Next Article in Journal
Soil Compaction Mechanism and Improvement in Farmland
Previous Article in Journal
Migration and Conversion of Phosphorus in Hydrothermal Carbonization of Municipal Sludge with Hydrochloric Acid
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Impact of Rural Tourism on the Poverty Vulnerability of Aging Rural Households

Sustainability 2023, 15(8), 6800; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086800
by Shu Guo, Xiaoying Li, Ning Cao * and Ying Wang
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2023, 15(8), 6800; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086800
Submission received: 12 March 2023 / Revised: 5 April 2023 / Accepted: 13 April 2023 / Published: 18 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

I must thank the Editor for giving me the opportunity to review this exciting paper. I appreciate the authors’ effort to write this manuscript. The paper however needs major revision before it can be accepted for publication. Please see the attachment for details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has no map for the study area, and no graphics to support the statistical tables and this is a big minus of the article.

The English language can be improved, in some places it is very difficult to read and has minor mistakes. For example page 4 rows 142-143: ”The survey interviewed elderly farmers in the district who had reached the age of 60 and had reached the age of 60 within five years ... ”  must be reformulated: ”The survey interviewed elderly farmers in the district who had reached the age of 60 and will reach the age of 60 within five years ...”

The literature cited in the text is not updated and comes, almost entirely, from China.

The abstract of the article contains abbreviations that appear explained only in the body of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I reviewed the draft with great interest entitled “Research on the impact of rural tourism on the poverty vulnerability of ageing farmers— —Take Donglu island as a case”. The paper is dealing with an interesting side of the research. However, I have a few comments for the authors:

1.       It is suggested to revisit the study title to make it concise.

2.       The abstract is not explaining the conducting study completely. To make the abstract more attractive it should start with the key aim of the study. This abstract is lacking the study aim, sample size, sample technique, applied methodology, etc. This will help readers to better apprehend the true meaning and significance of your study.

3.       The study is lacking literature as well as theoretical discussion. Which underpinning theory supports the current model? Authors must develop the literature section and Hypothesis development section separately. The hypotheses should be developed with the support of relevant theory (s). The following articles may help: shorturl.at/cfqG4, 10.1007/s11135-018-0710-0, 10.1111/aswp.12152, 10.1007/s11135-021-01205-8, 10.1109/DASA54658.2022.9765280

4.       The methodology lacks several important points, i.e. How was the sample size selected? Which method was adopted to choose the sample size? How the questionnaire was developed? Is the questionnaire adopted or adapted?

 

5.       The primary data has been collected as a sample of this study. How did you control for non-response bias, and common method bias? Which methods have been applied? The methods and results are not discussed in the manuscript.

6.       Where are the results of the three-stage feasible generalized least square method? In the results section, I have found only Table 4 and Table 5, regression analysis results.

7.       What are the justifications that Family size/person has a positive impact on poverty vulnerability? This result is contradictory to the existing literature. Need poor justifications.

8.       The authors only interpret the current findings and there is no discussion on these findings in alignment with existing literature. It is suggested that the heading 4.5 Research results should be rewritten as “Discussion” where all the results should discuss with the support of existing literature.

9.       Add the limitations and future recommendations in a separate section.

10.  Lastly, add the used questionnaire in an appendix.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank You for poviding the revision. It is much improved. I can now endorse for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised draft is more reader friendly and there is no further comments. 

 

 

Back to TopTop