Impact of the Digital Economy in the High-Quality Development of Tourism—An Empirical Study of Xinjiang in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article examines the impact of the digital economy on the development of tourism. This question is of interest to a large number of readers. The authors presented an original model and empirical studies. The design of the article is correct and logical.

 The article can be improved if the authors pay attention to the following points:

 1) The authors argue that the digital economy is a core variable for studying its impact on tourism. This conclusion is debatable. There are many factors that can be considered as core variables. Without tourist facilities and infrastructure, it is impossible to talk about the development of tourism. The authors do not consider these parameters as variables. These parameters act as a response of the model. The authors should provide a justification for their position and a discussion of the multifactorial model of tourism development.

 2) The authors consider only EWM. They don't compare it with other non-subjective methods. I recommend the authors to make a detailed review of this issue.

 3) The authors provide data sources to describe the digital economy and tourism in Section 2.2. But they do not discuss the choice of this data set. Why is the digital economy described through the number of college students in every group of 10,000 people, the number of days with air quality above grade 2? The level of tourism development depends not on the number of places, but on the quality of tourist facilities, for example. The territory may have one place and be attractive, or it may have many places and not be attractive to tourists. The authors should provide a substantiating review of the sources.

 In conclusion: the article would greatly benefit if the authors visualize the results obtained on the heterogeneity of indicators of the digital economy and tourism development on the map.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please fine in attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is a well-written and interesting paper, focusing a research area that is not ussually adressed by researchers so far. It complies with the characteristics a scientific paper should meet 

Line 69 check reference

Readers need to see one or more conceptual models, based on previous reliable research or to explain this article

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf