Impact and Recovery of Coastal Tourism Amid COVID-19: Tourism Flow Networks in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study explored tourism changes in Indonesian coastal tourism before and during the pandemic from the perspective of regional resilience. Overall, it is a well-written manuscript and I recommend the below modifications to improve the rigor of the paper:

- The research purpose, even though well argued, can be presented in a more elevated manner to guide the readers easily identify the study's objective. 

- In the research design, the authors need to rationalize their choice of Flickr over other data sources. For example, why Instagram was not selected even though this is one of the most popular platforms among tourists and travelers to share their pictures? In fact, selecting Instagram over Flickr might have helped the authors address the second limitation of the study, as it would have allowed the authors to refer to some of the demographic traits of travelers. Similarly, why was data collected until February instead of January in 2022, since the latter would have leveled the data period to be exactly two years before and during the pandemic?

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful and constructive comments and suggestions on the previous version of this manuscript. This report summarizes our responses to all of the comments. The revised parts of the manuscript are colored in red. If there are any additional concerns or comments, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for writing this timely review. While the topic is indeed of great value to both academia and the practitioner communities, there remain few issues that ought to be addressed before this paper can be accepted.

I suggest the following revisions to strengthen the paper further:

1.     To begin with, this paper needs English editing. In its present form, there is some not readable at various parts. Please get the paper professionally edited by an English editor.

2.     In the 'Introduction' section, the proposed research gap and the stated objectives do not meet the criteria of proper synergy. Please make the research gap and the research objectives consistent with each other.

3.     In Materials and Methods: Line 107-109, the authors refer to six major islands but they wrote nine major islands ( Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, New Guinea Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, New Guinea, Java, and Nusa Tenggara), could you clarify that issue?

4.     I hope that the authors include the source or reference of the figures (Figure 1, …, Figure 13).

5.     I think that in the “Introduction” section, you can add some sentences about the neuroscientific technology  which can be used to gauge the consumer behavior behaviour toward COVID-19 pandemic to improve your section. I suggest some references which can be beneficial for this, as follows:https://doi.org/10.31117/neuroscirn.v4i3.79;https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v18i08.31959.

6.     The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work and its similarities and differences with their previous publications.

7.     The authors need to clearly articulate the academic as well as practical implications of this study in a separate  section which can named the theoretical and practical implication of this study. I suggest article which can be benefit for this issue "Neuroimaging techniques in advertising research: Main applications, development, and brain regions and processes"

8.     The authors need to clarify the limitation and future directions in a separate section, I would suggest preparing a separate section for the limitations and future directions (i.e., 4.3 limitations and future research).

9.     The authors need to clearly articulate the key implications at the end of the 'Introduction' section. I suggest article which can be benefits to improve that issue "Neuromarketing research in the last five years: a bibliometric analysis".

10.  For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them in a clearer way in the abstract and introduction.

11.  How could/should futures studies improve the model?

If these revisions can be made in the manuscript, I believe that this study can be accepted for publication.

I wish the authors all the very best with this study.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful and constructive comments and suggestions on the previous version of this manuscript. This report summarizes our responses to all of the comments. The revised parts of the manuscript are colored in red. If there are any additional concerns or comments, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Greetings,

The paper is well written. Certain corrections need to be made in the paper. In the introduction, it is necessary to emphasize the aim of the research. In addition, it is necessary to write new selections, i.e. Literature review and Discussion. Everything else is well done in this paper. Due to the lack of these selections, it is necessary to change the paper more.

All the best.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful and constructive comments and suggestions on the previous version of this manuscript. This report summarizes our responses to all of the comments. The revised parts of the manuscript are colored in red. If there are any additional concerns or comments, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Greetings,

The authors corrected the paper according to the comments. The paper should now be accepted.

All the best.

Author Response

Greetings,   We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful and constructive comments and suggestions on the previous version of this manuscript.   All the best.