format established by MDPI.

The introduction section lacks a paragraph explaining the structure of the article.

The wording of the text needs to be checked, as commas are sometimes used where they should not be. i.e. lines 84 and 291.

 

In the section “Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development”, the authors give a new description of the main concepts, but do not carry out a review of previous research and the results obtained.

 

In the section “research methods”, they should take into account the possible existence of a problem derived from obtaining data from a single source, hence the presence of common method variance bias should be evaluated. It is also important to analyse whether there are differences in the responses based on the time at which they were obtained. I mean that no response bias should be analysed.  Finally, the statistical power of the model should be analysed.

When describing measures, sometimes numbers and sometimes letters are used, this needs to be standardised. In addition, it is not explained whether a likert scale has been used or not.

The results are well presented. However, the authors have also not explained why they have chosen this statistical method and not another, such as PLS. This should be explained. 

Finally the discussion sets out the main achievements of the article. In the section on materials, they should take into account the possible existence of a problem derived from obtaining data from a single source, hence the presence of common method variance bias should be evaluated. It is also important to analyse whether there are differences in the responses based on the time at which they were obtained. I mean that no response bias should be analysed.  In addition, the statistical power of the model should be analysed.

 

Author Response

Please see attached for responses to all four reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, I find your proposal quite interesting. The methodology you display is solid and offers relevant results. I would point out some advices:

-You should review citation policies through the text. I suggest to read a recent paper published on this journal, so you can take note on how to do it properly. Lines 28, 32, 37 and so on).

-I think you should complete your bibliography, including more relevant works on the topic. In this sense, I would recommend:

            1.-Espeso-Molinero, P. (2019). Tendencias del turismo cultural, Pasos. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, Vol. 17 N. 6. Special Issue. Págs. 1101‑1112.

https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2019.17.076

            2.-López-Martínez, G. (2015). El Gran Tour. Revisión de un viaje antropológico, Gran Tour: Revista de Investigaciones Turísticas, 12 Julio-Diciembre, p. 106-120 ISSN: 2172-8690

This article deals with the “Grand Tour” phenomenon, understanding this long journey as an experience related to the awakening of the interest in cultural tourism/travelling in Europe. This social event, that was first connected with an academic itinerary and later spread to non academical areas, could be considered as an antecedent of the long-distance journeys with cultural interests.

            3.- Pastor Alfonso, María José (2003). El patrimonio cultural como opción turística, Horizontes Antropológicos, Porto Alegre, ano 9, n. 20, p. 97-115.

 

Author Response

Please see attached for responses to all four reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

I have reviewed the revised manuscript. This article reports 32% plagiarism. Many lines copies from others work. It is a crime. We cannot steal others materials.

The authors have violated ethical guidelines. This revised article in the current format does not meet scientific merit for publication with 32% Plagiarism.

Author Response

We have gone through the manuscript and have edited it accordingly, to reduce similarity with other manuscripts. As you will see throughout the revision, many of the sentences have been revised to help with this.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the changes made and they seem to me to be appropriate and follow the recommendations I made in the first review.
For this reason, I consider that the article can be accepted.

Author Response

We thank you for saying this! We have have gone through to make further edits in hopes of improving the work!