Examining Factors That Influence the International Tourism in Pakistan and Its Nexus with Economic Growth: Evidence from ARDL Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The content of the Theoretical Support is weak, and there is no good explanation of the relationship between the theoretical basis and this research.

2.In the part of research tools, the author didn't quote and explain the methods introduced.

3.In Table 4, what are the significant conditions of T-value analysis? Is it 0.9, 0.95, 0.99? The author needs to explain and explain.

4.In the conclusion part, the author didn't answer the questions raised in the introduction. The author analyzes the impact of terrorism, inflation and other factors on Pakistan's tourism economy. What is the impact of the above factors on Pakistan's tourism economy? What is the impact? The author needs to supplement and explain.

Author Response

1. The content of the Theoretical Support is weak, and there is no good explanation of the relationship between the theoretical basis and this research.

R1: Respected reviewer, the theoretical support section is improved, and further explanation is provided regarding the study's theoretical basis. Thanks

2. In the part of research tools, the author didn't quote and explain the methods introduced.

R2: The research method section is improved, and methods and statistical techniques are elaborated. Thanks

3. In Table 4, what are the significant conditions of T-value analysis? Is it 0.9, 0.95, 0.99? The author needs to explain and explain. Thanks

R3: The significant conditions of the T-value are elaborated and further explanation is provided. Please look at the text below in table 4. Thanks

4. In the conclusion part, the author didn't answer the questions raised in the introduction. The author analyzes the impact of terrorism, inflation and other factors on Pakistan's tourism economy. What is the impact of the above factors on Pakistan's tourism economy? What is the impact? The author needs to supplement and explain.

R4: The conclusion section of the manuscript is rewritten, and the questions raised in the introduction section are addressed appropriately in the conclusion section. Thanks

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I was invited to review your journal article on factors that influence the international tourism in Pakistan and its nexus with economic growth.

After reading the content, I have few comments to make.

I'll start with the technical comments and then move onto the quality, content, originality and contribution to the field.

First and the one of the utmost importance is: You cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source for academic research. You must have a suitable, reliable and correct information if you aim to participate in the academic community. Wikipedia is an open source website, and everyone can edit the content published on it, which makes it unreliable source of information.

This is unacceptable: Among all paradigms, the notion of sustainable development was found to more relevant as it focused on environmental, economic and sociopolitical sustainability (Wikipeda, 2019).

Further, you need to check your in text citations. You have couple of minor editable errors, such as extra lines in the name.

I would recommend reading through the text once again, and editing the content so it would be more reader friendly. There were some instances where clarification was needed or phrasing could be slightly tweaked so it reads better. The same goes for tenses, spelling, check for plurals, singulars and articles. 

It is always challenging to pick up and amend all grammatical errors before the submission, so reviewers can always help out with that. You also should be vary of leaving incomplete sentences.

I'll provide some examples below:

The tragedy THAT took place on 9/11 dramatically changeD the mindset of THE international touristS. A more thorough checkS and stringent visa processing easily affectED international tourism TRENDS across the world.

Some studies like(Ahiawodzi, 2013; Aslan, 2014; Odhiambo, 2011; Payne & Mervar, 2010). --> what does this mean? like what? this is not a full sentence.

Most of the findings present unidirectional relationship from tourism growth to economic development of the country like (Adamou & Clerides, 2009; Brida, Lanzilotta, et al., 2016; Husein & Kara, 2011). --> same issue here.

It increased the living standard of human, increased the production of goods and services, maximized revenue through tax and profit and contributed in GDP of the country(Fayissa, Nsiah, & Tadesse, 2011; Paramati,
Alam, & Chen, 2017).  --> of human is not needed

The conflicting results from previous studies might be due occur due to different methodology, mostly focused on developed countries and time variant.

These literatures present a conflicting outcome for the relationship between tourism and economic development (Aslan, 2014; Cortes-Jimenez & Pulina, 2010; Tugcu, 2014). --> instead, it could be: the literature presents a conflictive conclusions for the relationship between the tourism and econ development...

