Switzerland? The Best Choice for Accommodation in Europe for Skiing in the 2023 Season

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

dear authors, thanks for responding to my comments. i am satisfied with your reply. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your remarks. These remarks helped us to increase the quality of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear Author,

Still Fig 1 needs scale.

 

Please also think about Table 5. Should it definitely be a table or rather a figure?

 

This must be corrected before being sent to print.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your remarks. These remarks helped us to increase the quality of the paper.
I modified the figures as you suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

It is well done.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your remarks. These remarks helped us to increase the quality of the paper.

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

Dear authors, pleas expand the theoretical contribution by applying a suitable theory regarding consumer behavior. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Switzerland? The best choice of accommodation in Europe for skiing in the 2023 season

The title of the paper is very interesting and implies new approaches to the scientific inquiry under consideration. However, the content is very repetitive and does not contribute to the body of knowledge. My detailed comments are summarized as follows:

Abstract:

The abstract of the manuscript is well written, but should reflect the following dimensions of an acceptable abstract:

Research aim: This is not clear.

Research gap: It is not reflected.

The research method is not covered.

Findings should be revisited.

The recommendation is a missing element.

As a reader, I did not see all these components in the abstract. Thus, it should be revised to reflect these underlined basic components of an academic paper abstract.

Introduction

The introduction of the manuscript is not written in an academic way.  This section is written in a form of a summary of the research rather than an introduction to the research. It should have discussed the literature to some extent and reflected the research gap.

Once I have read the introduction and introduction, I lost my motivation to read the paper further. However, as a friendly reviewer, I have carefully read the papers.

 

Theoretical background

This section looks like a section of an internet-based website. It does not reflect any critical perspective to establish a conceptual framework to guide the discussion throughout the paper. In brief, the literature review is superficial and not critical enough to reflect the knowledge gap in the literature.

 

Hypothesis

To develop a hypothesis, first, we need to establish a theoretical framework. In the absence of an acceptable theoretical framework, proposing a hypothesis is not a scientific practice

Methodology

The manuscript utilized a quantitative approach. However, the data collection instrument is not clear. Moreover, it is not clear what kinds of variables are determined to collect and analyze data.

My further skepticism on methodology is based on the following issues:

-             What is the research population?

-             Why do you think that the current responses are representatives of the research population?

-             Did you conduct any pilot tests? There is no evidence of the pilot test. Without a pilot, it is impossible to ensure the validity of the questions and questionnaires.

-             The validity of the data collection instruments is doubtful.   How did the authors ensure the validity of the data collection instrument? There is not enough information in this context.

Discussion

Lack of in-depth reflections due to the lack of a critical theoretical framework.

Overall decision as a reader:

 

I would like to congratulate the authors on writing this interesting paper. However, I would not recommend this article to be published in this Journal due to my critical perspectives and comments provided above.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is of great methodological value in the analysis of large databases. It provides an opportunity for other authors to get an idea of current trends in terms of the issues selected for analysis. Perhaps the presented research methodology can be used to solve other problems. I recommend publication of this manuscript.

 

After studying the text, the following comments emerge:

Fig 1 needs scale.

The paragraph in lines 376-380 is a conclusion and should be moved to the last part of the manuscript.

Similarly, the paragraph in lines 403-405, should be moved to the last part of the manuscript. In doing so, the significance of the results obtained for the research discipline in methodological terms needs to be emphasised even more clearly.

It should also be made clearer in which direction the authors intend to extend the research.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper needs to be organized again.

Method and literature review needs to be presented.

Also, the authors need to present the method more logocally. Including data, analysis, and suitability.

Is there any hypothesis or research goal?

It should be clearly presented.