The Role of Information Sources on Tourist Behavior Post-Earthquake Disaster in Indonesia: A Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigates the linkage between information sources and risk perception toward visit intention in the post-earthquake disaster context (the 2018 Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia earthquake).

This paper has several strengths, including the use of a quantitative research design with a cross-sectional data collection method. This is both efficient and cost-effective. The authors also use a theoretical framework to guide their analysis and employ a structural equation model to test their hypothesis.

But there are also some limitations tо this study that should be noted. As an example, the sample size is relatively small and may not be representative of all tourists in post-disaster situations (it is unclear on the nationality of the respondents, for example). Also as the study focuses on one specific disaster (an earthquake) it may not be generalizable to other types of disasters or crises.

The authors find that information sources (electronic word of mouth and word of mouth) significantly influenced visit intention in the time of post-earthquake disaster, and that risk perception did not significantly influence visit intention in post-earthquake disasters.

The findings of the study contribute to the literature associated with the Theory of Stimulus-Organism-Response by applying it in a novel setting, specifically tourist behavior in the post-earthquake disaster setting

Some general concerns –

1.       the lack of exploration of dimensions of variables such as information credibility and accuracy, understandability of the information, and trust, and

2.       the low number of respondents who completed the online questionnaire, which may give bias to the partial least squares structural equation model

The written English should be improved by a professional editor.

Author Response

1. But there are also some limitations tо this study that should be noted. As an example, the sample size is relatively small and may not be representative of all tourists in post-disaster situations (it is unclear on the nationality of the respondents, for example). Also as the study focuses on one specific disaster (an earthquake) it may not be generalizable to other types of disasters or crises.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. In this section, the authors have explained in the last section, the conclusion section in paragraph 3, lines 665-670. In addition, for sample size, the authors have explained in the method section, the section of data collection and sampling of the study in paragraph 3, lines 335-341.

2. The lack of exploration of dimensions of variables such as information credibility and accuracy, understandability of the information, and trust,

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. In this section, the authors have explained on section questionnaire measurement and development, lines 343-353.

3. The low number of respondents who completed the online questionnaire, which may give bias to the partial least squares structural equation model.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. In this section, the authors have explained the sample of the study using SEM-PLS in lines 335-341.

Reviewer 2 Report

The title corresponds to the content of the article.
The adopted layout of the work is logical, coherent and reasonable, and the proportions between the sections are appropriate.

The abstract was written according to the art; the choice of words is intentional.

The authors clearly defined the research issues in the introduction, correctly identifying the cognitive gap. At the same time, they reasonably and accurately identified the research goal. It only lacks a brief description of the structure of the article.

The literature review is an exemplary narrative review, with the authors formulating numerous hypotheses, proving scientific maturity.

These hypotheses were presented in the form of a model, which was the subject of the article and an added effect (Figure 1). This illustrates how thoroughly they recognized the research problem in the literature. They referred to this drawing in the methodology.

The methodology has been divided into three subsections (research conceptualization, data description and explanation, techniques used and data analysis).

The research sample selection and the method of obtaining the primary research material (its spatial, temporal, subjective and objective scope) are strictly defined and explained.

The tools used (data questionnaire) and the ordinal scales used, e.g. (7 Likert-type scale) are correct.

Data analysis together with an indication of research techniques and software completes the description of the methodology.

The presented research results are transparent, the authors have eliminated all chaos. They also presented selected descriptive statistics. Here, it would be reasonable to use position measures instead of measures of central tendency. However, if the authors added in the note below the table that ordinal scales are transformed into quantitative (interval) scales, then the adopted descriptive statistics would be fully justified.

In the next part, the authors examined collinearity using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and correctly diagnosed that none of them was 10, so the selection of variables and their verification in this respect is appropriate.

In the next part, the authors presented the results characteristic of multidimensional analyses, where they presented the exact parameterization and verification.

An interesting contribution is the specification and estimation of the structural model, which was implemented in the conceptualization presented in Figure 1. The authors quantified the strength of the influences while performing statistical inference.

The discussion of the research results and the adopted assumptions is accurate, deepened and complements the research results.

The conclusions contain limitations, and future directions of research, but they lack information on whether the goals have been achieved, and whether the hypotheses have been positively/negatively verified. There was also no information on who the research results are addressed, for whom they may be useful and to what extent. How research results can influence various decision-making processes (in the form of conclusions).

