An Analysis of Customer Textual Reviews and Satisfaction at Luxury Hotels in Singapore’s Marina Bay Area (SG-Clean-Certified Hotels)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The text is pertinent and meets the expectations and scope of the special edition. There is background theoretical discussion, empirical input and a certain connection between the two, exploring a current and timely topic.
Make spelling and grammar corrections in the text.
The introduction lacks an argument showing clearly and convincingly the importance of the chosen topic, the need to study it and the positioning of the article in the field of knowledge. These tasks require a synthetic review of the literature in support of a compelling argument that your article meets a research need and will make a contribution to the field of knowledge in question.
To what extent does the research problem contain and reflect categories/constructs/variables that come from the tourism-specific literature review itself and how this connects with problem solving of an explicit/implicit agenda of issues in the subarea.
I strongly indicate two references that can contribute to the framework and to the discussion of the results: Perinotto et al https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2020.1808841 and Santos et at https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.28.1.9
Reorganize and deepen a little the logic of the discussion in the analysis, producing greater tying/systematization between categories, the theory, and the specific theory of tourism, because as it stands, the analysis seems to be based on connections in the form of free association, without leave it tied and explicit, what categories (indicate which categories – topics of discussion – were used to structure the analysis, as they seem to be only implicit), data and analysis techniques were used. From the discussion carried out, point out the progress/differential of the work in relation to the existing ones on the subject.
More robust conclusions, supported by the confrontation of the results with the elements of the theoretical foundation section and that make explicit relevant contributions to the field of knowledge, as well as recommendations for future studies.
Author Response
The text is pertinent and meets the expectations and scope of the special edition. There is background theoretical discussion, empirical input and a certain connection between the two, exploring a current and timely topic.
Response : First of all, I would like to thank you for your appreciation, thoughtful consideration and your contribution to the completion and improvement of this manuscript. Your help and support is greatly appreciated. We have made the following revisions in response to the reviewers' suggestions.
Make spelling and grammar corrections in the text.
Response : We would like to thank you for your comment, and apologize for the some misspelled words of the research which was the result of our negligence. In terms of corrections, we already fixed the misspelled words.
The introduction lacks an argument showing clearly and convincingly the importance of the chosen topic, the need to study it and the positioning of the article in the field of knowledge. These tasks require a synthetic review of the literature in support of a compelling argument that your article meets a research need and will make a contribution to the field of knowledge in question.
Response : Your comment is greatly appreciated. Considering that we are focusing on customer textual reviews and customer satisfaction in Marina bay area, we have already discussed about previous research in line 72-90. Previous study mentioning SG Clean was about dengue prevention can be found in line 73-76. Prior research mentioning Marina Bay Area in Singapore can be found in line 76-80. Then, previous study which discussed customer perceptions by using textual review can be found in line 83-90, as it mentioned that: “A previous study also discuss customer perceptions include satisfaction and dissatisfaction based on the premise that positive reviews indicate satisfaction and negative reviews indicate dissatisfaction [19]. A more recent study talked about how linguistic style in textual review effects customer satisfaction [18]. The attributes utilized in the study was sentiment polarity, subjectivity, readability, diversity and word length [20].”
To what extent does the research problem contain and reflect categories/constructs/variables that come from the tourism-specific literature review itself and how this connects with problem solving of an explicit/implicit agenda of issues in the subarea.
Response : It is our pleasure to respond to your suggestion and I appreciate your comments. As this research focused in Singapore Marina Bay area which this area is one of luxury tourism destination, which consists of hotels, convention center, shopping mall, tourist destination and activities, etc. Thus can be seen in line 100-144. As tourism sector contributing 4% to Singapore GDP, then suddenly COVID-19 spreading and currently new normal has been started and tourism sector recovered. Line 89-96 “Seeing that Singapore is stepping into a transition towards a new normal, and so the tourism and hotel industry needs to be ready for it. Thus, the main objective of this research is to understand the key attributes affecting the customer satisfaction post COVID-19 situation in Luxury Hotel in Singapore Marina Bay Area by using text mining. So as to achieve the objectives, this study adopted text mining analysis to uncover customer experience based on online review and regression analysis to uncover the main key attribute affecting customer satisfaction.” Recently, many hospitality studies using big data focuses on finding key attributes affecting customer satisfaction. “As a result of this study, hoteliers can be inspired to explore more attributes of customer textual reviews and to investigate the behaviors of online reviews and their relationship to overall customer ratings. Online reviews contribute greatly to the eWOM effect, which has the potential to influence future customer booking decisions [18]. As a result of this research, industry managers can understand how the style of textual customer reviews relates to customer overall satisfaction based on data mining methodologies.” which can be seen in line 519-530.
