Next Article in Journal
Design of a Ventilated Façade Integrating a Luminescent Solar Concentrator Photovoltaic Panel
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Land Tenure Institutional Factors on Small Landholders’ Sustainable Land Management Investment: Evidence from the Highlands of Ethiopia
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Tourism Knowledge Domains of Chinese and International Research

Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9151; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129151
by Yijing Su 1, Li Cong 1,* and Geoffrey Wall 2
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4:
Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9151; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129151
Submission received: 13 April 2023 / Revised: 28 May 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published: 6 June 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the subject in analysis as the methodology adopted that permit interesting conclusions. Despite the literature review, strongly recommend the adoption of some references from the Journal “Sustainability”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very nice, correctly written paper. The language is clear and understandable. Rich and adequate literature is used. The data collection and processing methods are clearly written. The obtained data are also correctly presented and explained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations on your manuscript and the work mirrored therein. It shows a thorough review of the articles selected, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified, and a good description of the results obtained.

However, the quality of the figures and tables raised some doubts, and I believe they can be substantially improved. For example:

- in figure 2, it is not understandable (and in my opinion not relevant) to present the regression results, nor is it understandable which graph indicates which Chinese and international journals;

- most of the graphs do not identify the axes, which may make them difficult to understand;

- figures 6 and 8 are not very legible (I understand that they will be challenging to present in any other way, but perhaps these figures should be presented in a larger size);

 

- In Table 2, it is not clear how the quantity and frequency percentage values were calculated - the sum of these values is not 100%, so it is unclear how these relative values were calculated.

 

The paper is well-structured and written in clear and error-free language. The abstract and the keywords reflect the objectives and content of the paper. Regarding writing, I only noted some missing full stops in some sentences (see, for example, lines 91 and 92 of the text).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic is interesting, providing insights in possible gap between Chinese and international research in tourism. I provide some suggestions in order to improve the current version of the manuscript:

 

My first concern is the fact that the authors use only four journals for comparison. Please explain if this is relevant enough for making general conclusions.

 

In the literature review, the authors state that A small number of scholars conducted comparative analyses between Chinese and  international tourism research. Here, it is very important to point out what were the conclusions of these studies and how they can be related to the current study.

 

In Data collection section, pls mention how many aritcles with the given keywords you included in the analysis

 

The authors should discuss the reasons to support the difference in Chinese and international tourism research  / is it a specific context, problems, issues in tourism?

The topic is interesting, providing insights in posible gap between Chinese and international research. I provide some suggestions in order to improve the current version of the manuscript:

 

My first concern is the fact that the authors use only four journals for comparison. Please explain if this is relevant enough for making general conclusions.

 

In the literature review, the authors state that A small number of scholars conducted comparative analyses between Chinese and  international tourism research. Here, it is very important to point out what were the conclusions of these studies and how they can be related to the current study.

 

In Data collection section, pls mention how many aritcles with the given keywords you included in the analysis

 

The authors should discuss the reasons to support the difference in Chinese and international tourism research  / is it a specific context, problems, issues in tourism?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop