The Influence of Capability, Business Innovation, and Competitive Advantage on a Smart Sustainable Tourism Village and Its Impact on the Management Performance of Tourism Villages on Java Island

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper explores the influence of capability, business innovation, and competitive advantage on smart sustainable tourism villages in Java Island, Indonesia, and their impact on the management performance of independent tourism villages. The study aims to provide insights into the development of sustainable tourism villages and their potential contributions to the broader sustainable development goals.

Here are my comments and suggestions:

Abstract: The abstract of the article lacks clarity and conciseness. It fails to provide a clear summary of the research objectives, methodology, and findings. The ideas are presented in a fragmented and disorganized manner, making it difficult to follow the main argument and key points of the study. The abstract should be revised to provide a clear and concise overview of the study's purpose, methods, and main findings.

Introduction: The introduction section does not provide sufficient background information on the topic of smart sustainable tourism villages and their management in Java Island. It would benefit from including a brief overview of the current state of tourism in the region and the significance of studying the influence of capability, business innovation, and competitive advantage. Additionally, the section lacks a clear research gap or problem statement that would justify the need for the study.

Literature Review: The literature review section lacks coherence and clarity in presenting previous research studies. The paragraphs seem disconnected, and there is a lack of integration and synthesis of the cited sources. It would benefit from a more comprehensive overview of the existing literature on the topic and a critical analysis of the methodologies, limitations, and key findings of previous studies. Additionally, proper citation formatting and consistent referencing should be ensured throughout the section. The three dimensions of sustainability, namely environmental, social, and economic, are not explicitly addressed. The article primarily focuses on capability, business innovation, competitive advantage, and management performance of independent tourism villages in java island. While these aspects are important for understanding the dynamics of tourism villages, the absence of explicit discussion on the broader sustainability dimensions limits the comprehensive assessment of the overall sustainability of these villages. A thorough literature review is essential to establish the research gap and provide a strong theoretical foundation for the study.

For the social dimension of sustainability discussion, I suggest:

Santos, E. (2023). From Neglect to Progress: Assessing Social Sustainability and Decent Work in the Tourism Sector. Sustainability, 15(13), 10329.

Santos, E., & Moreira, J. (2021). Social Sustainability of Water and Waste Management Companies in Portugal. Sustainability, 14(1), 221.

 

Data and Methods: The section on data and methods lacks sufficient detail to understand the research design and data collection procedures. Key information, such as the research approach (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods), sampling technique, and questionnaire items, is missing. Additionally, the validity and reliability tests are mentioned but not elaborated upon, leaving readers without a clear understanding of how the instrument was validated. The section should be revised to provide a more comprehensive and transparent description of the research methodology.

Results and Discussion: The presentation of hypothesis testing results lacks clarity and organization. The hypotheses are not clearly stated, and the results are presented in a tabular format without clear explanations or interpretations. It is crucial to provide a clear explanation of the findings, their significance, and their implications for the research questions and hypotheses. Additionally, the results should be integrated with the existing literature to discuss how they align or differ from previous research and to provide insights into the theoretical and practical implications.

Conclusions: The conclusions section does not provide a clear summary of the main findings and their implications. It lacks a comprehensive discussion of the limitations of the study, potential sources of bias, and suggestions for future research. The section should be revised to include a concise summary of the study's contributions, limitations, and recommendations for further investigation.

The article would benefit from improvements in its abstract, introduction, literature review, data and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions sections. Clarifying the research objectives, enhancing the coherence and integration of the literature review, providing more detailed descriptions of the research methodology, interpreting the results more clearly, and summarizing the main findings and their implications would significantly strengthen the article's quality and impact. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for your attention, we have revised the abstract section and completed improvements to the introduction and literature review. We have also cited some of Santos' theories regarding the social dimension (which you recommend). We hope that our paper can be published properly. We ask for your help and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Dear authors,

Your article has been improved, but you still have some aspects to add:

- The introduction does not reflect the title of the article. Big improvements are needed here.

- the gaps in the literature are missing from the introduction, as well as the structure of the article - the literature review part needs major improvements

- the authors proposed 7 research hypotheses that are not reflected in the literature review

- for testing an SEM model, it is necessary to add the theoretical model with the hypotheses to be tested to the literature review part

- the authors do not explain the representativeness of the analyzed sample. Are 120 respondents enough for this study?

- furthermore, some acronyms in the article are not explained at all. The explanation of the acronyms must be added when they appear for the first time in the text.

- what are the research limits?

This is all!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for your review. I really appreciate it and try my best to make my article better. In intoduction, literature review, and research methodology section, we've been made some adjusment based on your review. I also want to clarify that my sample is 300 which meets the criteria for quantitative research. Also, here are my research limits:

1. The unit of analysis is in tourist villages on the island of Java because tourist villages on the island of Java provide good and adequate accessibility, accommodation and facilities and have a community that cares about tourism, so that the population of tourist villages on the island of Java is good and appropriate to be used as a sample in research.
2. The types of tourist villages selected as objects in this study are developing tourist villages, advanced tourist villages, and independent tourist villages.
3. The observation unit is not tourists but managers who are directly involved in tourism activities in tourist villages

Thanks

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I appreciated the author(s) effort to improve the manuscripts.

