Assessment of Lantern Festivals by Government Procurements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
According to the title, the study is about tangible measures, but the content is talking rather about infrastructure of the festival (as most of the analysed procurements focus on that). Throughout the study, tangible and intangible is not clearly defined, and I think the wording 'tangible' is not appropriate for infrastructure. Tangible elements of festivals could include how intangible heritage is 'materialized' or tangible elements like food etc.
Reading the article, one logic could be to tangible and intangible elements of festivals, and then how government can support it by the measured tenders.
Last paragraph of the introduction section: too wide and general questions are mentioned, this should focus on the narrow topic.
E-procurement: what does it mean? Please, clarify it.
Introduction of the destination is mentioned at several times, this should be only at one chapter.
Chapter 3: there are new (not linked to the article) topics like place identity. This section should be narrowed and focused on the study's main objective. This chapter could also give a brief overview about actors/stakeholders involved in the festival landscape - this way the role of government could be better understood.
Chapter 4: whole methodology should be presented. I was missing data collection circumstances, sample sizes, methods used of analysis etc. The time period is not accurate throughout the study, this needs to be harmonized (2016-2020, 2021 etc.).
Figure 2: could be highlighted what belongs to tangible and intangible.
Chapter 5: I was missing methodological information about the 'survey'. Here the authors talks about sporting event that is out of the scope of the study - could be deleted this part.
Chapter 6.1: too long, could be shortened (e.g. Digital decade 2001-2010 has nothing to do with the study).
Figure 4: it is not clear who is the population (local community or visitor?). Also, I would suggest to clarify what 'most popular scenic spot' means and why is important from the study point of view.
Chapter 6.2: I would suggest to exclued Wikipedia from the sources.
Chapter 8: the analysis is too descriptive, I would suggest to improve it. E.g. per project data could be calculated, comparison and grouping between elements etc.
Chapter 9: it is very descriptive, not linked to the topic. Sustainability is very general. This section should be improved.
Chapter 10: this section should be lengthened.
Terms: generally, terms are used not clearly throughout the study (e.g. quality, identity, tangible...), the article should be more clear.
English language: should be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you very much to review my manuscript.
Your suggestions are highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is very interesting and has a high potential after clearing up a number of important points.
1. The novelty and contribution of the article are not clear. I am referring to the theoretical contribution. Given the specificity of TLF and its implications in various fields ranging from sociology to tourism and procurement, it would be important that the authors justify based on existing academic knowledge, what is known about the subject and what is not sufficiently explored and justify the reason for this study. For example, it is not clear at the end whether the paper intends to contribute to tourism/events or procurement/operations theory.
2. The methodology section is not at all clear or objective. It should be reworded to explain the research design and steps. In no way does the text explain what fig 2 intends to represent. Moreover, in the next section referring to Case Studies, there is no methodological framework referring to the case study methodology.
3. The same happens in section "5. Case Studies". I was hoping to see what the case studies are - nowhere in this section does it say what they are or how they were selected to achieve the results of this study.
4. The results and discussion part has potential, but since there is no clear methodological approach, the results are presented descriptively, as if it were a non-scientific report.
5. In line with my point #1 the conclusions do not present the theoretical contributions. Furthermore, the practical implications are very superficial and the limitations are not presented.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-author, thank you very much to review my manuscript.
Your suggestions are highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Naai-Jung Shih
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript addressed the comments of the review. So, the article is appropriate for publishing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Good work! Congrats.