I strongly indicate two references that can contribute to the framework and to the discussion of the results: Perinotto et al https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2020.1808841 and Santos et at https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.28.1.9
Response: Please accept our sincere thanks for your suggestion. Therefore we already add these two references in section Literature Review, subsection 2.2 as can be seen in line: 164-169, “Several studies investigate the attributes that influence the tourist by analyzing online reviews and have produced a range of similar but sometimes contradictory evidence [41]. The consumers of the means of accommodation seek more and more to use in their favor the comments of travel sites as well as to share their experiences, whether positive or negative [42]. The comments gained supreme importance when planning the desired travel profile.”
Reorganize and deepen a little the logic of the discussion in the analysis, producing greater tying/systematization between categories, the theory, and the specific theory of tourism, because as it stands, the analysis seems to be based on connections in the form of free association, without leave it tied and explicit, what categories (indicate which categories – topics of discussion – were used to structure the analysis, as they seem to be only implicit), data and analysis techniques were used. From the discussion carried out, point out the progress/differential of the work in relation to the existing ones on the subject.
Response: We really appreciate your comment and suggestion. With that we have adjusted our discussion part to be more direct and in connection with the literature review. We reviewed our discussion part and added a few lines to explain in a more direct way, for example: “It indicates higher sentiment polarity in the customer textual review of the luxury hotels in Singapore Marina Bay Area, which indicates that more positive words are used in their online reviews than negative words” and “The results suggest that, for primary satisfied customers in Singapore Marina Bay Area, a higher readability of online reviews leads to a higher satisfaction during stay at Marina Bay area.”, which can be found in line 387-390.
More robust conclusions, supported by the confrontation of the results with the elements of the theoretical foundation section and that make explicit relevant contributions to the field of knowledge, as well as recommendations for future studies.
Response: Your comment and suggestion are very much appreciated. We have already revised conclusion part in line 534-539: “Consumer opinion can either help or jeopardize the hotel reputation. Negative comments have the potential to tarnish the projected image and persuade potential customers to seek competing products/services [42]. Consumers increasingly use the internet to share experiences, especially regarding services provided by all kinds of companies. The opinions of consumers posted online express reliability and can influence the decision of other consumers when purchasing a product or service [42].” “Future research would be better to be conducted with a longer span period of time to gain more information.” Thus, recommendation for future studies can be found in line 554-565.
We appreciate your assistance with this manuscript. We would also like to apologize for any mistakes we made in our manuscript. Having reviewed your advice and concerns regarding the manuscript, we have attempted to add and revise several parts to improve the quality of the paper. It is our hope that this revision improved upon the newest version that we are currently sending.
Reviewer 2 Report
- Abstract should clearly state aim and purpose of the study, as well as how chosen methodology can - produce new contribution.
- Well written introduction section. The chapter structure could be added.
- English language – proofreading is recommendable (to avoid literal translation, i.e. low deserving- line 118)
- avoid colloquial and promotional language, use scientific and academic tone and objectivism (i.e. there is everything for every travellers (113), iconic merlion…?)
- present table with dana (table1) before textual explanation. The explanation should present deeper context not just pure presentation of numbers, that i already presented in table
- Hypothesis well set
- Figure 3 not readable nor understandable. Better presentation of findings in figure 3 is strongly suggested
- Extension of the conclusion section is recommendable.
Author Response
I would like to thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your contribution to the completion and improvement of this manuscript. Your help and support is greatly appreciated. In response to your comments and concerns regarding the manuscript, we have added and revised a number of parts in an effort to enhance its quality. With this revision, we hope to improve upon the newest version we are currently submitting.
Abstract should clearly state aim and purpose of the study, as well as how chosen methodology can - produce new contribution.