However, they didn’t add any theory in literature review section. They just mentioned previous studies findings that related to their topics.

Thanks for your input. We’ve been added literature review section which accommodate theory that supports the model

Secondly, I specifically and clearly explained that they can’t/shouldn’t/must not coveriate error varience if the errors are not in the same factor but they did again and explanation is unacceptable. You can’t play or change the paths to reach a good fit indices.

 ‘so it is necessary to modify the model to reduce the Chi-Square value so that the model becomes fit by making covariance between indicators that have Modification Value Indices (M.I) biggest. In Modification Indices, the covariances between e8 and e52 are selected; e8 with e54; and the covariance between e52 and e41. so that it can be seen in the full SEM model that the value is fit.’

 

I can’t deny that they added a huge section in the Discussion section which makes the manuscript is better but not adequate because of the above two major absences. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for your attention, we have revised our article based on your input. We hope that our paper can be published properly. 

Thanks

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors,

I am satisfied with the changes made to the manuscript.

Regards

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1, for your help and direction, we thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Dear authors,

Here are my findings:

- considering the previous recommendations, the authors have solved only the point regarding the introduction and literature review.

- the other recommendations remained unresolved.

Unresolved recommendations are:

- the authors proposed 7 research hypotheses that are not enunciated in the literature review

- the theoretical model with the hypotheses are mising to the literature review part

- the authors do not explain the representativeness of the analyzed sample. Are 120 respondents enough for this study?

- furthermore, some acronyms in the article are not explained at all. The explanation of the acronyms must be added when they appear for the first time in the text.

- what are the research limits?

I recommend that table 1 should be moved to an annex to this article!


Best wishes

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thanks for your input. We've been made some changes based on your review. First of all, we have included 7 hypotheses in the literature review section. Secondly, we've revised our respondents from 120 to 360 respondents. Previously, we only included 120 respondents from 4 tourist villages, and now we have revised it to include 360 respondents from 12 tourist villages. This means that there are 30 respondents from one tourist village. And finally, we also added some acronym's explanation and added research limits. 

Again, we appreciate your review and your help to make this article better

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

P.18 lines 602-604, 'In Modification Indices, the covariances between e8 and e52 are selected; e8 with e54; and 603 covariances between e52 and e41 to obtain the Full Model SEM diagram in Figure 3.' This is not acceptable and changes the all the scores in Table 4. 

You can do error covariance between e1-e3-e6-e8 but you can't do e8 with e54 because they are not in the same factor.

I specifically and clearly explained that they can’t/shouldn’t/must not coveriate error varience if the errors are not in the same factor but they did again and explanation is unacceptable. You can’t play or change the paths to reach a good fit indices.

Sample size is not adequate (120) or representative and can be the main reasons why the statitistical results are bad.

AVE scores for two factors (TVMP, CA) are less than treshold (0.5) which show that they are not valid.

Majority of hypotheses were not accepted. 

Those issues are major issues and under the circumstances I have to reject this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

We'd like to thank you for your time reviewing our article. So, based on your review, here are our response:

P.18 lines 602-604, 'In Modification Indices, the covariances between e8 and e52 are selected; e8 with e54; and 603 covariances between e52 and e41 to obtain the Full Model SEM diagram in Figure 3.' This is not acceptable and changes the all the scores in Table 4. 

Response : Thank you for the advice, here we recalculate according to the respondents we revised, namely as many as 360 respondents. So that the full SEM model diagram does not need to be modified because it meets the recommended values.

You can do error covariance between e1-e3-e6-e8 but you can't do e8 with e54 because they are not in the same factor.

Response : Thank you for the suggestion, after recalculating and adding the number of respondents from the previous 120 to 360 respondents, it was found that there was no need for modification between covariances.

I specifically and clearly explained that they can’t/shouldn’t/must not coveriate error varience if the errors are not in the same factor but they did again and explanation is unacceptable. You can’t play or change the paths to reach a good fit indices.

Response : Thank you for the advice, we no longer do covariance between indicators because the values already meet the recommended values. This is because we increased the number of respondents from the previous 120 to 360 or from 4 villages to 12 villages. Thank you in advance.

Sample size is not adequate (120) or representative and can be the main reasons why the statitistical results are bad.

Response : Thanks for the input. We've revised and added it to 360 respondents. A total of 360 respondents came from 12 tourist villages on the island of Java.

AVE scores for two factors (TVMP, CA) are less than treshold (0.5) which show that they are not valid.

Response : After recalculation and increasing the number of respondents, the AVE score obtained for all variables meets the minimum limit value of (0.05).

Majority of hypotheses were not accepted. After adding respondents, correcting data, and re-counting, we get 4 hypotheses that have an effect accepted hypothesis and 3 rejected hypotheses out of the total number of hypotheses, namely 7 hypotheses.

Those issues are major issues and under the circumstances I have to reject this manuscript.

