Information Disclosure and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Evidence from the Spanish Tourism Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, this paper has a  very interesting topic, but authors must improve some points like:

1º. Authors need to add updated studies in this topic, especially between 2019 to 2022. We are researchers and we must give the last information in this topic, please. So readers can have a global vision of this subject.

2º Authors have to speak about Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs), they manage promotion and information's strategies, particularly in Spain.

3º. Authors speak about "information asymmetries " they can show some examples of this issue. 

4º Authors have to explain Why have they written this paper? For instance, To fill this gap, the main challenge of this study is to analysis... I recommend authors these updated studies:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104404

https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2021.1998162

 https://doi.org/10.1108/ BIJ-06-2021-0303 

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-09-2021-0191

5º. Theoretical framework & Hypotheses section is good, but it would be interesting to implement a image where readers can see all variables and who prganizations manage these.

 

6º. The methodology is correct and this has good data and its source from Spanish National Institute of Statistics.

 

7º. Results and conclusions are correct, but I recommend to authors add  Theoretical implications and limitations and future research subsections, please. I am confident authors have had a lot of limitations, they can show specific future research related to this topic.

Congratulations for this research project!!!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Please find attached our responses to your comments.

1º. Authors need to add updated studies in this topic, especially between 2019 to 2022. We are researchers and we must give the last information in this topic, please. So readers can have a global vision of this subject.

According to your indications, which are common to those of other reviewers, we have updated the list of references, especially with regard to the latest findings on non-financial reporting.

2º Authors have to speak about Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs), they manage promotion and information's strategies, particularly in Spain.

We are grateful for the contribution, but our article focuses on the analysis of the information provided in general terms, and that is why the theoretical framework and motivations are not adjusted to the tourism company in particular but take on a general tone.

We have nevertheless made use of some of the references provided to reinforce the transformation of the tourism industry.

3º. Authors speak about "information asymmetries " they can show some examples of this issue. 

We have added a definition of the concept of informational asymmetries in the introduction.

4º Authors have to explain Why have they written this paper? For instance, To fill this gap, the main challenge of this study is to analysis... I recommend authors these updated studies:

We are grateful for the contribution, but our article focuses on the analysis of the information provided in general terms, and that is why the theoretical framework and motivations are not adjusted to the tourism company in particular but take on a general tone.

We have nevertheless made use of some of the references provided to reinforce the transformation of the tourism industry.

5º. Theoretical framework & Hypotheses section is good, but it would be interesting to implement a image where readers can see all variables and who organizations manage these.

 Done.

6º. The methodology is correct and this has good data and its source from Spanish National Institute of Statistics.

 7º. Results and conclusions are correct, but I recommend to authors add  Theoretical implications and limitations and future research subsections, please. I am confident authors have had a lot of limitations, they can show specific future research related to this topic.

In accordance with your recommendations, we have proceeded to elaborate more extensively on the implications of our results at the academic and practical levels. We have also added the future lines of research and limitations of the paper.

Again, thank you for your time and constructive review.

Kind regards,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

I've been very happy to review this study: clear, logic, well done. The only improvement I can imagine is related to the reinforce of both theoretical and managerial implications in the conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper.

In accordance with your recommendations, we have proceeded to elaborate more extensively on the implications of our results at the academic and practical levels.

Again, thank you for your time and constructive review.

Kind regards,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The topic of the paper is relevant and very interesting. Authors used a wide range of international literature sources and cited them correctly. Unfortunately, nearly half of them are from the last century. I suggest replacing some literature with more recent sources. This paper relates to three previous lines of research focusing on the independent
analysis of information asymmetries (and the effect of ICT on these asymmetries), the configuration of resources and capabilities, and the firm's sources of competitive advantages. They used proper methods and presented results using clear tables, but I think in table 7 there is a mistake. In my mind REP → CAF is related the H9 not H8, please check it again. I appreciate their results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper.

According to your indications, which are common to those of other reviewers, we have updated the list of references, especially with regard to the latest findings on non-financial reporting.

We have also modified table 7 since, indeed, the relationship between REP and CAF is in accordance with hypothesis 9.

Again, thank you for your time and constructive review.

Kind regards,

The authors