Response: Your comment and suggestion are very much appreciated and we have added the necessary information as suggested. In our abstract, we mentioned the purpose of the study in line 19 which is “…to determine the new attributes affecting customer satisfaction…” and in line 21-22 which says “…to identify the relationship between the attributes in customer textual reviews and the overall satisfaction of the customer.”. We have added one sentence in the last part of the abstract in lines 27-29 to show how this paper contributes to the industry, and the added line says: “With the adopted methodology, the industry may be able to benefit from this abundance of information in order to adjust their strategies and more financial benefit post-COVID-19.”
Well-written introduction section. The chapter structure could be added.
Response: We appreciate your generosity in suggesting and commenting in this manuscript. We have added the chapter structure as for example: “1. Introduction” and “2. Literature Review”. Followed by the subsection “2.1. Singapore Marina Bay Area Luxury Hotel”, as based on the sustainability submission Microsoft Word Template.
English language – proofreading is recommendable (to avoid literal translation, i.e. low deserving- line 118)
Response: Please accept our sincere thanks for your suggestion. We have made changes in the sentences for example we have made changed the sentence in line 118 to “As described in the study, the authors described as having worked hard last year, earning a bonus that was sufficient to cover the cost of a luxury hotel located near Marina Bay Sand.”
avoid colloquial and promotional language, use scientific and academic tone and objectivism (i.e. there is everything for every travellers (113), iconic merlion…?)
Response: It is a pleasure to respond to your suggestion and we appreciate your comments. We have made changes in the mentioned lines to a more scientific and academic tone as per suggested. The changes can be seen in line 115 which says “With the Singapore icon, merlion overlooking the Marina Bay, there are various activities and sightseeing locations that are open for tourist visitation”.
present table with dana (table1) before textual explanation. The explanation should present deeper context not just pure presentation of numbers, that i already presented in table
Response: We appreciate your feedback. For that, we have deeper reasoning and explanation of the table that can be seen in lines 140 to 142 which says: “The drop that we are seeing in 2019 to 2020 is due to the travel disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, where international travellers number drop as much as 85.7% in 2020”.
Hypothesis well set
Response: Your comment is greatly appreciated.
Figure 3 not readable nor understandable. Better presentation of findings in figure 3 is strongly suggested
Response: It is a pleasure to receive feedback and suggestion from you. We apologize for the confusion in figure 3. We have added an explanation regarding what is figure 3 about before stating the result of the Network visualization. For example: “A network visualization shows the relationship between words and the most frequent words are shown with larger nodes and in the centre of the figure [37].” Hope this explanation of what is network visualization helps with the understanding of figure 3.
Extension of the conclusion section is recommendable.
Response: Your comment and suggestion is highly appreciated. We have added a few lines to further explain the conclusion of that represents this study better. For example: “Consumer opinion can either help or jeopardize the hotel’s reputation. Negative comments have the potential to tarnish the projected image and persuade potential customers to seek competing products/services [42]. Consumers increasingly use the internet to share experiences, especially regarding services provided by all kinds of companies. The opinions of consumers posted online express reliability and can influence the decision of other consumers when purchasing a product or service [42].” We also added a further recommendation for future study that can be found in lines 554 – 565.
We appreciate your feedback, suggestion and comments for this manuscript. We would also like to apologize for any mistakes we made in our manuscript. Taking into account your suggestions and concerns regarding the manuscript, we have attempted to improve its quality by adding and revising several parts. We hope that this revision will enhance the newest version we are currently sending you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for submitting the manuscript. I read the article with great interest. It is a big data-based study used SCTM 3.0, UCINET 6.0 and TextData mine tools. Textual data analysis is becoming increasingly popular nowadays, thus I retain methodological approach is absolutely right. However, follows are several comments for improvements:
Hypotheses are not fully developed and the choice of variables in the estimated model is heuristic. Authors need to develop each hypothesis based on theoretical ground and/or previous studies. In addition, the control variables, such as service quality of the hotel, are needed in the model that might affect customer satisfaction. Without the control variables the estimated model simply shows the relationship between variables, not revealing the real determinants of customer satisfaction.
The dependent variable does not correspond with model's time period. The independent variables are collected during 2020~2021, while dependent variable of satisfaction star rating reflects cumulated satisfaction since the opening of the hotel.
Authors need to conform the regular manuscript style, as Methodology section shown before the hypotheses. In addition, an extensive English grammar and writing style checks are needed.