Response : We apologize in advance, we have corrected as much as possible the errors in this manuscript. Hopefully, the current fix can be accepted and hopefully this manuscript can be published. Thank you very much.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thanks for allowing me to see significant improvement in this paper. Now, it seems that it is much better than the first version (the author(s) made a huge effort to improve the manuscript). It would be a quality addition to the Sustainability.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the manuscript "The Influence of Capability, Business Innovation, and Competitive Advantage on Smart Sustainable Tourism Village and Its Impact on Management Performance of Independent Tourism Villages in Java Island" for Sustainability.

 

The paper aims to examine the effect of capability, business innovation and competitive advantage on the smart sustainable tourism village and the impact on the performance of the management of independent tourism villages in Java Island. The authors use Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to investigate their hypotheses.

 

The topic should be relevant to the readers of the journal, and the subject is interesting and important. The paper is not well written and should be sent to a language editor. Please see below for more comments. Based on the comments below, I recommend revise and resubmit. 

 

Comments:

1.      Line 19-21: There are too many details here for an abstract. Stick to mentioning the econometric method used to and give a general description of the results.

2.      Line 23-27: This level of detail is for the econometric results chapter, not for the abstract. The abstract show be more general.

3.      Line 61-62: Independent village, advanced tourism village, and tourism village should be defined for the reader.

4.      Line 81-82: One of the many examples of writing that can be improved is: "Grows that the problem that arises in increasing the competitiveness of the tourism village industry is lagging ..."

5.      Line 92: Presenting a score of 4.7 without mentioning the maximum attainable score is not very meaningful.

6.      Line 119-129: You mention that "The sampling technique used in this study was accidental." An explanation is needed as to how this may affect the econometric results, relative to other sampling techniques.

7.      Line 239: Another example of poor writing: "Finally, you can also combine the two as done [28]."

8.      Line 286-287:  A noun is missing in this sentence: "Detect normality by looking at the spread of data (points) on the diagonal axis of the graph.

9.      Lines 293-300: Heteroscedasticity test. The standard approach in regression is to estimate using standard errors that are robust for heteroscedasticity, not claiming that there is no heteroscedasticity based on a scatterplot when a test is already concluding that there are heteroscedasticity issues.

10.  Figure 3 is pasted straight from the econometrics software and does not look good. Where are the asterisks? Why do you show both unstandardized and standardized coefficients? The table is a regression output table and not a heteroscedasticity test result, as indicated in its name. However, you claim that the last column is a test for heteroscedasticity. What kind of test is this?

11.  Figure 3. None of the coefficients are significant. Please comment.

12.  Line 305: A visual inspection of a scatterplot is not a satisfactory test for heteroscedasticity.

13.  Line 320: Regression model II is not defined anywhere. What table are you referring to?

14.  Lines 320 and 326: referring to the "coefficient section” and the "Model summary" is not very precise.

15.  Line 336: Where is this hypothesis specified? In Table 3, but that is later in the manuscript. You need to define the hypotheses before you refer to them.

16.  Lines 515-561: This belongs to the results section and not the conclusion. The conclusion should contain the following: Sum up what you set out to show and the extent to which you showed it. Summarize the issue you investigated, how you did it, and what your results are. Show how your work advances the field of study. Provide justifications for the work: applications and uses. What are the implications of your results for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers? No trivial restatements of your results. Are there limitations or shortcomings in your results? Do you see any directions for future research?

 

 

 

See comments above.