The list of references contains 127 references, including a large collection of current publications.


Other notes:
In the title of Table 2, there is a double dot at the end of the sentence.

Author Response

1. In the title of Table 2, there is a double dot at the end of the sentence.

 

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. In this part, the authors have deleted the double dot in the title of table 2 in line 398.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, an interesting study with some good results. Best wishes from here and Good luck !

2. Line 282. Figure 1. What are the differences of WOM and e-WOM? Why did you measure the differences between them?

1. Needs proofreading to make sure the language structure and grammar are adequately used. There are many grammar and sentence structure issues throughout.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

1. Line 282. Figure 1. What are the differences of WOM and e-WOM? Why did you measure the differences between them?

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. In this section, the authors have explained the difference between word of mouth and electronic word of mouth in the literature review. The explanation of them can be read in lines 180 to 259

2. Needs proofreading to make sure the language structure and grammar are adequately used. There are many grammar and sentence structure issues throughout.

Authors response: Thank you for your suggestion. Authors have enhanced the quality of the paper using proofreaders. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the work is correct and shows certain findings, it is essential to better explain the figures and reinforce the quantitative approach of the phenomenon analyzed.
It is also important to review the classical literature, which is what makes it possible to analyze the phenomenon evolutionarily and in light of past changes.
In addition, the achievements obtained should be highlighted more and emphasize what the findings are.

Author Response

1. It is also important to review the classical literature, which is what makes it possible to analyze the phenomenon evolutionarily and in light of past changes.

 

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. In this section, the authors have explained the literature review from the perspective of information sources. The evolution of the literature in the information sources from the perspective of word of mouth to electronic word of mouth. In general, the explanation of the literature can be read in the literature review section.

 

2. In addition, the achievements obtained should be highlighted more and emphasize what the findings are.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments. In this section, the authors have added and emphasized the finding of the study in the discussion section in each paragraph.

Reviewer 5 Report

Article:  The Role of Information Sources on Tourist Behavior in The Post-Earthquake Disaster: A Stimulus-Organism-Response  (SOR) Approach

By: Pahrudin Pahrudin, Tsung-Hua Hsieh, Li-Wei Liu, and Chia-Chun Wang

Thank you for sending me this article, I have some notes:

Line: 23, the is not need to write in big letter: …..the Theory by…..

In the title and in the summary the authors didn’t mention about what country or region they will be writing - Indonesia  - so it also should be wrote.

Lines 31-41 about natural disaster events is very shortly described.

This sentence: This study used an information source to influence the tourist's visit intention is not right with those: Hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Word of mouth is positively related to visit intention in case of post-earth-  quake disaster.

 Hypothesis 1b: Word of mouth is positively related to the perceived risk in the case of a post- earthquake disaster

Because it should be write that it is common just to the marketing actions.

Line 248 – should be on the next page

covid-19 – It should be write in big letters: COVID-19

Lines 309-310: Ethical approval was granted, and consent was obtained from all the respondents in this study – also was not mention about ethical

The article is mainly about marketing not about post-earthquake….. Information is of course part of marketing, but the disasters/ crises are always difficult for tourism, and in this article we don’t get this information.

Author Response

Thank you for sending me this article, I have some notes:

1. Line: 23, the is not need to write in big letter: …..the Theory by…..

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have changed it in linen 24.

2. In the title and in the summary the authors didn’t mention about what country or region they will be writing - Indonesia  - so it also should be wrote.

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have mentioned the country or region in the title and abstract.

3. Lines 31-41 about natural disaster events is very shortly described.

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have added the explanation in the first paragraph to the second paragraph in the lines 32 to 52.

4. This sentence: This study used an information source to influence the tourist's visit intention is not right with those Hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Word of mouth is positively related to visit intention in case of post-earth- quake disaster.

 Hypothesis 1b: Word of mouth is positively related to the perceived risk in the case of a post- earthquake disaster. Because it should be write that it is common just to the marketing actions.

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have deleted the sentence in this section.

5. Line 248 – should be on the next page

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have entered to the next page. 

6. covid-19 – It should be write in big letters: COVID-19

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have changed to upper letter in the line 277. 