Please check the entire article for similar errors before submission. Sometimes it's helpful to read it out loud, as hearing the content allows us to recognize phrasing that could be improved.

Now, onto the good aspects of the article:

Authors used the phrase 'theoretically' in the Theoretical support section, which is an excellent comment prefacing the theories. Theoretically allows you to present and elaborate on theories but also allows the authors to critically evaluate the theories within the current tourism context.

The first part of the paper reads extremely well even with all grammatical errors and phrasing issues, and it's positioning the topic within the research nexus- which is great. However, I would encourage the authors to write the conclusion part in the same way, as it's currently only reiterating (twice) the general conclusions of the research. This section should be the strongest, and not the weakest point of your article. This is the section where you're presenting your own work and findings and making a meaningful contribution to academia.

I would also add 2 more sections, if possible. Discussion or potential for further research, and limitations of the study. I think both these sections would improve the article. 

The grammar seemed a bit weaker towards the end of the article, so perhaps reading it with a pair of fresh eyes might be helpful.

Other than that, I believe this article should be published after some further proofreading and editing. I can see the potential and effort that went into this paper, and I recognize its contribution to the scientific field.

If the authors develop/re-write the paper in a way they wrote the first couple of sections (including methods), the paper should be reader friendly (for both local and international audience), and position itself as a valuable contribution on the knowledge base about the Pakistan tourism industry and its potential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

1. First and the one of the utmost importance is: You cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source for academic research. You must have a suitable, reliable and correct information if you aim to participate in the academic community. Wikipedia is an open source website, and everyone can edit the content published on it, which makes it unreliable source of information.

This is unacceptable: Among all paradigms, the notion of sustainable development was found to more relevant as it focused on environmental, economic and sociopolitical sustainability (Wikipeda, 2019).

R1: Respected reviewer, “Wikipedia” is removed as a citation throughout the manuscript. Thanks 

2. Further, you need to check your in text citations. You have couple of minor editable errors, such as extra lines in the name.

R2: Inside the text citations are added using endnote, extra lines are removed from the names. Thanks

3. I would recommend reading through the text once again, and editing the content so it would be more reader friendly. There were some instances where clarification was needed or phrasing could be slightly tweaked so it reads better. The same goes for tenses, spelling, check for plurals, singulars and articles. 

R3: The manuscript was read again, and corrections are made throughout the manuscript. Thanks

4. It is always challenging to pick up and amend all grammatical errors before the submission, so reviewers can always help out with that. You also should be vary of leaving incomplete sentences.

I'll provide some examples below:

The tragedy THAT took place on 9/11 dramatically changeD the mindset of THE international touristS. A more thorough checkS and stringent visa processing easily affectED international tourism TRENDS across the world.

Some studies like(Ahiawodzi, 2013; Aslan, 2014; Odhiambo, 2011; Payne & Mervar, 2010). --> what does this mean? like what? this is not a full sentence.

Most of the findings present unidirectional relationship from tourism growth to economic development of the country like (Adamou & Clerides, 2009; Brida, Lanzilotta, et al., 2016; Husein & Kara, 2011). --> same issue here.

It increased the living standard of human, increased the production of goods and services, maximized revenue through tax and profit and contributed in GDP of the country(Fayissa, Nsiah, & Tadesse, 2011; Paramati,
Alam, & Chen, 2017).  --> of human is not needed

The conflicting results from previous studies might be due occur due to different methodology, mostly focused on developed countries and time variant.

These literatures present a conflicting outcome for the relationship between tourism and economic development (Aslan, 2014; Cortes-Jimenez & Pulina, 2010; Tugcu, 2014). --> instead, it could be: the literature presents a conflictive conclusions for the relationship between the tourism and econ development...

Please check the entire article for similar errors before submission. Sometimes it's helpful to read it out loud, as hearing the content allows us to recognize phrasing that could be improved.