Author Response

1. Line 19-21: There are too many details here for an abstract. Stick to mentioning the econometric method used to and give a general description of the results.
   Answer : Thanks, I've revised the results to be more descriptive.
2. Line 23-27: This level of detail is for the econometric results chapter, not for the abstract. The abstract show be more general.
   Answer: Thank you, I have revised lines 23-27 to be more descriptive.
3. Line 61-62: Independent village, advanced tourism village, and tourism village should be defined for the reader.
   Answer: All right, I have discussed the text regarding tourism villages in general, as well as independent tourism villages and advanced tourism villages.
4. Line 81-82: One of the many examples of writing that can be improved is: "Grows that the problem that arises in increasing the competitiveness of the tourism village industry is lagging ..."
   Answer: Thank you, I have corrected this sentence.
5. Line 92: Presenting a score of 4.7 without mentioning the maximum attainable score is not very meaningful.
   Answer: Thank you, please allow us to change this sentence into: Measurement of Indonesia's tourism competitiveness by the World Economic Forum in 2019 shows that the ICT readiness of the Indonesian tourism industry is still very low, namely by a score of 4.7 (Scores range from 1 to 7, where 1 = worst and 7 = best), also specifically measures the level of readiness of tourist villages in the Special Region of Yogyakarta in utilizing ICT [7].
6. Line 119-129: You mention that "The sampling technique used in this study was accidental." An explanation is needed as to how this may affect the econometric results, relative to other sampling techniques.
   Answer: Okay, thank you. We ask permission to revise where The sampling technique used in this study is a combination of probability sampling and non-probability sampling, namely simple random sampling and accidental sampling. This is because the individuals who were sampled in our study were managers of tourist villages. This means that the tourism village managers here are the village government and village tourism organizations/ Kelompok Sadar Wisata (POKDARWIS), both those who work in the managerial, scouting, homestay, cultural arts attractions, and tourist transportation sectors. Furthermore, for information, the average number of individuals who become managers in one tourist village (in Indonesia) is usually no more than 70-100 people. Not to mention, there are challenges and difficulties to meet them (tourist village managers) because many of them go out of town. This also forces us to choose accidental sampling with the assumption that any individuals (managers) who are found by chance in the field with the condition that they are managing village tourism, then these individuals are classified as samples/ research respondents.
7. Line 239: Another example of poor writing: "Finally, you can also combine the two as done [28]."
   Answer: Thank you, we have revised the sentence to be more meaningful.
8. Line 286-287:  A noun is missing in this sentence: "Detect normality by looking at the spread of data (points) on the diagonal axis of the graph.
   Answer: Thank you, we've added a noun.
9. Lines 293-300: Heteroscedasticity test. The standard approach in regression is to estimate using standard errors that are robust for heteroscedasticity, not claiming that there is no heteroscedasticity based on a scatterplot when a test is already concluding that there are heteroscedasticity issues.
   Answer: Thank you, we've revised and followed your input.
10. Figure 3 is pasted straight from the econometrics software and does not look good. Where are the asterisks? Why do you show both unstandardized and standardized coefficients? The table is a regression output table and not a heteroscedasticity test result, as indicated in its name. However, you claim that the last column is a test for heteroscedasticity. What kind of test is this?
    Answer: The results of the heteroscedasticity test are seen from the significance value not from the unstandardized and standardized coefficients. The significance value must be greater than 0.05. The table is the result of the calculation of the heteroscedasticity test (Glejser), which can be seen from the name a. dependent variable: Abs_Res (bottom left) even though the table name is coefficient.
11. Figure 3. None of the coefficients are significant. Please comment.
    Answer: All of the 4 variables have significant values because their values are above 0.05.
12. Line 305: A visual inspection of a scatterplot is not a satisfactory test for heteroscedasticity.
    Answer: Thank you for the advice. But even though testing in this way is not recommended, because it is very subjective and depends on the subjectivity of everyone who sees the graph. But there's no harm in trying this method.
13. Line 320: Regression model II is not defined anywhere. What table are you referring to?
    Answer: Thank you, we have revised it and have included the hypothesis in the Methodology section (Last sentence of the first paragraph). Then we have also added Figure Model II Path Coefficients and Model Summary.
14. Lines 320 and 326: referring to the "coefficient section” and the "Model summary" is not very precise.
    Answer: Please check again because we have included Figure Model II Path Coefficients and Model Summary images.
15. Line 336: Where is this hypothesis specified? In Table 3, but that is later in the manuscript. You need to define the hypotheses before you refer to them.
    Answer: We have included hypotheses 1-10 in the methodology section. Please check, hopefully answer what you mean.
16. Lines 515-561: This belongs to the results section and not the conclusion. The conclusion should contain the following: Sum up what you set out to show and the extent to which you showed it. Summarize the issue you investigated, how you did it, and what your results are. Show how your work advances the field of study. Provide justifications for the work: applications and uses. What are the implications of your results for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers? No trivial restatements of your results. Are there limitations or shortcomings in your results? Do you see any directions for future research?
    Answer: Thank you, we've revised the conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I read your article and appreciated the research idea.
The article needs some recommendations to improve the scientific quality, as follows:
- the title is inappropriate because it has 6 concepts (keywords) that make the research unfocused towards a certain aspect
- then, in abstract the authors listed a series of statistical tests without knowing what is the purpose of the research, what is the methodology, what are the main results and what is the novelty of the study
- then, in the introduction lacks the novelty of the study, the structure of the article, in addition some errors and meaningless phrases have crept in
- the article has no literature analysis: what does it refer to: Capability, Business Innovation, and Competitive Advantage on Smart Sustainable Tourism Village and Its Impact on Management Performance of Independent Tourism Villages? Moreover, the research hypotheses must be designed and extracted from a literature analysis! The article lacks research hypotheses.
- then, in the methodology part, an error appears in the interval included in the study: December 2022 to March 2033, the authors also talk about "a study that was accidental". What is he referring to?
- there are also problems with the sample, which is too small. Moreover, the authors do not explain the realization of the research instrument, which are the dependent, independent and control variables.
- point 3.1. it can be included in the methodology part where the structure of the sample can be explained
- also, the structure of the literature analysis can be based on the variables included in table 1
-in the table, do the statistical results have "point or comma"? In the English system, I know that the point is used.
- then, the authors presented a series of statistical tests through which it is not known what was tested because the research hypotheses are missing. Here too, the authors confuse tables with figures. For example, figure 2a, figure 3, figure 4, are actually some tables taken directly from the statistical program
- the authors on page 10 present the conclusions of some hypotheses that they did not state. Here the obtained results must be presented in comparison with the results of other studies
- at the discussion part, the authors presented the SEM model and then resumed the hypotheses. I believe that hypothesis testing should be presented in only one part of the work.
- likewise, when the authors presented the Multiple Linear Regression Test, they presented discussions for 10 hypotheses and on page 13, 7 hypotheses are presented.
- the authors have numbered 2 subchapters with 3.5
- the bibliographic references do not reflect the concepts included in the analysis.

