How Do Food Neophobia and Neophilia Moderate the Effect of Local Food Quality on Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Behavioral Intention in the Perspective of Sustainable Gastronomy Tourism?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article entitled ( How Do Food Neophobia and Neophilia Moderate the Effect of 2 Local Food Quality on Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Be- 3 havioral Intention in the Perspective of Sustainable Gastron- 4 omy Tourism?)

The manuscript is interesting however, some aspects should be better explored and explained before acceptance for publication.

 

Comments

1-    The manuscript needs revision regarding typos errors and grammar mistakes.  

2-    Authors should revise the author's guidelines regarding the format of references and their citations in the text. For example, if tow or three reference should be written as [42-43], [27, 44-45]. Authors can use zotero program to adjust the reference formate according to MDPI requirments.  

3-    The conclusion is too long

4-    The results need interpretation with previous findings

 

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assessment of our topic. Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful in further improving our paper. We greatly appreciate your feedback.

The changes which were made about the manuscript have been highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "How Do Food Neophobia and Neophilia Moderate the Effect of Local Food Quality on Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Behavioral Intention in the Perspective of Sustainable Gastronomy Tourism?” reports the relationship between local food quality perception, dining satisfaction, and post-dining behavioral intention in the context of sustainable gastronomy tourism in Turkey. The manuscript is well organized and the results are satisfactory. After some minor corrections, the manuscript can be accepted to be published.

Abstract: abstract should state briefly the purpose of the study undertaken, brief mention of experimental aspects (without using abbreviations), highlights of the results and important conclusions based on the obtained results. Therefore, it is suggested that the Abstract should be improved with more data.

Keywords→ arrange in alphabetical order.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assessment of our topic. Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful in further improving our paper. We greatly appreciate your feedback.  The changes which were made to the manuscript have been highlighted in our text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript, Tarınç et al. examined the relationships between local food quality perception, dining satisfaction, and post-dining behavioral intention in the context of sustainable gastronomy tourism in Manavgat/Antalya. The topic is interesting. Several concerns are as follows,

1.     Keywords should be different from title to enhance searchability and findability.

2.     3.4.1 Demographic Profile It is better to display the data as figures, which should be more clear and easy for the readers than numbers.

3.     What is the t-value stand for? What is the asterisk followed by t-values stand for? Such information should be indicated clearly in the footnote.

4.     What is “a” followed by the values stand for in Table 2?

5.     Generally speaking, we use “*” to stand for p<0.05, “**” stand for p<0.01, and “***” stand for p<0.001. Please modify for the entire context.

6.     Please modify Figure 1 and 2 to increase the readability, such as the name of y-axis. In addition, the results of Figure 1 and 2 should be expressed clearly in the main text.

7.     In the discussion section, please pay more attention to the results of the present study, instead of the relative published findings.

8.     Please re-write Conclusion section to address the main findings of the current research. Large parts of the sentences should be moved to the discussion section.

Moderate editing of English language.

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer; Thank you so much for your positive comments and assessment of our topic. Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful in further improving our paper. We greatly appreciate your feedback.  The changes which have been made within the manuscript are highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2421091

Title: How Do Food Neophobia and Neophilia Moderate the Effect of Local Food Quality on Dining Satisfaction and Post-Dining Behavioral Intention in the Perspective of Sustainable Gastronomy Tourism?

In the context of sustainable gastronomy tourism operating in the Manavgat district of Antalya, Turkey, this study analyses and determines the attitudes of foreign visitors who have received services from hotel businesses using the frameworks of local food quality perception (LFQP), dining satisfaction (DS), post-dining behavioural intention (PDBI), food neophobia (FB), and food neophilia (FL). For this study, interviews with 487 tourists were conducted. According to the study's findings, DS is positively impacted by the LFQP dimensions of delivery quality and core qualities (flavour, satiety, and freshness in local foods). The external quality has no impact on DS, yet DS is a factor in determining PDBI as well. In contrast to FB, which exhibits a negative moderator effect in the relationship between tourists' satisfaction with local food and their behavioural intentions after consuming local food, tourists with high FL are more likely to exhibit high purchase, recommendation, and higher price-paying behaviour for the local foods.

This research project was carefully planned and carried out.

The statistical analysis and approach seem sound.

 

The results and discussion are well documented in the manuscript. The conclusions are in line with the goals of the study.

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Reviewer;

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assessment of our topic. Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful in further improving our paper. We greatly appreciate your feedback.  The changes which have been made within the manuscript are highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

In the revised version, the autors have fulfilled all my requirements. Therefore, my opinion is to accept in the current form.

Minor editing of English language required.