Clustering Travelers’ Lifestyle Destination Image from Five Asian Traveler-Generated Content

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study investigates a well-needed research topic in a timely manner from an interesting point of view. 

In order to justify the research objective(s), however, I recommend that the authors should revise supporting arguments and evidences, especially on the process of destination image formation (chapter 2.1.), and the role of traveler-generated content from social media from the perspective of organic information source (chapter 2.3.).

There are some typological and grammatical errors (e.g., line: 78, 663, and the note in the Table 7), in-text citation errors (line: 217), an erroneous use of acronym (line: 134). Please revise them.

Lastly, I recommend that the authors should address more theoretical implications.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for the review our article. I already modified my articles following your suggestions. On the other hand, I rewrote the literature section 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and dressed the theoretical implications in conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the manuscript should specify the purpose / the research goal of the study in the introductory text based on the title statement.

It is necessary to clarify the theoretical and hence the empirical relationship between lifestyle from one hand and destination image components (cognitive, affective and conative) on the other.

On row 305 - 306 it is necessary the correlation findings between the travelers' destination image and cognitive impressions to be additionally explained.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for reviewing our article. I follow your opinions rewriting  several paragraph:

1. I dress the research purpose, and add three research questions based on the following sections.
2. I corrected the grammar problems. 
3. I connected the relationship between theoretical and empirical practice.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

The authors explored destination image formation through text mining analysis in 5 Asian international destinations. It is a nice try for you to submit your manuscript and absorb comments and suggestions. To publish a paper successfully, the following are my comments:

 

I'm afraid the manuscript's theme with content analysis is well-studied, and I can't see more value in your current introduction, which leads to a low theoretical contribution.

Additionally, there are a few problems in the introduction section. 1) I suggest the authors re-order the references in the manuscript. 2) you have numerous problems with referencing, such as [17, 53, 39, 33, 34, 24]. See recent works to better understand how to cite references in-text correctly. 3) the full name should be indicated when the abbreviation first appears. See TGC and DI. 4) page 2, lines 46-47. did the authors want to say "destination image formation"? 5) page 2, line 62. what is the meaning of the sentence "Furthermore, Hong Kong, Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan were similar." here?

 

The major problem of the literature review section is that the arguments are unclear. And following are some content problems.

1) Page 2, lines 78-79. what does the sentence "A great majority of researchers, destination image between advantages and disadvantages and tourist satisfaction has a positive relationship" mean? 2) Page 3, line 99. misspelled words. Page 3, line 125; page 4, line 217. there appeared to be a different citing format from the other reference. 3) Page 4, lines 177-178. expression problems.

 

In the methodology section, I recommend the authors briefly re-write this section and clear the study method, the analyzing process, and the measurement that guarantees the scientific and the normative nature. Following are some minor problems.

1) The content of 3.1 introducing the content resource is not convincing. 2) figure 1 is too narrow to see the words. 3) page 6, lines 261-262. what does the sentence "Next, our research utilized [53] to use words or phrases that classify six relatives effectively..." mean?

 

In the research findings section, the key information in the tables and figure should be highlighted, and some notes should be added for readers' review.

Besides, there is a mistake on page 8, line 325, that table 1 should be corrected as table 2.

 

In conclusion, I wonder if the author submitted the wrong version of the paper. Otherwise, the authors should put more effort into the skill of paper writing and language expression through reading and learning prior works. And before submitting, a complete check would be a wise move. At last, good luck with paper-writing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for the review our article. I already modified my articles following your suggestions.

1. I reordered the reference, sorted the referencing, corrected the full name before abbreviations, rewrote the introduction, and modified the sentence.
2. I rewrote the literature section reducing the unclear sentence. 
3. In the methodology section, I rewrote the section 3.1. 
4. In the research findings section, I highlighted the key information and corrected the wrong table number.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

TGCp.2

Very interesting paper and rich data. In general, it is well written, clear description of methodology and data analysis part. The authors have done great literature analysis as they refer to a quite impressive list of sources and studies. Some comments for the improvements:

1) many times the authors make reference to the literature this way - they start a sentence with a source number in brackets (e.g., " [36] pointed...", "[18] utilizes content..." (p. 3);  "[41] utilizes... ", "[66] pointed out..." (p.4)) and then continue with their argument. It is strange. I suggest starting a sentence with mentioning particular author and then add the reference (e.g., Linda in her study [1] mentioned...").

2) The authors should choose one style of referencing. In some places in the text there are two, e.g. "...and holistic impressions [11,35] (Choi, Lehto, & Morrison, 2007; Leung, Law, & Lee, 2011)."(p.5)

3) All abbreviations when first mentioned in the text must be explained in full words (e.g., what is MRT here - "...and 259 transportation (such as, MRT) (p. 6).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for reviewing our article. I follow the opinions rewriting several paragraph:

1. Modifying the mentioning particular author, and stars with their names and following reference number.
2. Correcting the reference style with numbers, and explaining in full word then abbreviations.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Now the manuscript is ready for publishing.