Cyberbullying Behaviors in Online Travel Community: Members’ Perceptions and Sustainability in Online Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study, this study investigates how cyber-victimization recovery practices in OTAs affect online community ambient and behavioral loyalty in OTCs using second-order confirmatory factor analysis. However, there are the following points need to be noted.

1.There are a lot of repeated contents in the introduction and materials and methods. It is suggested that the author reorganize the literatures to make the logical relationship of the paper clearer.

2.In the research result part, the author's analysis is too simple.

3.In the Discussion part, the author's analysis of the research results is too general to answer the questions raised. It is suggested that the author conduct a detaileddiscussion based on the questions raised.

4.In the References section, some of the literaturesaretoo old, so it is suggested that the author should read the literatures of the last three years and supplement the new literatures.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my comments below:

What’s the gap the study is filling? Please explain in the Introduction.

Lines 107-109: “Online exclusion occurs when an individual is banned by an individual or a group from 107 a shared platform or social media site, online forum, or instant messaging program with- 108 out an appropriate reason”. I have doubt on how “Three women had been raped at the same resort in Mexico, and TripAdvisor 115 repeatedly deleted a post that warned others” can be classified as online exclusion given that deleting the posts seem not banning an individual.

Figure 1 featuring hypotheses suddenly emerge in the article. Before that, nothing has been mentioned about the hypotheses. The theoretical rationale used to support the formulation of hypotheses is required.

Please assess the construct reliability and validity (convergent and discriminant). Otherwise, the results would not be valid.

The discussion is too short and weak.

No theoretical or practical implications.

Limitation and future research are also lacked.

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This communication is really interesting and worth publication. This communication is about the cyberbullying behaviors among online travel community, proposing a comprhensive model , which includes the factor of cyber-victimization practices, mediators (ambient stimuli), and outcomes (intention to follow OTC advice), which all contribute to ensure the sustainability of online community.

 

I found the manuscript timely, orginal and contrributes to the creation of sustainable online community. However, there are few comments, which could improve the manuacript before full consideration:

First: I suggest you add further information about the implications of this study, especially for online travel community

Second, the conclusion of the study is missing and I think will add better to the manucript

Third: please add the limitation of the study in relation to the sample and the the usie of second order factors

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachement.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have tried to revise the manuscript in response to my comments. However, still some of the issues still remain:

• The rationale used to support the formulation of hypotheses is still unclear. Please present the rationale and then raise the hypothesis right after the rationale.
• The construct reliability and validity still have not been reported.
• The discussion is still short and weak. I don’t think the author has addressed this comment.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments. Thanks!