Author Response
Thank you for submitting the manuscript. I read the article with great interest. It is a big data-based study used SCTM 3.0, UCINET 6.0 and TextData mine tools. Textual data analysis is becoming increasingly popular nowadays, thus I retain methodological approach is absolutely right. However, follows are several comments for improvements:
Response : First of all, I would like to thank you for your appreciation, thoughtful consideration and your contribution to the completion and improvement of this manuscript. Your help and support is greatly appreciated. Having reviewed your advice and concerns regarding the manuscript, we have attempted to add and revise several parts to improve the quality of the paper. It is our hope that this revision improved upon the newest version that we are currently sending.
Hypotheses are not fully developed and the choice of variables in the estimated model is heuristic. Authors need to develop each hypothesis based on theoretical ground and/or previous studies. In addition, the control variables, such as service quality of the hotel, are needed in the model that might affect customer satisfaction. Without the control variables the estimated model simply shows the relationship between variables, not revealing the real determinants of customer satisfaction.
Response: It is our pleasure to respond to your suggestion and I appreciate your comments. Previous research for each variables mention in Table 3 operational definition. For example : “Sentiment Polarity. Also called sentiment score, this technique was operationalized by utilizing continuous variables ranging from -1 to +1, corresponding respectively to highly positive and highly negative reviews. A higher score indicates a more positive emotion [57,18].”
Regarding control variable as the SCTM 3.0 has limitation, we already added one paragraph regarding this which can be found in line 549-552, “Throughout the research, researchers found that there are some limitations in this study. As SCTM 3.0 is still in development, only customer ratings, review texts, duration of data, writer id, and hotel names can be crawled. Future research may be more heuristic if other variables such as service quality can be crawled as control variables.”
The dependent variable does not correspond with model's time period. The independent variables are collected during 2020~2021, while dependent variable of satisfaction star rating reflects cumulated satisfaction since the opening of the hotel.
Response: Your comment and suggestion are very much appreciated. All of the independent and dependent variables taken from 2020 to 2022. Thus we added in line 285-286 “A total of 8441 online reviews collected from 2020 to 2022 [62]. Thus customer rating also taken from 2020 to 2022.” And also can be found in line 298-300 “During 2020-2022 reviewers at the Marina Bay area gave their experiences at the hotel an average rating of 4.57 out of 5, and 87% of reviewers gave the hotel a four or five-star rating.” Due to the fact that SCTM 3.0 can crawl variables during the period we specify. As a result, the satisfaction rating result is based on the period 2020-2022.
Authors need to conform the regular manuscript style, as Methodology section shown before the hypotheses. In addition, an extensive English grammar and writing style checks are needed.
Response : Thanks for your generosity in suggesting and commenting on this manuscript. We already made the revised for the misspelled part and grammatical part. As hypotheses already separated with methodology section, thus hypotheses moved to section 3 before the methodology section which can be seen in line 205-257.
We appreciate your assistance with this manuscript. We would also like to apologize for any mistakes we made in our manuscript. Having reviewed your advice and concerns regarding the manuscript, we have attempted to add and revise several parts to improve the quality of the paper. It is our hope that this revision improved upon the newest version that we are currently sending.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations on expanding, accepting suggestions and improving the paper
Author Response
Response: Thank you for your appreciation, thoughtful consideration and your contribution to the completion and improvement of this manuscript. Your help and support is greatly appreciated. It is our hope that this revision improved upon the newest version that we are currently sending.
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall the revised version has addressed the points the reviewer indicated.
- Please check the meaning of the word, "heuristic" and revise the following sentence properly. (It should be like; "Future research may be less heuristic~")
Future research may be more heuristic if other variables such as service quality can be crawled as control variables.”
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Overall the revised version has addressed the points the reviewer indicated.
Response: Thank you for your appreciation, thoughtful consideration and your contribution to the completion and improvement of this manuscript. Your help and support is greatly appreciated. It is our hope that this revision improved upon the newest version that we are currently sending.
- Please check the meaning of the word, "heuristic" and revise the following sentence properly. (It should be like; "Future research may be less heuristic~")
Future research may be more heuristic if other variables such as service quality can be crawled as control variables.”
Response: Your feedback is greatly appreciated. It appears that this is the correct term in this context: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heuristic. As defined in the website, heuristic is involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods. The heuristic in this context is used to explain that the development of SCTM will enhance future research, solve more problems, and serve as a useful tool. We already use a professional proofreader to review our manuscript. Hopefully, the quality of the manuscript will be improved.