7. Lines 309-310: Ethical approval was granted, and consent was obtained from all the respondents in this study – also was not mention about ethical.

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have mentioned in this issue in the line 323. 

8. The article is mainly about marketing not about post-earthquake….. Information is of course part of marketing, but the disasters/ crises are always difficult for tourism, and in this article we don’t get this information.

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have mentioned and explained that the manuscript related to marketing of tourism sector through information sources in the time of post-disaster. Furthermore, the authors have explained the result of the study in the discussion section.

 

 

 

Reviewer 6 Report

Dear author/s,
The present article covers an interesting topic and more research should be done on this topic.
However, from my point of view there are some improvements that could be done to underscore the value of this work as the path developed to explain the facts are fairly simple.

The authors are not consistent in using the name of the SOR theory (e.g. in the title it appears Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) Approach; in the abstract - Theory of stimulus-organization-response; in the text it appears either as stimulus-organism and response (SOR) theory- line 69, either Theory of SOR (Stimulus, Organism, Responses) – line 86, either (Stimulus-Organism-Response) – line 93, or S-O-R theory.

In addition, once the acronym is established, the full name of the theory should no longer be mentioned, but only the acronym!

Some sources are not cited correctly, the author must be mentioned, not just the source in parentheses! E.g.  line 123: The Theory was founded by Mehrabian and Russell [27], who  stated that…

There are many mistakes in writing/expressing/repeating some words in the same sentence, etc. The use of academic English language would need improvement.

How were the items used for Risk perception evaluated? They appear in the form of questions, they are not statements! Likert-type scales for the questions????, with scales of 1: "Strongly Disagree" and 7: "Strongly Agree.

The questions about the variables???? Maybe you meant the items that define the variables????

“this questionnaire was created in both English” Why was it created in English if the respondents were “local tourists in Indonesia were the target population of the study”???

The authors confuse locals and tourists! Line 299- The online questionnaire was sent to the potential respondents (local tourists) in Indonesia who desired to visit Lombok’s destination!!!

The article does not rise to the scientific level required by this journal!

I hope that my comments can help to improve the paper.

I wish all the best to the author(s)!

Author Response

1. The authors are not consistent in using the name of the SOR theory (e.g. in the title it appears Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) Approach; in the abstract - Theory of stimulus-organization-response; in the text it appears either as stimulus-organism and response (SOR) theory- line 69, either Theory of SOR (Stimulus, Organism, Responses) – line 86, either (Stimulus-Organism-Response) – line 93, or S-O-R theory. In addition, once the acronym is established, the full name of the theory should no longer be mentioned, but only the acronym!

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. The authors have revised all of the acronym in the whole of paper. 

2. Some sources are not cited correctly, the author must be mentioned, not just the source in parentheses! E.g.  line 123: The Theory was founded by Mehrabian and Russell [27], who  stated that……

Authors response: The Authors have revised the sources with cited correctly in this section. 

3. How were the items used for Risk perception evaluated? They appear in the form of questions, they are not statements! Likert-type scales for the questions????, with scales of 1: "Strongly Disagree" and 7: "Strongly Agree.

Authors response: Thank you for your advice and question. In this part, the authors have changed the items for risk perception in statement in the table 4, and also in this study used the Likert-type scale with 1 of 1: "Strongly Disagree" and 7: "Strongly Agree. For this section authors have mentioned in the line 355 to 357.

4. The questions about the variables???? Maybe you meant the items that define the variables????

Authors response: The authors have revised and explained for this issue in the line 343 to 354.

5. “this questionnaire was created in both English” Why was it created in English if the respondents were “local tourists in Indonesia were the target population of the study”???

Authors response: The authors have revised and explained in this section in the line 355 to 357.

 

6. The authors confuse locals and tourists! Line 299- The online questionnaire was sent to the potential respondents (local tourists) in Indonesia who desired to visit Lombok’s destination!!!

Authors response: The authors have revised and explained for this section in the line 312 to 321.

 

7. There are many mistakes in writing/expressing/repeating some words in the same sentence, etc. The use of academic English language would need improvement.

Authors response: Thank you for your advice. In this section, the authors have improved the quality of the paper using academic English language.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

None, yet

Reviewer 6 Report

The authors made all the changes suggested in the initial revision of the paper in a satisfactory manner, significantly improving the previous version of the paper.