That's all!

I hope that the recommendations I made will help you clarify this analysis!

Best wishes!

Author Response

- the title is inappropriate because it has 6 concepts (keywords) that make the research unfocused towards a certain aspect.

Thank you, it's true that the title we took is quite complex and has 6 keywords. But sorry, the title we chose doesn't exist in Indonesia at all, especially after analyzing 5 keywords (Capability, Business Innovation, Competitive Advantage, Smart Sustainable Tourism Village, Management Performance of Independent Tourism Villages in Java Island). Then at this time, the development of tourist villages in Indonesia is being intensively carried out by the Indonesian government, which has made tourism villages one of the priority development programs. On the other hand, the rapid influence of information technology in the 4.0 era has also accelerated the development of tourist villages where each tourist village is encouraged to carry the concept of a smart sustainable tourism village. this also ultimately encourages tourism villages to improve aspects of capability, innovation, and competitiveness. Based on these issues, it finally prompted us to analyze and test the effect of the various aspects and indicators that we built in this study. We consider that the title we built here can represent the needs of the development of a tourism village, especially in studying "The Influence of Capability, Business Innovation, and Competitive Advantage on Smart Sustainable Tourism Village and Its Impact on Management Performance of Independent Tourism Villages in Java Island."

 

- then, in abstract the authors listed a series of statistical tests without knowing what is the purpose of the research, what is the methodology, what are the main results and what is the novelty of the study. Thank you, we have revised the abstract.

- then, in the introduction lacks the novelty of the study, the structure of the article, in addition some errors and meaningless phrases have crept in. Please input from you so that we revise how many lines/ paragraphs, or even delete and add to how many parts. Thank you!

 

- the article has no literature analysis: what does it refer to: Capability, Business Innovation, and Competitive Advantage on Smart Sustainable Tourism Village and Its Impact on Management Performance of Independent Tourism Villages? Moreover, the research hypotheses must be designed and extracted from a literature analysis! The article lacks research hypotheses. Indeed, we did not carry out a literature analysis. We only include each research keyword in the background section and relate it to the phenomenon of tourist villages in Indonesia. While related to the hypothesis, we immediately review it in the results and discussion section. Please enter more from you, thank you.

 

- then, in the methodology part, an error appears in the interval included in the study: December 2022 to March 2033, the authors also talk about "a study that was accidental". What is he referring to?

Sorry, the interval we mean here is:

December 2022 – January 2023 we are compiling a research instrument,

February 2023 we researched on the ground

March 2023 we process the data to write down the results of the research.

 

We apologize for the revision regarding accidental sampling. The sampling technique used in this study is a combination of probability sampling and non-probability sampling, namely simple random sampling and accidental sampling. Simple random sampling is intended for sampling that provides equal opportunities for each manager of a tourist village. While the accidental technique is intended to accommodate any individual who meets the researcher by chance, it can be used as a sample, if it is deemed that the person met by chance is suitable as a data source. This means that in this case, the individuals involved are proactive in managing each element of the tourism village at the intervention site; both from the village government and tourism cooperatives to tour groups/ Kelompok Sadar Wisata (POKDARWIS) in the areas of scouting, transportation, accommodation, arts and in the field of agro-tourism.

 

- there are also problems with the sample, which is too small. Moreover, the authors do not explain the realization of the research instrument, which are the dependent, independent and control variables. Sorry, indeed the sampling we propose here seems small, but you need to understand that the respondents we took as research samples are active managers in a tourist village. It should be remembered that the number of managers in tourist villages (especially in Indonesia) is not that many. There are several Tourism Villages that only have active members/ managers of no more than 50 people. For example, in the Muntei tourism village in the Mentawai Islands there were only approximately 20 people who were declared active managers, then the tourism village in Cibuntu, Kuningan Regency, there were only about 35 active managers, and the most Nglanggeran Village in Gunung Kidul, around 95 people (and only half are classified as active managers).

- point 3.1. it can be included in the methodology part where the structure of the sample can be explained. Thanks for the input. Section 3.1 is empirical data from the profile of the respondent only, which is then analyzed descriptively.

- also, the structure of the literature analysis can be based on the variables included in table 1. Thanks for the input.

-in the table, do the statistical results have "point or comma"? In the English system, I know that the point is used. We are of the view that statistical results in tables require a “point or comma.” It is important to show the data in as much detail as possible, including for numbers/ numeric the number of decimal places required.

- then, the authors presented a series of statistical tests through which it is not known what was tested because the research hypotheses are missing. Here too, the authors confuse tables with figures. For example, figure 2a, figure 3, and figure 4 are some tables taken directly from the statistical program. Yes, for the hypothesis we immediately display it in the results and discussion section. Then, please enter more details, for example, do I need to delete images 2a, image 3, and image 4?

- the authors on page 10 present the conclusions of some hypotheses that they did not state. Here the obtained results must be presented in comparison with the results of other studies.

OK, we've revised it. We have included the research hypothesis in the Methodology section.

