Measurement of Tourism Ecological Efficiency and Analysis of Influencing Factors under the Background of Climate Change: A Case Study of Three Provinces in China’s Cryosphere
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee the attached PDF 'Review Comments'
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language is required. Several grammatically ambiguous words and sentence structures should be improved to enhance clarity and logic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Abstract is, from my point of view, difficult to understand. Cryospheric tourism is o form of tourism which is not well known. So it would be usefull, even from the abstract, to introduce, in a short description, the content of this form of tourism. The phrase „Specifically, the model considers inputs, expected outputs, and unexpected output” with no explanations of these outputs, creates a great confusion on the content of the article. Also, another element which is, again, from my point of view unusual, to number main results of your research and to include also values for the studied indicators. Instead, a brief, but comprehensive presentation of results, would have been more appropriate. Moreover, you introduced the idea that you have studied three provinces of cryospheric. You could have named these provinces, in order to be more explicit for the reader.
The key words are incorrect. You have cryospheric tourism in the title, but the concept is not included as a key word.
In Introduction a brief presentation of China’s high altitude mountains or glaciers which enable the study of cryospheric tourism would increase the reader’s interest. It is common in articles to include in the Introduction part, a phrase to identify the main research questions and also a brief description of the chapters. Apart from these aspects, Introduction is coherent and comprehensive.
In subchapter 2.2., at lines 223-224, you mentioned four inputs: tourism resource, tourism labour, tourism capital and tourism energy consumption, but without describing their content. What do you mean by tourism resource input and which indicators from this category have you included in your study? The same is valid for the other inputs. Details are offered but 1 page later. You should present them from the beginning. So, 2.2 needs rephrasing.
Section 6.1. lacks in consistency and comparisons with results from previous and similar studies on the subject.
Section 6.2 is, perhaps, the Conclusion part. It is incomplete and repeates elements which usually are included in Discusions. In this section it is necessary to emphasize again the novelty of your study, and to introduce the study limits, which are the practical implications and also to mention the future lines of research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI commend the authors for their efforts in revising the manuscript, and incorporating some of the feedback from the previous version. The revisions have substantially improved how the research is communicated, making it more accessible to readers and relevant for practical application in policy-making.
However, several aspects still require attention to further enhance the clarity and logical flow of the manuscript:
· The manuscript would benefit from further grammatical revision. For instance, replacing 'the cryospheric' with 'the cryosphere' is insufficient if the surrounding context remains ambiguous. This is just an exemplification of areas in need of grammatical revision to handle ambiguity.
· In lines 167-173, the paragraph structure does not serve a clear purpose. I recommend that the authors consult standard guides on scientific writing, such as Schimel, J. (2012). "Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded" by OUP USA, to enhance the presentation of their findings.
· The current sequence where the Conclusion precedes the Discussion should be revised to align with conventional scientific narrative structure—Discussion should lead into the Conclusion.
· Additionally, the manuscript still lacks a targeted discussion on the intrinsic limitations of the study concerning data, analysis, and interpretation, and recommendations for future research directions that could further the field, as suggested by the findings.
Implementing these recommendations will help improve the manuscript, making it a stronger candidate for publication in the journal.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript would benefit from further grammatical revision.
Author Response
Comments 1:The manuscript would benefit from further grammatical revision. For instance, replacing 'the cryospheric' with 'the cryosphere' is insufficient if the surrounding context remains ambiguous. This is just an exemplification of areas in need of grammatical revision to handle ambiguity.
Response 1:I would like to express my gratitude to the expert teachers for their constructive advice on the unclear structure of the article. Following your guidance, we will consider further polishing the service, but time is tight, could you please consider our refined polishing later? Thank you for your support and understanding.
Comments 2:In lines 167-173, the paragraph structure does not serve a clear purpose. I recommend that the authors consult standard guides on scientific writing, such as Schimel, J. (2012). "Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded" by OUP USA, to enhance the presentation of their findings.
Response 2:Thank you, esteemed professor, for providing constructive guidance on the issue of inaccessible primary data. Following your advice and the established paradigm of your journal, we have decided to delete this section.
Comments 3:The current sequence where the Conclusion precedes the Discussion should be revised to align with conventional scientific narrative structure—Discussion should lead into the Conclusion.
Response 3:Thank you for the expert guidance. As you suggested, the discussion should lead to conclusions. Following your guidance, we have adjusted the position of discussion and conclusion. we appreciate the constructive and insightful suggestions provided.
Comments 4:Additionally, the manuscript still lacks a targeted discussion on the intrinsic limitations of the study concerning data, analysis, and interpretation, and recommendations for future research directions that could further the field, as suggested by the findings.
Response 3:Thank you, esteemed expert, for your valuable guidance. As you rightly pointed out, the manuscript still lacks a targeted discussion on the intrinsic limitations of the study concerning data, analysis, and interpretation, and recommendations for future research directions “. Following your guidance, we add the following at the end of our discussion: “In terms of limitations and areas for improvement, this study requires further refinement. Future researchers are encouraged to obtain more detailed and diverse data, including county-level, township-level, and even scenic area-level data, and to include ice and snow tourism revenue and visitor numbers as output indicators. If possible, future studies should expand the research area to cover more regions worldwide with similar cryospheric characteristics. Dividing regions based on tourist attractions or altitude will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the eco-efficiency of cryospheric tourism.” we appreciate the constructive and insightful suggestions provided.
Finally, the students once again expressed their sincere admiration and gratitude to the expert teachers for their rigorous, professional, responsible, and meticulous working attitude! And the results of the students' revision will be submitted to the expert teachers again, and the expert teachers will take time to review again when time permits.
Student: Wu Yubin
June 26, 2024
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The changes you made are substantial and valuable.
In its current form, the paper meets the criteria for publication
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thorough and insightful feedback. We deeply appreciate your recognition of the substantial changes we made to the paper. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our research.
Sincerely,
Yubin Wu
2024/6/25
