Relationship Modeling of Travel Website Quality toward Customer Satisfaction Influencing Purchase Intention
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report
Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2360069
Type: Article
Title: Relationship Modeling of the Travel Website Quality Towards Customer Satisfaction Influencing Purchase Intention
Thank you for providing a detailed research study. I suggest that the author addresses the following concerns:
1. The manuscript focuses on the relationship between tourist satisfaction and website design. The author should explain the relevance of this topic to the scope of the journal in the abstract and introduction.
2. The abstract is too brief and does not provide enough information to the readers. The author should rewrite the abstract to include information about the research methods, results, conclusions, and implications of the study.
3. In the introduction section, the author briefly mentions the study's conclusions in the third and second-to-last paragraphs. It is unclear whether it is appropriate to give the conclusions directly in the introduction. The author should consider the logical relation between these paragraphs. However, it is necessary to provide the objectives of the study in the introduction section. I suggest that the author summarizes the main objectives of the study in a bullet-point format.
4. The literature review section provides sufficient information, but the content of subsection 2.1 is too lengthy, and the content of subsection 2.2 is too short. Additionally, the author should refer to https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2838 .
5. In section 3.1, if the number of questionnaire items is not too many, I suggest that the author creates a table to present the questionnaire content to readers. In addition, subsection 3.2 should provide information about the time of questionnaire distribution and collection. Subsection 3.4 should present the results of reliability and validity tests.
6. Tables in the manuscript should use the three-line table format.
7. The discussion section of the manuscript is weak, which is a major flaw. The author only briefly introduces the main findings of the study in the last paragraph, which is not sufficient. I hope that the author can explain the research findings, contributions to the field, similarities or differences with previous literature, etc., in the revised manuscript. The author should not simply repeat the content already present in the results section.
8. In the conclusion section, if the author creates a new section in the introduction to introduce the main objectives of the study (or goals, in bullet-point form), the author can answer the objectives/goals presented in the introduction in a bullet-point format in the conclusion section.
I look forward to the author addressing and answering all of my above concerns in the revised manuscript.
Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
Dear Editor/Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing the revision.
The revised version is enclosed herewith.
Authors
4/5/2023
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The flowchart on Figure 1 shows the factors that influence decision making. At the same time, there is no evidence to support that the concept of the people shopping for clothes (used by the authors as an example) are the same as for the target audience of visitors searching for travel / booking web-sites. There is no evidence/parallel that the use value, cost, responsibility of buying clothes (line 128) is equivalent to the use value of buying a holiday (booking). It would be useful to get the opinion of the author, supported by authoritative sources, that one can rely on research, that it is possible to compare (or to provide more examples from the travel industry on factors of satisfaction while using web-sites).
2. Logical and one more question - the authors trace the correlation between the quality of the website and customer satisfaction. But isn't customer satisfaction still more related to the quality of the service provided? Is it logical to assume that tourists, having enjoyed the service received through a particular website, again turn to the company that provided this service? Those. Isn’t the satisfaction is related primarily to the quality of the service, and not so much to the quality of the site? Well, and, in principle, it is not surprising if a good company has a good website, i.e. All these components are interconnected.
3. The weak point is as well, that, as the authors themselves emphasize, the study was conducted for Saudi Arabia. And I would recommend the authors not to generalize to the world level, because. nevertheless, there is a certain regional specificity. Judging by the study, the respondents included in the study prefer direct purchase of services (on the websites of service providers), while a large target audience works with Service Aggregators (and then additional research is needed or it should be in some way incorporated into this one or make as least some remarks).
4. It would be better to clarify whether the respondents made a purchase directly on the site itself or used it as an auxiliary one, and bought the service on the Aggregator.
5. Left out of consideration, in our opinion, an important aspect as the presence of a chat-bot (unless, of course, the authors meant the presence of a chat-bot when they talked about interactivity). But it would be necessary to clarify what was meant by website interaction.
6. The list of references, especially directly on the subject of research (website) is presented by old sources - almost half of them are older than 2005. And there are only 5 modern sources (2018-2023), and we are talking about modern technologies that change very quickly. For example, there is no mention (source) of using the travel aggregator. References list must be improved.
Author Response
Dear Editor/Reviewer,
The revised version is enclosed herewith.
Thank you for allowing revision
Author
4/5/2023
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
See PDF file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor/Reviewer,
The revised version is enclosed herewith.
Thank you for allowing revision
Author
4/5/2023
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
An interesting study with important practical implications. I like to be believe that the impact of you study will be increased if: 1) you clearly link your discussion especially in relation to the buidling of your model with the literature 2) the use of some non-academic sources would also contribute to the practical implications and impact of the study and 3) although you are discussing the focus on tourists from Saudi Arabia within your limitations section, the LR, the study itself and the discussion/implications would benefit from looking into and comparing woth studies conducted in other countries (e.g., Korea).
Author Response
Dear Editor/Reviewer,
The revised version is enclosed herewith.
Thank you for allowing revision
Author
4/5/2023
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations, thank the author for providing a high-quality revised draft, and I recommend it to be published in its current form!
Author Response
To
Reviewer/Editor
Thank you very much for your valuable time and comments, which have enhanced the quality of the present manuscript considerably.
Authors
Date: 9 May 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for taking into account my kind recommendations.
Author Response
To
Reviewer/Editor
Thank you very much for your valuable time and comments, which have enhanced the quality of the present manuscript considerably.
Authors
Date: 9 May 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors.
My view is that a reviewer's job is to help the research work assigned to him/her reach a degree of quality acceptable to be published, and to simultaneously help the authors by pointing out flaws and suggestions that eliminate those flaws. My criticisms are always constructive, hoping that they will somehow contribute, with my modest knowledge, to make the final work even better.
In my previous review I was clear and precise when I wrote that the constructs "satisfaction", "loyalty" and "purchase intention" would have inadequate orders. I also informed that "satisfaction" occurs after the purchase, which precedes "loyalty", and obviously "purchase intention" would have to precede both.
I was clear in informing that this sequence is basic and elementary in the area of marketing knowledge and offers no doubt. Another of the reviewers also drew your attention to the problem of the construct "satisfaction". Just because you point to a set of articles that support your model does not make it valid. It will just become another publication that contains a model that is totally wrong.
Thus, and given your answers, I maintain my assessment, suggesting that you change the designation of the constructs or remake the model.
Author Response
To
Reviewer/Editor
Thank you very much for your valuable time and comments, which have enhanced the quality of the present manuscript considerably.
Authors
Date: 9 May 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author.
In the previous review I wrote that a reviewer should help to improve the publications assigned to him, I inform you that I maintain the same predisposition to continue to contribute so that it achieves the quality necessary for it to have the proper recognition. Please check and keep in mind that my suggestions are always constructive and only aim at the above described.
Following your answer, without making changes that I consider basic and elementary, I maintain what was written in the previous evaluations, after receiving the information about the models on which you based yourself. Such information further corroborates my review, showing the incongruence of your model.
Note:
Only the model presented in the first publication has the satisfaction and subsequently the intention to purchase. But erroneously the satisfaction construct should be called e-satisfaction or website satisfaction.
Other models include constructs e-satisfaction or e-loyalty, being different constructs than the ones designated in your model.
Such an observation had already been indicated in my first review.
In view of this I stand by my assessment without change.
Author Response
To
Reviewer/Editor
Thank you very much for your valuable time and comments, which have enhanced the quality of the present manuscript considerably.
Author
Date: 11 May 2023
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
