Urban Tourism Destination Image Perception Based on LDA Integrating Social Network and Emotion Analysis: The Example of Wuhan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The text follows the standard scientific apparatus and has a logical coherence. Some deficiencies in that respect are mentioned below. Its low impact is suspected since it focuses on a specific case study, although it might be an exemplar for the methodology. Generally, a clearer link with sustainability is missing in the text, which would be expected since the article has been submitted to the Sustainability journal.

In-text references do not have to use superscript, rather place the Arabic numbers in the brackets.

When mentioning LDA for the first time in the text, please mention the full name: latent Dirichlet allocation(LDA), you only have it in the key words. The same goes for the Ctrip, explain that it is a travel platform (you do it only in 3.1 although mentioning it before).

3.2. Establish LDA topic model - I suggest you change the subtitle into 3.2. Establishing the LDA topic model 

Figure 5. needs to be presented in English.

Results - it is not clear why some of the words have been taken into analysis (e.g. very, many, whole, when, etc.) since they carry no emotional charge; rather they, as a stand-alone concepts are neutral. Thus, a rationale for taking them into consideration for analysis should be explained.

Conclusions provided are prepared only in relation to the research study without putting it in context with the existing theory. This should be re-worked.

Recommendations - although possibly valid, it is not clear how the authors came to provide these conclusions since the topics they link the conclusions with were not previously discussed in the text. So, either introduce these topics in the text (e.g. management and service quality of scenic spots, construction of scenic facilities) or leave out recommendations.

Back matter of the article has not been written at all.

Language editing needed: e.g. space is needed after the full stop (throughout the text; 64-65 - "the results is greatly affected" - are; 68 - "Zaid alrawadieh et al." - Zaid Alrawadieh et al.; 102 - "on text similarity.the other is" - on text similarity, the other is; 107 "Thus,our study" - Thus, our study; 147 - "Wafa shafqat propose" - Wafa Shafqat proposed; 321-322 "the feature word feature word" - feature word, etc.

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. Our response to the questions are shown below:

We fully agree with the reviewer that a clearer link with sustainability is missing in the text. We have made the change in the last section. The new sentence reads as follows. ’Discovering the factors that promote the development of urban tourism management to achieve the largest sustainable development goals. Urban tourism industries can improve their services in a targeted manner and help them strategize the promotions of a tourist spot.’

We have revised the text quotation, the full name of the noun, and the title ‘3.2. Establishing LDA topic model’ as suggested.

‘Figure 5. needs to be presented in English’- This observation is correct. We have changed.

Results- We agree that these neutral words should not be included in the analysis, so we have processed the data to remove the neutral words. Thanks for your kind suggestions, which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript.

Conclusions and back matter of the article-We have revised this section and proposed research contributions.

Recommendations-We fully agree that the topics we link the conclusions with were not previously discussed in the text. So we have omitted the recommendations.

‘Language editing needed’-We have carefully scrutinized the manuscript, and made corresponding revisions including some typos, grammatical errors and long sentences, etc.

We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for reviewers’ warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW STATEMENT

Journal: Sustainability

Paper title: Tourism Destination Image Perception Based on LDA Integrating Social Network and Emotion Analysis: The

 

It is a great pleasure to take the review of this manuscript, this manuscript is very interesting and I believe it has certain academic validity, however some minor comments should be addressed in order to become publishable, below are some comment:

 

Title: I would suggest reframing the title, I suggest to add urban tourism to the title as Urban tourism and designation perception…

Abstract and Key words: the abstract needs slight reorganization as well as in its current form the adopted method is addressed before the aim of the study, thus it is better to reorganize this part of the abstract. Surprisingly the key words don’t include any tourism key word

Introduction: the introduction is made up of some passages that are directly related to the problem being investigated. I would like to suggest to broaden the introduction

 Language, edit issues -And then we propose a research framework. We don’t start a phrase with and, and it comes without capital initial

Literature review: literature review with its subsections lacks the critical thinking approach and the identification of major trends, gaps in relation to the topic. Moreover, the reviewed studies were mostly discussed from the perspective of the adopted methods, a comprehensive capture of the issues associated to the topic of the study are not fully addressed

Research framework design: this section is well crafted with very important details

Results and analysis: this section is well drafted but it is mostly descriptive, it lacks discussion and justification

 Yellow Crane Tower, this is written sometimes with capital initials and sometimes with small initials, it should be standardized

Conclusions: it is not advisable to present the conclusion in numerical order, it is better to reedit them in paragraphs and sub paragraphs

I may advise the authors to provide a sub section about the case study with a map and an image of the city of Wuhan

Summary statement: a very worthy subject. It needs to be thoroughly reorganized, using the suggestions provided; I recommend the publication of this manuscript

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. Our response to the questions are shown below:

Title-We fully agree with the reviewer that the title should be reframed and we have made the change.