Hypothesis 1: Tourism Village Capability has a significant effect on Smart Sustainable Tourism Village in the management of tourist villages on Java Island

Hypothesis 2: Business Innovation has a significant effect on Smart Sustainable Tourism Village in the management of tourist villages on Java Island

Hypothesis 3: Competitiveness has a significant effect on Smart Sustainable Tourism Village in the management of tourist villages on Java Island

Hypothesis 4: The capability of the tourism village has a significant effect on the performance of the management of tourism villages on Java Island

Hypothesis 5: Business Innovation has a significant effect on the performance of the management of tourism villages on Java Island

Hypothesis 6: Competitiveness has a significant effect on the performance of the management of tourism villages on the island of Java

Hypothesis 7: Smart Sustainable Tourism Village has a significant effect on the performance of tourism village management on Java Island

Hypothesis 8: The capability of tourism villages has a significant effect on the performance of tourism village management in Java Island through Smart Sustainable Tourism Village.

Hypothesis 9: Business Innovation has a significant effect on the performance of tourism village management in Java Island through Smart Sustainable Tourism Village.

Hypothesis 10: Competitiveness has a significant effect on the performance of tourism village management in Java Island through Smart Sustainable Tourism Village.

- at the discussion part, the authors presented the SEM model and then resumed the hypotheses. I believe that hypothesis testing should be presented in only one part of the work. Thanks for the critical input. Here we do hypothesis testing using two software, namely SPSS and SEM AMOS software to enrich and reinforce the data. We are sorry to ask, in your opinion which part should we delete? with SPSS or SEM AMOS software? Your input means a lot to us, thank you.

 

- likewise, when the authors presented the Multiple Linear Regression Test, they presented discussions for 10 hypotheses and on page 13, 7 hypotheses are presented. You are right, therefore, which hypothesis test should we remove? Are the 10 hypotheses using SPSS or 7 hypotheses using SEM AMOS?

- the authors have numbered 2 subchapters with 3.5

We've revised it. Thank You.

- the bibliographic references do not reflect the concepts included in the analysis. Thank you, our perspective is here to enrich the writing only

Reviewer 3 Report

        Thank you for allowing me to review this paper. However, I have several suggestions for the improvement of manuscripts, such as the following:

Abstract

1.     P.1 X1-X4, Y and Z. Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each sections. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form. Please use those Tourism Village Capability, Business Innovation, Competitive Advantage, Smart Sustainable Tourism Village, Tourism Village Management Performance instead of X,Y, Z.

2.     I would suggest that the author summarize the implications and limitations sections in a few sentences, and those sentences should be more specific instead of general.

Introduction

3.     One of the biggest issues in this paper was forgetting cite of the previous studies. Starting from the first sentences and continuing until the end of the manuscript, several sentences need in-text references or citations (e.g., for example, Page 1. Lines 37; 41; p. 2 line 52; etc.). We should be more careful with in-text citations or references, especially when we are emphasizing or showing the importance of something and sharing statistical information, such as p.1, "externally sensitive or vulnerable" Hence, find those sentences and similar sentences and add a citation at the end of the sentence.

4.     I suggest the authors write a captivating introduction, including the research problem. I would like to see 'What is the problem or the gap, why you are doing this study, how this study contributes to the literature, or/and how does this study fill the gap?' The authors mentioned briefly but they should emphasize those more.

L.R

5.     Please identify those variables: Tourism Village Capability, Business Innovation, Competitive Advantage, Smart Sustainable Tourism Village, Tourism Village Management. Write and explain each of the variable in L.R.

6.     What is the theory that supports the model and/or the author's claim or idea? Please, write a section about the theory with a few paragraphs examines or supports the relations.

Methods

7.     Please, prefer to use convenient sampling instead of accidental.

8.     Can you mention more the study area? Where is located, population, geography, etc.

9.     The model is simple.

10.  P.10 Hypothesis test shows that majority of the relation were rejected (5/7) which is one of the biggest concern for me.

Discussion and Conclusion

11.  Figure 7 has a mistake, the authors shouldn’t do error variance with different variables.

12.  Table. 4 has a mistake, the total effect of last hypo wasn’t 70% it should be 7%. Hence, the authors also need to fix p.15 line 502 it is not greatest instead it was the smallest effect.

13.  The study's contribution to theory needs to be clarified, noticeable, or evident. Please, consider rewriting or improving the sections' implications of the research because it was too short, authors wrote just a few sentences (i.e., improve the practical implication and theoretical implication).

14.  The author(s) only wrote the result of the study and didn't compare them with previous studies in detail. In other words, they just wrote similar to previous studies or consistent with previous studies. I would like to know what those studies found, where they did in their study, and what they explored.

I wish the author(s) the best of luck with the revision.              

Author Response

Abstract

1. P.1 X1-X4, Y and Z. Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each sections. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form. Please use those Tourism Village Capability, Business Innovation, Competitive Advantage, Smart Sustainable Tourism Village, Tourism Village Management Performance instead of X,Y, Z. Thank you for your input. We have revised the abstract section.
2. I would suggest that the author summarize the implications and limitations sections in a few sentences, and those sentences should be more specific instead of general. Ok, thanks for your input. We are ready to revise the section if it needs to be revised. please provide a detailed note on which part we need to revise.