R4: All the above corrections are made. The manuscript is edited wherever corrections were required. Thanks 

Now, onto the good aspects of the article:

5. Authors used the phrase 'theoretically' in the Theoretical support section, which is an excellent comment prefacing the theories. Theoretically allows you to present and elaborate on theories but also allows the authors to critically evaluate the theories within the current tourism context.

The first part of the paper reads extremely well even with all grammatical errors and phrasing issues, and it's positioning the topic within the research nexus- which is great. However, I would encourage the authors to write the conclusion part in the same way, as it's currently only reiterating (twice) the general conclusions of the research. This section should be the strongest, and not the weakest point of your article. This is the section where you're presenting your own work and findings and making a meaningful contribution to academia.

R5: The conclusion section of the manuscript is rewritten completely. Thanks

6. I would also add 2 more sections, if possible. Discussion or potential for further research, and limitations of the study. I think both these sections would improve the article. 

R6: We have added two sections in the manuscript the “Discussion” and “Limitation and Recommendation of the Study”, future research directions are highlighted in the limitation and future research direction section. Thanks

7. The grammar seemed a bit weaker towards the end of the article, so perhaps reading it with a pair of fresh eyes might be helpful.

R7: The manuscript is revisited completely, grammar is improved and corrections are made throughout the manuscript. Thanks

8. Other than that, I believe this article should be published after some further proofreading and editing. I can see the potential and effort that went into this paper, and I recognize its contribution to the scientific field.

R8: The manuscript is edited and refined throughout. Thanks

9. If the authors develop/re-write the paper in a way they wrote the first couple of sections (including methods), the paper should be reader friendly (for both local and international audiences), and position itself as a valuable contribution on the knowledge base about the Pakistan tourism industry and its potential.

R9: The manuscript is revisited completely, the existing text is improved and some new sections are added. Please look at the manuscript. Thanks

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1)Some citations are misspelled in the manuscript. For instance “Wikipeda”. I just wonder that Why do authors use an anonymous site like Wikipedia? Author/Authors should use more academic citations and last 5 years (2022-2021-2020-2019-2018). I didn’t see citations for any of the years 2022, 2021, and 2020 in this manuscript. Authors should not use outdated literature and put new references (2020,2021,2022).

2)Tables and figures are not clear, exactly what they mean should be mentioned in the manuscript.

3)The conclusion is very limited and short. Please improve this part (conclusion). Authors also have to add discussion in this manuscript separately.

4)There is no information in this manuscript about the recommendations and limitations of the research.

5) What kind of academic studies can be investigated in the future as suggestions to academicians? I couldn’t see that anywhere. So please The authors have to add these things to the manuscript.

6)The clarity of the manuscript's expression and readability, jargon use, and acronyms are normal.

Good luck.

Author Response

1)  Some citations are misspelled in the manuscript. For instance “Wikipeda”. I just wonder that Why do authors use an anonymous site like Wikipedia? Author/Authors should use more academic citations and last 5 years (2022-2021-2020-2019-2018). I didn’t see citations for any of the years 2022, 2021, and 2020 in this manuscript. Authors should not use outdated literature and put new references (2020,2021,2022).

R1: Respected reviewer, the reference “Wikipedia” has been removed throughout the manuscript, all other references are updated, please visit the reference list. Thanks

2) Tables and figures are not clear, exactly what they mean should be mentioned in the manuscript.

R2: Tables and figures are refined, further explanation is provided in the text where required. Thanks

3) The conclusion is very limited and short. Please improve this part (conclusion). Authors also have to add discussion in this manuscript separately.

R3: Conclusion is enriched and a discussion section is added separately. Thanks

4) There is no information in this manuscript about the recommendations and limitations of the research.

R4: Limitations and Recommendations are added at the end of the manuscript. Thanks

5) What kind of academic studies can be investigated in the future as suggestions to academicians?

I couldn’t see that anywhere. So please The authors have to add these things to the manuscript.

R5: Future research directions are added in the “Limitation and Recommendation of the Study” section of the study. Thanks

6) The clarity of the manuscript's expression and readability, jargon use, and acronyms are normal.

