The Phenomenon and Development of K-Pop: The Relationship between Success Factors of K-Pop and the National Image, Social Network Service Citizenship Behavior, and Tourist Behavioral Intention
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this interesting article. The paper is generally well written and structured.
Please define abbreviations at first mention.
Good Luck!
Author Response
1. Title (use full names instead of abbreviations)
→ We used full names instead of abbreviations.
_________________________________
※ Currently, more than 440 million people around the world have been infected with “COVID-19”.
※ I hope you remain healthy during this prolonged COVID-19 pandemic.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a very extensive article that meets all the rules of a scientific study. The subject is very disturbing and may constitute the basis for conducting research in other countries.
All aspects of the work: theoretical, methodical, empirical, conceptual and design constitute a logical whole. Congratulations to the Authors.
Author Response
1. No comment.
_________________________________
※ Currently, more than 440 million people around the world have been infected with “COVID-19”.
※ I hope you remain healthy during this prolonged COVID-19 pandemic.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "How Does K-pop Influence Tourist Behavioral Intention? The Impact of National Image and SNS Citizenship Behavior" seem interesting and relevant.
The authors have made important efforts to find a research gap and to design a study that can close this gap and yield interesting insights both for academics and professionals. However, there are different issues that must be clarified:
1) The problem definition and the contextualization seem very appropriate, but the literature review section is too long and a little bit messy.
--> I recommend the authors to reduce it and to better justify theis hypotheses.
--> Moreover, there are too many studies in very distant sectors, and not many related to music that is the main factor of your manuscript.
2) Regarding the seclection of respondents (page 19), it seems not very correct that you choose individuals that have listened... "at least one time".
--> I would be much more strict because a minimal experience with K-pop is needed to report propper answers to the questionnaire.
--> I know the more strict you are, the smaller will be your sample size, but you have more than 1.000 observations so you MUST be more restrictive and reestimate your models with less observations (but better information).
3) It is not clear why you do THREE type of estimations of your hypotheses. Is there any reson to implement PLS-SEM? have you any formative construct? Why you run regressions with SPSS?
--> In this case, I would revise the assumptions of the different statisctical techinques, and your research objectives and I would ONLY use ONE estimations procedure.
--> According to the reported information I think the optimal procedure would be Covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) --> see for example: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-CB-SEM-and-PLS-SEM
--> You can run Covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) with EQS, AMOS (SPSS) or freeware JASP (https://jasp-stats.org/)
4) According to the sample size you are using, a cross sectional sample, it is not possible to affirm there is EFFECT of one variable over another.
--> You should refine your writing stating that there is "association" or "relationship" between the variables rather than CAUSALITY (see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/cross-sectional-studies)
5) I would recommend the authors to revise the article and reduce REDUNDANT information, specially at the tables.
--> It is possible to deliver the same information and substantially reduce the length of the manuscript.
Author Response
1. Table 2 ~ 4 (delete the redundant text)
→ We deleted the redundant text in the <table 2> ~ <table 4> thereby reducing the number of words in the manuscript.
※ Manuscript (literature review: including text)
2. SPSS/SmartPLS/GSCA Pro (reason for comparison and analysis)
※ Recommend CB (covariance-based) SEM (structural equation model) analysis.
→ We stated in detail in the manuscript the reason why we compared and analyzed using three approaches.
→ We conducted CB SEM analysis (JASP program). (+ add)
→ In other words, I used four approaches (regression analysis/PLS SEM/GSCA SEM/CB SEM) for statistical analysis.
→ By doing so, I confirmed the completeness (accuracy/completion) of the study model design and maximized the generalization possibility of the hypothesis test, that is, statistical analysis.
3. Causality (revise to association or relationship)
→ We revised causality with association (relationship).
_________________________________
※ All revisions are in blue text.
※ We greatly appreciate the reviewer for providing excellent recommendations.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper examined how national image and SNS citizenship behavior influence tourist 11 behavioral intention within the context of the globally popular K-pop phenomenon in South 12 Korea. This paper has elaborated in detail, but the following points need to be improved.
- the paper does not discuss the problem of common method variance (CMV), it matters.
Reference：Xu F, Zhan C, Lu L, et al. Is the destination brand loyalty mechanism invariable? A comparative study from China[J]. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2021, 22: 100658.
Liu Y L, Ko P F, Chiang J T. Developing an Evaluation Model for Monitoring Country-based Tourism Competitiveness[J]. SAGE Open, 2021, 11(3): 21582440211047559.
- the authors uses SPSS, SmartPLS, and GSCA Pro. And the outcomes of them are not all consistent. Is a certain software not enough? I think the authors should choose the most authoritative software.
- the authors could add a picture of the results of path analysis, which will make the results clearer. Meanwhile, some tables could be deleted.
Author Response
1. Common method bias (overcome the bias)
→ To overcome the common method bias, I conducted principle component analysis, namely, the single-factor test suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003).
2. SPSS/SmartPLS/GSCA Pro (reason for comparison and analysis)
→ We stated in detail in the manuscript the reason why we compared and analyzed using three approaches.
→ We conducted CB SEM analysis (JASP program). (+ add)
→ In other words, I used four approaches (regression analysis/PLS SEM/GSCA SEM/CB SEM) for statistical analysis.
→ By doing so, I confirmed the completeness (accuracy/completion) of the study model design and maximized the generalization possibility of the hypothesis test, that is, statistical analysis.
3. Hypothesis test results – summary (indicate/add a figure)
→ We indicated/added a figure for hypothesis test results (summary).
4. Table 2 ~ 4 (delete the redundant text)
→ We deleted the redundant text in the <table 2> ~ <table 4> thereby reducing the number of words in the manuscript.
※ Manuscript (literature review: including text)
_________________________________
※ All revisions are in blue text.
※ We greatly appreciate the reviewer for providing excellent recommendations.
Reviewer 5 Report
Strengths:
1. Broad appreciation of the context of the development of music and its media (forms).
2. Interesting emphasis on the impact of the development of the Internet and broadly understood digitization on the growth of awareness and popularity of K-pop.
3. A comprehensive description of the K-pop phenomenon, citing the literature base.
4. A detailed description of the research methods and their previous application, which demonstrates a conscious and thoughtful choice of method.
5. Appropriate selection of theories to illustrate the phenomenon.
6. Comprehensive recognition of the literature on the subject.
7. Correct identification of the key success factors of K-pop, based on the knowledge of theoretical assumptions that were translated / identified in relation to K-pop (the ability to discover to what extent the theoretical assumptions can be applied in practice) - this provided a kind of case study (beyond the main research).
8. Research methodology described correctly.
9. Broad, cross-sectional, international self-study.
10. Use of several statistical programs for correct analysis.
11. Correct, justified conclusions from own research.
12. Broad bibliographic basis, very up-to-date sources.
Weaknesses:
1. The first sentence of the abstract should state whether it is the purpose of the research itself or the purpose of the paper, in order to more clearly indicate the purpose of the paper.
2. Correction in the structure of the article is required - the current substantive content of the "Introduction" section is too extensive for an introduction. The introduction should be brief, include an outline of the problem and its importance and expose the purpose of the paper. The content that is now point 1 (entitled "Introduction") should be a substantive (main) subchapter, e.g. under the title "The K-pop phenomenon and its development".
3. I suggest moving the entire description from the introduction (except for the research questions) to the current section 2.1 "Base Theories".
4. The phenomenon of country of origin (national image) could have been discussed a bit more extensively, there is a certain deficiency and disproportion between this subsection and the other analyses.
5. Description of SNS Citizenship Behavior - similar remark as above (as in point 4).
6. Very many hypotheses. While they could have been accepted for the whole study, fewer of them could have been accepted for the article or the most important ones could have been selected.
Author Response
1. Title (revise the title)
→ We revised the title.
2. Abstract (revise the first sentence)
→ We revised the first sentence.
3. Table 2 ~ 4 (delete the redundant text)
→ We deleted the redundant text in the <table 2> ~ <table 4> thereby reducing the number of words in the manuscript.
※ Manuscript (literature review: including text)
4/5. Success factors of K-pop → National image/SNS citizenship behavior (relationship)
※ “Discussion and Conclusions” (Supplement)
→ We supplemented Section 5 with a “Discussion and Conclusions”.
6. Hypothesis test (generalization of statistical analysis results)
→ We conducted statistical analysis using four programs: SPSS/SmartPLS/GSCA Pro/JASP.
→ In other words, I used four approaches (regression analysis/PLS SEM/GSCA SEM/CB SEM) for statistical analysis.
→ By doing so, I confirmed the completeness (accuracy/completion) of the study model design and maximized the generalization possibility of the hypothesis test, that is, statistical analysis.
_________________________________
※ All revisions are in blue text.
※ We greatly appreciate the reviewer for providing excellent recommendations.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Good job in improving the previous version of the manuscript!
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors responded well. good luck！
