A Methodology for Machine-Learning Content Analysis to Define the Key Labels in the Titles of Online Customer Reviews with the Rating Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current paper reflects, in my opinion, an interesting scientific work. The paper explains the research process with many relevant details. Moreover, the sections of the article are well organized and hierarchical, which allows a better reading of the research process and the results. References to other existing research and to the rationale for the research methodology and analysis are valid.

Nonetheless, I have certain recommendations:

1. Table 2 reflects numbers with ‘.’ and ‘,’ for decimals’ delimitation and this element should be consistently used.

2. The manuscript should present more substance in highlighting managerial recommendations and practical implications based on the results of the analysis.

3. The paper should reflect more on the limitations of the study.

4. The literature review could reflect more recent studies, although the papers explored for scientific background are relevant to the examined subject.

Author Response

Dear Dr,

We'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to sumbit the new version of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your thoughtful and valuable feedback towards improving our manuscript. We're grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We've been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided. In the following, we've highlighted within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns.

Comment 1: [Table 2 reflects numbers with ‘.’ and ‘,’ for decimals’ delimitation and this element should be consistently used].

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We've made the corrections in Annex B

Comment 2: [The manuscript should present more substance in highlighting managerial recommendations and practical implications based on the results of the analysis].

Response: Agree. We have, accordingly, highlighted and added more managerial recommendation in this case for Iberia inTable3 just after the cluster analysis based on interpretation in Annex C (p.26)

Comment 3: [The paper should reflect more on the limitations of the study].

Response: We agree with this point, and we have added more topics that can be investigated upon the same proposed methodolgy in future studies.

Comment 4: [The literature review could reflect more recent studies, although the papers explored for scientific background are relevant to the examined subject].

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. It has been carried out including Table1, where the main investigations are collected with their important findings in the airline industry & tourism.

Thank you again,

Best Regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

The research on the topic of the machine-learning content to analyse key labels in the titles is important and great to discover.

But as for details I would like to ask authors to correct before printing, then:

1.     It would be beneficial to provide more insight into the results in the abstract.

2.     Literature review is not enough to support the literature gap considered in this study. The introduction must be substantially integrated through a more exhaustive literature review, with the aim of highlighting the literature gaps and justifying the research objectives.

3.     Authors should develop a "true" discussion section, in which they broadly comment on the results obtained. I would like to know how the results were similar to or different from other studies. This is not clear.

4.     Conclusions: Please compile a conclusions section! The authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous review studies and of the working hypotheses and highlight the novel contributions of their research. The implications for research, theory, practice and society are not clear though I can see that these aspects can be elaborated further.

5.     What makes this study unique and how are the findings advancing the field? Or what are they contributing to practice?

Author Response

Dear Dr,

We´d like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to sumbit the new version of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your thoughtful and valuable feedback towards improving our manuscript. We´re grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We´ve been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided. In the following, we´ve highlighted within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns.

Comment 1: [It would be beneficial to provide more insight into the results in the abstract].

Response: We agree with this point, and have added more insights into the results in the abstract, highlighting its practical implications for Airlines.

Comment 2: [Literature review is not enough to support the literature gap considered in this study. The introduction must be substantially integrated through a more exhaustive literature review, with the aim of highlighting the literature gaps and justifying the research objectives].

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Regarding the introduction and literature review, it has been developed by adding more information and including Table1, where the main recent studies have collected with their important findings in the airline industry & tourism. 

Comment 3: [Authors should develop a "true" discussion section, in which they broadly comment on the results obtained. I would like to know how the results were similar to or different from other studies. This is not clear].

Response: Thank you for pointing this out, we have compared the results of this reserach with other studies recently carried out in the same field.

Comment 4: [Conclusions: Please compile a conclusions section! The authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous review studies and of the working hypotheses and highlight the novel contributions of their research. The implications for research, theory, practice and society are not clear though I can see that these aspects can be elaborated further].

Response: Agree, we have designed Table3 just after the cluster analysis (p28) to provide practical implication for Iberia based on interpretation in Annex C, and we provide more future insights that can use our proposed methodology to help airlines undetsrad the needs of their customer and by this way can increase their positioning in the market.

Comment 5: [What makes this study unique and how are the findings advancing the field? Or what are they contributing to practice].

Response: The contribution of this study correlates to the evolution of a new approach to highlight the strenghts and weakness of airlines's services depending on the identified key labels in the title of comments to help managers to improve passenger experience with their services.

Thank you again,

Best Regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

 Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your manuscript submitted to Sustainability. After reading the manuscript, I can see that you have accomplished research that undoubtedly gives relevant findings. The study at hand proposed and applied a methodology to develop a machine learning designed to identify the key labels related to the quantitative variables in the general rating of the service received from an airline. The manuscript is appropriately structured. In the Introduction authors clearly define the objective of the study and present methods chosen for pursuing the objective. The research methodology is clear and consistent. However, some minor issues need corrections and revisions.  Here is the list of recommendations:

1.      It would be valuable if you could specify why and how you collected the specific number (5278) of reviews. What was the period of reviews?

2.      Tables 1, 2, and 4 are too large to be provided in the text. The recommendation is to put it into annexes.

3.      The Discussion should include a comparison of the results of your study with the scholarship in the analyzed field.

 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity, and I wish you good luck in strengthening the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Dr,

We´d like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to sumbit the new version of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your thoughtful and valuable feedback towards improving our manuscript. We´re grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We´ve been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided. In the following, we´ve highlighted within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns.

Comment 1: [It would be valuable if you could specify why and how you collected the specific number (5278) of reviews. What was the period of reviews?].

Response: Thank your for pointing this out. We have collected all the online reviews that was available of that moment in TripAdvisor, the period of reviews was from the beginning of January 2016 to December 2018.

Comment 2: [Tables 1, 2, and 4 are too large to be provided in the text. The recommendation is to put it into annexes].

Response: Thank your for this suggestion. We agree and have incorporated tables 1,2 and 4 into annexes A,B,C

Comment 3: [The Discussion should include a comparison of the results of your study with the scholarship in the analyzed field].

Response: Agree. We have, accordingly, done a comparasion of the results with recent studies done in the same field, Besides, we have added Table3 (p.28) to provide managerial implications for managers of Iberia based on the significant labels and interpretation in AnnexC.

Thank you again,

Best Regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your work. Good luck.