R6: Thanks Sir

Good luck.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has revised the article, but the annotation in the reference section is not standard, and it still needs to be revised. For example: Tourism. (2019). Why Tourism? , from http://www2.unwto.org/content/why-tourism。 The article has been revised , and it is recommended to receive it after minor revision。

Author Response

1. The author has revised the article, but the annotation in the reference section is not standard, and it still needs to be revised. For example Tourism. (2019). Why Tourism? , from http://www2.unwto.org/content/why-tourism。 The article has been revised , and it is recommended to receive it after minor revision。

R1:  Respected Sir, thanks for commenting on our manuscript. First, we have accepted all the changes made during review round 1, because all the reviewers appreciated the changes. During round 2, we revised the manuscript and all the changes tracked in the given version of the manuscript are newly made. The reference section of the manuscript is fixed again, and references related concerns are addressed. The above-highlighted reference and some other inappropriate references are removed from the manuscript because we have alternate references for supporting our arguments, and some references are refined. Please have a look at the reference list of the manuscript. Thanks, Sir

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately I have noticed that while the content has been substantially improved (and English), it still needs further amendments to be publishable.

I will note several places where I believe authors could improve their phrasing. 

- 2nd sentence

INTRO SECTION

- 4th sentence

- Influence of tourism --> tourism influence

- usage of superlatives, unless it's a direct citation is not suitable ('marvelous tourism sites'). if it is a direct citation, then it should be marked as such

- Pakistan has very less contribution --> Pakistan has LOWER contribution

- developed economyies --> spellcheck

- promost aim

- usage or sigular vs plural terms

- missing words ('the tragedy THAT took place on...')

- tourism sector is very enriched --> perhaps further enriched would be more suitable

- tourism is a very growing industry --> very is unnecessary 

- rely should be relying

 

These are just some of the examples that I noticed in text, and I'm afraid that until the authors review the paper once again, and amend the phrasing/grammar the paper cannot be published.

On the positive side, I can see that there is a substantial improvement in the content and the paper overall has been significantly improved.

Author Response

1. Unfortunately I have noticed that while the content has been substantially improved (and English), it still needs further amendments to be publishable.

I will note several places where I believe authors could improve their phrasing. 

- 2nd sentence

INTRO SECTION

- 4th sentence

- Influence of tourism --> tourism influence

- usage of superlatives, unless it's a direct citation is not suitable ('marvelous tourism sites'). if it is a direct citation, then it should be marked as such

- Pakistan has very less contribution --> Pakistan has LOWER contribution

- developed economyies --> spellcheck

- promost aim

- usage or sigular vs plural terms

- missing words ('the tragedy THAT took place on...')

- tourism sector is very enriched --> perhaps further enriched would be more suitable

- tourism is a very growing industry --> very is unnecessary 

- rely should be relying

 

These are just some of the examples that I noticed in text, and I'm afraid that until the authors review the paper once again, and amend the phrasing/grammar the paper cannot be published.

On the positive side, I can see that there is a substantial improvement in the content and the paper overall has been significantly improved.

 

R1: Respected Sir, thanks for commenting on our manuscript. First, we have accepted all the tracked changes made during review round 1, because all the reviewers appreciated the changes made. During round 2, we reread the manuscript several times to rephrase sentences and remove grammatical mistakes and other typographical errors. All the changes tracked in the given version of the manuscript are newly made, and all the above-highlighted comments are addressed. Please have a look at the manuscript. Thanks, Sir

Reviewer 3 Report

The study has been developed in its new form and the deficiencies have been completed.

This paper's argument is built on an appropriate base of concepts or ideas.

This paper also identifies clearly implications for research in this new form.

Author Response

The study has been developed in its new form and the deficiencies have been completed.

This paper's argument is built on an appropriate base of concepts or ideas.

This paper also identifies clearly implications for research in this new form.

 

R1: Thanks Sir for appreciating our work. Regards Sir