Introduction

3. One of the biggest issues in this paper was forgetting cite of the previous studies. Starting from the first sentences and continuing until the end of the manuscript, several sentences need in-text references or citations (e.g., for example, Page 1. Lines 37; 41; p. 2 line 52; etc.). We should be more careful with in-text citations or references, especially when we are emphasizing or showing the importance of something and sharing statistical information, such as p.1, "externally sensitive or vulnerable" Hence, find those sentences and similar sentences and add a citation at the end of the sentence. Thanks a lot for the input. The first sentence in the first paragraph is the introductory sentence that we made and is reinforced by the second sentence that we quote from Guifang & Jianchun, (2021). Then for p. 2 line 52 (or rather in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sentences) are sentences that stand alone or do not quote other people's opinions. We understand what you mean, and we also understand how to cite theories or opinions of others to be included in the manuscript.
4. I suggest the authors write a captivating introduction, including the research problem. I would like to see 'What is the problem or the gap, why you are doing this study, how this study contributes to the literature, or/and how does this study fill the gap?' The authors mentioned briefly but they should emphasize those more. Well, we have added to the research problem according to the variables we built. Please take a look at the background and paragraphs 3 and 4 to be precise. Thank you.

L.R 

5. Please identify those variables: Tourism Village Capability, Business Innovation, Competitive Advantage, Smart Sustainable Tourism Village, Tourism Village Management. Write and explain each of the variable in L.R. In a given context, several variables can be identified:

Tourism Village Capability: This variable refers to the ability or capability of a tourism village to develop, manage, and provide attractive tourism experiences. This capability can cover aspects such as tourism infrastructure, human resources, quality of tourism products, promotions, and services.

Business Innovation: This variable reflects the level of innovation or the ability of the tourism village to develop new ideas, products, services, or business strategies that are creative and unique. Business innovation can involve the use of new technologies, innovative business models, product improvements, or new ways of meeting traveler needs and preferences.

 

Competitive Advantage: This variable refers to the factors that differentiate a tourist village from other tourism destinations and provide an advantage over the competition. Competitive advantage can involve aspects such as unique local culture and heritage, natural beauty, quality of products and services, competitive prices, or unique tourist experiences.

Smart Sustainable Tourism Village: This variable reflects efforts to develop smart and sustainable tourism villages through the use of information and communication technology (ICT) and environmentally friendly practices. The concept of a sustainable smart tourism village involves the use of ICT in tourism management and promotion, environmental protection, community participation, and economic sustainability.

Tourism Village Management: This variable covers the process of managing a tourism village as a whole, including planning, organizing, coordinating, implementing, and evaluating various activities related to tourism in the village. Tourism village management involves aspects such as infrastructure arrangement, product and tourist attraction development, promotion, human resource training, and risk management.

Sorry, the LR in your question may be referring to an abbreviation that isn't clear in this context, so I can't provide an accurate explanation. If you have further explanation or clarification, then I'd be happy to answer.

6. What is the theory that supports the model and/or the author's claim or idea? Please, write a section about the theory with a few paragraphs examines or supports the relations.

We’ve been added that

Methods

7. Please, prefer to use convenient sampling instead of accidental. OK, we've fixed it to convenient sampling.
8. Can you mention more the study area? Where is located, population, geography, etc. Thank you for the question. We don't think it's necessary, just writing down the location and profile of the respondent we think is enough. Because the population, geography, climate, etc are written down, it will certainly contain many additional paragraphs. This is because the research location (tourism village) which is used as the research locus is located in 4 different cities and provinces. This means that each tourist village has a different population and geographic characteristics.
9. The model is simple. We agree it is related to the model is quite simple. However, the strength of this research is the issue of tourism villages with variables and indicators closely related to the current conditions of tourism village development in Indonesia. Furthermore, the strength of this study lies in the systematic and objective statistical testing.
10. P.10 Hypothesis test shows that majority of the relation were rejected (5/7) which is one of the biggest concern for me. Thanks for the critical input. The majority of relationships are indeed rejected (5/7). Why is the biased hypothesis rejected?

• Because sometimes the hypothesis does not give results according to the expectations of the research. We have tried hard to use research procedures properly and correctly in conducting statistical tests, and it turns out that the data does give results as is (the majority of some relations are rejected).
• Because it uses the scientific method, research certainly has tolerance for doubts that arise over a statement or conclusion, has the will to question everything, has the desire to carry out various tests, and opens up opportunities for conflict with one another. Thus, the research results are open to differ from one another, criticize one another, and even contradict each other. For example, if there is an opinion that states "The point is it has to be significant !", then my suggestion is that it is better not to just research it because you are 100% sure it is significant. Logically, if you are sure that the relationship between the two variables studied is "definitely" significant, then there is no need for hypothesis testing and statistical tests. Just believe it, and don't need to be researched. Because in our opinion, the scientific way of thinking starts with doubt, that's why scientific proof is carried out.