Abstract and Key words- Thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and suggestions. Yes, we missed a keyword ‘urban tourism’ and have added. Then we have updated our abstract as suggested.

Introduction-We have broaden the introduction and added some text about urban tourism as suggested, such as ‘Competition in the urban tourism market is gradually intensifying’.

Language, edit issues-We have carefully scrutinized the manuscript, and made corresponding revisions including some typos, grammatical errors and long sentences, etc. We have fixed the error that Yellow Crane Tower is written sometimes with capital initials and sometimes with small initials.

Literature review-To address the reviewer’s concern, we have rewritten this sentence as follows: ‘However, it’s difficult to design a reasonable and comprehensive questionnaire using the questionnaire survey method. The results is greatly affected by the subjective influence of researchers.’We agree that a comprehensive capture of issues related to the research topic will be very beneficial. However, our study is fundamentally different from previous research in the use of computer technology to present the destination image, the starting point is mainly about the perspective of the method used. For this reason, we chose not to make this change.

Research framework design-Yes, this section really lacks discussion and argumentation. We have added these on the fifth section ‘5.Discussion about the case’.

Conclusions-We have revised this section and proposed research contributions.

Thanks for your kind suggestions, which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript. We have provided a sub section about the case study with a map and an image of the city of Wuhan as suggested.

We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for reviewers’ warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the study seems to show a good use of the computer technique to present a destination image, but lacks the theoretical contribution.

1. The abstract is too descriptive and contains too much information. Therefore, it should be condensed.
2. Is the emotion classification model based on Bi-LSTM developed by the research team? If yes, more explanation regarding how it is developed should be given. If not, citations should be noted to show the rigorousness of the design. Actually, the citation format of this study is not in accordance with the requirement of MDPI.
3. The authors should do some data cleaning as the use of adverbs in the high frequency characteristic words does not seem to do any assistance for further discussion.
4. What is the difference between findings from this study and other studies concerning Wuhan’s destination image? It is very important for the authors to showcase this difference because it is the foundation to conduct the study or if the findings are similar to previous studies, then this study will become solely a case to adopt a big data method to generate a destination image.
5. Similar problem also appears in discussing the findings. The authors mainly emphasize the managerial contribution of the study without much attention to the theoretical one, which is also a serious problem for a study in the field of tourism management.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for thoroughly examining our manuscript and providing very helpful comments to guide our revision. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript according to your kind and construction comments and suggestions. Our response to the questions are shown below:

We fully agree with the reviewer that the abstract is too descriptive. So we reframed the abstract.

Thanks for your kind suggestions about the emotion classification model based on Bi-LSTM, which is valuable for improving the accuracy of the manuscript. The emotion classification model based on Bi-LSTM isn’t developed by our team We have added citations about Bi-LSTM and modified the citation format of the text as suggested.

We fully agree that these adverbs should not be included in the analysis, so we have processed the data to remove these adverbs words.

The difference between findings from this study and other studies concerning Wuhan’s destination image lies in methods, which we supplemented the text in last section ’ Conclusions’, such as ‘Providing a new research perspective which enriches the previous research dominated by the scenic spot resources of the tourism destination...’.

Thanks for your kind suggestions, which is valuable for improving the rigor of the manuscript. We have proposed theoretica contribution of our study in last section ’ Conclusions’.

We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for reviewers’ warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The literature review part is a bit descriptive and should be reorganized to better show the key points or foundation of this research area.
2. There are language issues in the revised part of the manuscript, e..g. "Discovering the factors that promote the development of urban tourism management to achieve the largest sustainable development goals'. This is not a way to start an English paragraph. Overall, my feeling toward the language quality of the revised section is not good. Thus, if possible, please professionally edit the language again. Even the language in authors' response is not that good. 
3. The theoretical contribution issue is not well addressed. Authors should compare their findings with previous studies to highlight the new points. While comparing, authors should add citations as well to show their efforts in doing the comparison to improve the theoretical contribution. 
4. In all, authors have done some work to perfect the manuscript, which should be acknowledged. 

Author Response

Dear paper reviewer,

We hope this email finds you well.

Thank you for your valuable comments. We agree with your suggestions on modification and have revised the manuscript accordingly. With regard to the the literature review part, we have reorganized it to highlight key points in the research field. For the previous language defects, we also have invited professionals to help re-edit the grammar and polish the language. In terms of theoretical contribution, now we have compared it with previous studies, which is presented in the conclusion of the article (in the form of adding new references).

Thank you again for your time and effort to review our manuscript. We truly appreciate your assistance and are looking forward to your apply.

Yours sincerely,

Han Wenxin