Next Article in Journal
Fruit Image Classification Model Based on MobileNetV2 with Deep Transfer Learning Technique
Previous Article in Journal
The Spatial Effect of Industrial Intelligence on High-Quality Green Development of Industry under Environmental Regulations and Low Carbon Intensity
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Elucidating International Travelers’ Tourism Image of Taiwan: A Qualitative Approach

Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 1905; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031905
by Tsung-Hung Lee 1,*, Chung-Jen Fu 2,3,* and Mei-Hsiang Chen 4
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4:
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 1905; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031905
Submission received: 20 November 2022 / Revised: 29 December 2022 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 19 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      The specific conclusions drawn from the study need to be clearly stated in the abstract.

2.      In keywords, international travelers can be added.

3.      Authors should explain the reason for choosing Elephant Mountain, Xiangtan Lake, and Chiayi City as case studies, especially the similarities and differences between them.

4.      The layout format of the picture needs further adjustment, for example, the title of Figure 1 should be placed directly below the picture.

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using blue colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The phrases in lines 59-70 should be re-written as it is ambigous.

Idem 109-116.

The sample size is really small. it should also be corelated with the tourist profile visiting Taiwan

The mention of ecotourism in discussion has no basis in the research.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using green colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The sample size (24 international tourists) looks like too small comparing to the number of tourists to get proved results - please, explain that is not the case. The reason to select places where interviews were conducted should be provided. The reason why the data gathered 5 years ago (November, 2017 and August, 2018) is still appropriate for decision making should be presented.

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using green colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article carries out a qualitative research on the changes in the perceived tourist image of Taiwan, through surveys of 24 international tourists.

The research is of interest both for its methodology and for the results obtained. However, before being published, some changes could be introduced that, in the opinion of this reviewer, would improve the article:

- In the introduction, the third paragraph (lines 54 to 70) must have more bibliographic references to explain these assertions.

- In the second section, I miss a reference to the work of John Urry, "The tourist gaze". I believe that it is a valid reference work that should be used when we investigate the behavior of tourists.

- In the Methodology section, in addition to a repetition error (lines 179-180), it should be explained in more detail how the Consensus maps are built, since it is the fundamental element of the following sections.

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using purple (or green) colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This version of the manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. The manuscript is scientifically sound better and can be recommended for the publication.

Back to TopTop