Discussion and Conclusion

11. Figure 7 has a mistake, the authors shouldn’t do error variance with different variables. I'd like to apologize, we have executed the SEM model according to the procedure. Please allow us to display the attachment to provide a more detailed understanding. We present the presentation section on the last page. Thank you for your critical note.
12. Table. 4 has a mistake, the total effect of last hypo wasn’t 70% it should be 7%. Hence, the authors also need to fix p.15 line 502 it is not greatest instead it was the smallest effect. You are absolutely right, thanks for your very detailed correction.
13. The study's contribution to theory needs to be clarified, noticeable, or evident. Please, consider rewriting or improving the sections' implications of the research because it was too short, authors wrote just a few sentences (i.e., improve the practical implication and theoretical implication). 
    We’ve been added implication of the research in conclusion section
14. The author(s) only wrote the result of the study and didn't compare them with previous studies in detail. In other words, they just wrote similar to previous studies or consistent with previous studies. I would like to know what those studies found, where they did in their study, and what they explored.

We already compared the result from previous studies in result section

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments were addressed in a satisfactory way. However, as the two other reviewers point out, there are issues with the methodology. I therefore recommend rejection.

The writing has significantly improved

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

My comments were addressed in a satisfactory way. However, as the two other reviewers point out, there are issues with the methodology. I therefore recommend rejection.

 

Response : We’ve been improving and reviewing our articles based on your previous review and other reviewer. Please kindly to check our latest draft.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I'm sorry, but my recommendations were treated superficially!

The article needs major improvements!

Best wishes!

Author Response

Dear authors,

I'm sorry, but my recommendations were treated superficially!

The article needs major improvements!

Best wishes!

Response : Thanks for all your suggestions. We’ve been looking your previous review back and forth and looking which point was missed out and this is our draft after considering your deep review. Again, We’are so thankful for your input.

Reviewer 3 Report

This revised version is better than previous one but still there is a need for improvement. 

 

1.     What is the theory that supports the model and/or the author's claim or idea? Please, write a section about the theory with a few paragraphs examines or supports the relations.

The authors claimed that they have been added the theory but I didnt see it  anywhere. Hence, I want see the theory that supports the model.

 

 

2.     Figure 7 has a mistake, the authors shouldn’t do error covariance with different variables. But again they didn't do any changes.

 Please allow us to display the attachment to provide a more detailed understanding. We present the presentation section on the last page. Thank you for your critical note.

I mean that you can't coveriate e8 with e52  and e54 they are not in the same factor. Also, you can't coveriate e52 and e41 for the same reason. Those can change all CFA and SEM fit indicies scores hence redo the anaysis and change the figure 7 and fit indices depends on it.

 

3.     Table. 4 has a mistake, the total effect of last hypo wasn’t 70% it should be 7%. Hence, the authors also need to fix p.15 line 502 it is not greatest instead it was the smallest effect.

You are absolutely right, thanks for your very detailed correction.

Once again they didn't change p. 16 line 565. It will be smallest not greatest. 

I wish the author(s) the best of luck with the revision.             

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for all of your valuable suggestions and critiques. We kindly request permission to respond to your criticisms and suggestions. Additionally, we have made revisions to several important points in our journal manuscript, which we have highlighted in dark blue to facilitate your analysis.

We appreciate your attention to detail and expertise in reviewing our work. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and made the necessary changes accordingly:

1. What is the theory that supports the model and/or the author's claim or idea? Please, write a section about the theory with a few paragraphs examines or supports the relations.

The authors claimed that they have been added the theory but I didnt see it  anywhere. Hence, I want see the theory that supports the model.

Response : We've been added several theory which support the relation to all variables in literature review

2. Figure 7 has a mistake, the authors shouldn’t do error covariance with different variables. But again they didn't do any changes.

 Please allow us to display the attachment to provide a more detailed understanding. We present the presentation section on the last page. Thank you for your critical note.

I mean that you can't coveriate e8 with e52  and e54 they are not in the same factor. Also, you can't coveriate e52 and e41 for the same reason. Those can change all CFA and SEM fit indicies scores hence redo the anaysis and change the figure 7 and fit indices depends on it.

Response : I apologize in advance, the results of the CFA calculation show that the value is fit, but after the model is changed to SEM it doesn't fit. From the path diagram, the full SEM model is not fit because the Chi-Square value is 197.017 with a probability (P) ≤ 0.05 which is 0.002 so it is necessary to modify the model to reduce the Chi-Square value so that the model becomes fit by making covariance between indicators that have Modification Value Indices (M.I) biggest. In Modification Indices, the covariances between e8 and e52 are selected; e8 with e54; and the covariance between e52 and e41. so that it can be seen in the full SEM model that the value is fit.

3. Table. 4 has a mistake, the total effect of last hypo wasn’t 70% it should be 7%. Hence, the authors also need to fix p.15 line 502 it is not greatest instead it was the smallest effect.

You are absolutely right, thanks for your very detailed correction.

Once again they didn't change p. 16 line 565. It will be smallest not greatest. 

Response : Thanks for reminding us and sorry for our mistakes. We've been revised it.

Once again, we express our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We believe that your feedback has significantly enhanced the overall quality of our research. We remain committed to addressing any further concerns or suggestions you may have.

Thank you for your continued support and guidance throughout this review process.

 

Sincerely,

Amrullah, et al

Author Response File: Author Response.docx