A Conceptual Model Study of Tourism Resource Sharing in the Digital Economy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very interesting and innovative in conceptual terms article which may be improved by:
-minor editing (shorter phrases in some arguments i.e. p.2 top paragraph, etc.)
-try to avoid the reference to political statements which are very good but do not add to the scientific contribution of your work (i.e. Government principles and priorities-very interesting for the broader readers but do not relate to your own contribution
-try to support arguments which are general and need proofs (i.e. p. 6 first lines... about the importance of materials for tourism (refs?)
Minor editing (shorten /break long statements in very few points
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Very interesting and innovative in conceptual terms article which may be improved by:
-minor editing (shorter phrases in some arguments i.e. p.2 top paragraph, etc.)
-try to avoid the reference to political statements which are very good but do not add to the scientific contribution of your work (i.e. Government principles and priorities-very interesting for the broader readers but do not relate to your own contribution
-try to support arguments which are general and need proofs (i.e. p. 6 first lines... about the importance of materials for tourism (refs?)
Response: We appreciate it very much for reading my article and valuable good suggestions. Your approval was a great honor for us., and we have We had carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised them, the revised part is as follows:
- We made an effort to reduce long sentences into short ones, which have been marked with track in the text.
- Delete political statements in the article. (in the introduction, 2 conceptual connotations, and 3.1 elaboration in the text）
- Add reference citations to support the arguments of the article. ( As in section 3.1 of the paper, add citations to the resource concept definition article, and the argument for the importance of material resources)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing (shorten /break long statements in very few points
Response: Thanks to the expert for your valuable comments on my writing, we read through the whole text and shortened the long sentences into short ones. They have been marked in the text, such as the first paragraph on page 2, the last paragraph on page 4, page 5, page 6, etc.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the author has done a lot of work, I think this article may not be suitable for publication in SUS.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Although the author has done a lot of work, I think this article may not be suitable for publication in SUS.
Thank you for your valuable comments. But we still want to fight for it. The article submitted this time has been improved on the basis of the first version of t of language and argumentation, and we hope you will give us a chance. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The title of this study looked very promising so I was looking forward to reading it. After reading the manuscript for the third time I could say the following:
1. The topic is indeed very interesting and the work is original. I don't remember reading anything similar in the literature.
2. The research methods used in this study are fairly innovative. They are not necessarily new but, to my knowledge, they were not used in a similar context.
3. I am, however, very disappointed with the text of the manuscript. Everything screams "superficial". Firstly, the writing is not that good. What do I understand by "good writing"? Good writing is when the text is well-organized and presented in a logical way. It flows well: good writing means sentence fluency. It is focused, concise and clear. Yes, good writing includes accurate word choices and well-crafted sentences. When the writing is good everything makes sense and readers do not have to re-read passages to figure out what the author wants to say. Good grammar is also important, although when the author is not a native speaker, some mistakes are understandable. This manuscript has nothing of the qualities of good writing mentioned here. Firstly, one could tell that the authors did not spend a lot of time drafting the manuscript. Secondly, the manuscript was translated from Chinese using "google translate" or something similar and thirdly, the authors did not bother to proofread the English version of the manuscript. Figure 2 still has Chinese characters that were not translated. And finally the reference list at the end of the manuscript is not formatted according to the rules of the journal.
The text needs a thorough editing as many sentences are difficult to read or even incomprehensible.
I believe the manuscript was translated using a translation soft or platform. Thus we have sentences like:
"The term 'sharing' originally means 'sharing'".
Author Response
Reviewer3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The title of this study looked very promising so I was looking forward to reading it. After reading the manuscript for the third time I could say the following:
- The topic is indeed very interesting and the work is original. I don't remember reading anything similar in the literature.
- The research methods used in this study are fairly innovative. They are not necessarily new but, to my knowledge, they were not used in a similar context.
- I am, however, very disappointed with the text of the manuscript. Everything screams "superficial". Firstly, the writing is not that good. What do I understand by "good writing"? Good writing is when the text is well-organized and presented in a logical way. It flows well: good writing means sentence fluency. It is focused, concise and clear. Yes, good writing includes accurate word choices and well-crafted sentences. When the writing is good everything makes sense and readers do not have to re-read passages to figure out what the author wants to say. Good grammar is also important, although when the author is not a native speaker, some mistakes are understandable. This manuscript has nothing of the qualities of good writing mentioned here. Firstly, one could tell that the authors did not spend a lot of time drafting the manuscript. Secondly, the manuscript was translated from Chinese using "google translate" or something similar and thirdly, the authors did not bother to proofread the English version of the manuscript. Figure 2 still has Chinese characters that were not translated. And finally the reference list at the end of the manuscript is not formatted according to the rules of the journal.
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer by this great suggestion.
- Thank you very much for your innovative recognition of our research topic. Inspired by both the theory of "digital economy" and the theory of "sharing", the article extends the concept of "resource sharing", which first appeared in the library field, to the tourism industry. The atricle then explores the conceptual model of "resource sharing" in the context of tourism industry and the resource sharing situation in the 31 provinces in China, with a view to making a modest contribution to the innovative development of tourism industry.
2.We are pleasantly surprised and grateful for your innovative recognition of the research methodology of our article. After reading a lot of literature, the article refers to the article published by Li Li and other scholars in 2019 — “Conceptual Model and Empirical Research on the value of perceived tourism poverty alleviation by residents in ethnic”areas". Inspired by it, this article uses factor analysis in constructing the conceptual model and measures the resource sharing of 31 provinces and cities using the combined factor score situation. The paper then analyzes the resource sharing situation in China from different perspectives, including regional cross-sectional dimension and time vertical dimension.
3.We apologize for the wrong way the article was written in English, and we accept your criticism. It is true that the article was initially translated into English using a translation software, and since citation writing is not really our strong point, we did not check it carefully. We apologize for our incorrect English writing style and carelessness. We have read through the entire article and carefully revised and checked the manuscript in the hope of reducing the number of errors.
-Figure 2 has been carefully revised and the Chinese characters have been translated into English.
-We have modified the reference format to follow the standard format.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The text needs a thorough editing as many sentences are difficult to read or even incomprehensible.
I believe the manuscript was translated using a translation soft or platform. Thus we have sentences like:
"The term 'sharing' originally means 'sharing'".
Response: We are grateful to the reviewer by this great suggestion. We are sorry that our poor English writing has caused you a bad reading experience. We have re-edited our article.
The sentence was modified to “The term ‘sharing’ originally means to be shared”.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Looks good
Far from perfect but better.
