The Role of Social Media in Generation Y Travel Decision-Making Process (Case Study in Poland)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Number: information-875250

Title: The role of social media in Generation Y Travel 2 Decision Making Process (Case study in Poland)

I have read this paper with interest. In my opinion, the paper has merit, straightforward, and informative. My specific comments are listed as follows:

Avoid reference clustering throughout the manuscript and follow the standard journal reference style. Such as Lines 91-92.

Improve the introduction section.

At the end of the introduction, in presenting the paper goals, try to answer the questions:
* How is the current research important (Relevance)? 
* How is it novel and contributes to state of the art?

The provided literature is not sufficient to justify your study, therefore add more recent literature.

The methodological section needs further clarification and justification.

Add the methodological framework in the study (Section 3).

What was the questionnaire? How many respondents? How did you validate the questionnaire? Provide more information and add a Table in Section 3.  

In the discussion section, the authors did not compare their study results with previous studies. Why? Improve the discussion part and interpret the results.

Overall, it is acceptable as an original study after the authors fix the abovementioned problems. 

Author Response

XXXXXXVVVVVVVXXXXXXXXXXXXXCVAnswers to the review in the annexAnswers to the review in the annex

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear authors,

 

I was positively impressed by your research. Still there are some aspects which must be improved, starting with formatting and English revision.

Some information referring to the socio-demographical profile of the respondents must be presented.

Regarding the methods, a more deeper description of the structure of the questionnaire is needed

Lines 206-207 needs revisions, it is not recommended to begin a sentence with.

Charts need the name of the axis.

Best regards

 

Author Response

Answers to the review in the annex

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting in particular relevant to the rapid development of internet and social media. Undoubtedly we see the influence of social media in affecting the behaviour and perceptions of travellers in their decision making process. However, the article lacks explanation on the theoretical framework adopted to support the investigation. Although the authors provide lots of background details and the contribution of the research, there is no sufficient literature on how the research is conceptually built.

 

Results generated provide some ideas but not substantial enough to illustrate how different types of social media are adopted and made referenced to during the decision making process. As Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have different characteristics, authors may investigate further on how these characteristics exert different levels of impacts on the perceptions and decision making process of travellers when they select the destination.

 

It is suggested that the hypotheses verified in the discussion can be further examined and tested to come up with a more in-depth and meaning piece of work.

Author Response

Answers to the review in the annex

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your effort to address the comments. The Authors have fixed my concerns and the paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

I would like to thank you for improving the manuscript. 

 

Good luck

Reviewer 3 Report

The previous comments have been addressed well.

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

The design of the survey is very poor, its statistical validity is not explained, nor the analysis scales used, nor the people it is aimed at (all young people of generation Y in Poland, in Europe?). Why are 111 surveys sufficient?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

The design of the survey is very poor, its statistical validity is not explained, nor the analysis scales used, nor the people it is aimed at (all young people of generation Y in Poland, in Europe?). Why are 111 surveys sufficient?

The research covered representatives of generation Y in Poland. The research is of a pilot character and will be deepened and extended to a larger population in further stages of the research. I suggest the following title of the article: The role of social media in the decision making process of the Y-generation travel e.g. Polish SM users.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a relevant and current topic and presents a well-structured sequence of contents.

However, it shows significant limitations in terms of reaching the proposed research objectives, which results in a formally correct but unambitious and limited output in the development of the empirical study.

The option for a case study - Poland - is not fully assumed: this intention is not expressed in the title, keywords and objectives of the article but, throughout the text, makes frequent references to the Polish case while using a methodology focused on a target group that can only be representative of a case study.

Inconsistent use of the designations "Generation Y" and "Millennials", which impairs the reading of the text; recognizing the terminological affinity, authors must choose one of the terms.

The abstract serves the purpose of summarizing the paper but is too vague about the approach and methodological procedures used.

Whether in the abstract or in the Introduction, the authors communicate in a less assertive way the purpose of the paper; just indicating which social media is most used falls short of the desirable advance of scientific knowledge that the paper should provide.

The chapter "Materials and methods" is not very clear and does not fulfill the objective of giving the necessary information (eg. characteristics of the sample, confidence level, margin of error, etc.).

The "Results" chapter presents few results from the studied sample. Some reflections in this chapter - of a generic scope - should be integrated in the "Introduction" or "Literature review".

The "Discussion" chapter does not highlight relevant survey results or relate them to the previous theoretical framework.

Conclusions are few, poorly developed and somewhat limited. They also advance some conclusions without being properly analyzed in the research (ex. "Coloring of reality").

In summary, the paper needs to be revised, especially at the level of ambition / objectives, but also to provide more and better information at the level of methodologies, results and their discussion and in the evidence of its main conclusions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

The paper proposes a relevant and current topic and presents a well-structured sequence of contents.
However, it shows significant limitations in terms of reaching the proposed research objectives, which results in a formally correct but unambitious and limited output in the development of the empirical study.		The research will be deepened soon. In connection with it, the research activities and the group under investigation will also be extended.
The option for a case study - Poland - is not fully assumed: this intention is not expressed in the title, keywords and objectives of the article but, throughout the text, makes frequent references to the Polish case while using a methodology focused on a target group that can only be representative of a case study.		I suggest the following title of the article: The role of social media in the decision making process of the Y-generation travel e.g. Polish SM users. I suggest the following keywords: Keywords: Social Media, Generation Y, Internet, tourist destinations, communication, Polish social media users.
Inconsistent use of the designations "Generation Y" and "Millennials", which impairs the reading of the text; recognizing the terminological affinity, authors must choose one of the terms.		The terms "generation Y" and Millennials have indeed been used interchangeably. It was suggested to classify the generation according to Lyons S.T., Schweitzer L., Eddy S.W. and Borges, N., Manuel, R., Elam, C., & Jones, B and Juchnowicz, M.
The abstract serves the purpose of summarizing the paper but is too vague about the approach and methodological procedures used.		The summary was supplemented by the following wording: A diagnostic survey was conducted among Polish users of SM, representatives of generation Y. The survey was carried out using CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interviews). The subject requires further empirical research.
Whether in the abstract or in the Introduction, the authors communicate in a less assertive way the purpose of the paper; just indicating which social media is most used falls short of the desirable advance of scientific knowledge that the paper should provide.		The main aim of the study was to indicate the most frequently used social medium in the process of selecting a tourist destination and to determine the destination of a trip chosen by generation Y. It also defined the method used to assess the attractiveness of a given destination. The summary and introduction were supplemented.
The chapter "Materials and methods" is not very clear and does not fulfill the objective of giving the necessary information (eg. characteristics of the sample, confidence level, margin of error, etc.).		111 representatives of the Y generation, i.e. those born between 1980 and 2000, participated in the survey using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was completed by the respondents via Google Forms. Among the respondents, 72% were women, and 28% men. When considering the subject of the influence of social media on the decisions of generation Y concerning the destination, it was necessary to draw on the experiences of the interested parties themselves. Only Generation Y representatives were able to answer the questions asked in this work, which led to the achievement of the intended goals. Perhaps the sample was not large enough and is a starting point for further research and analysis in this area.
The "Results" chapter presents few results from the studied sample. Some reflections in this chapter - of a generic scope - should be integrated in the "Introduction" or "Literature review".		The analysis of the literature was supplemented.
The "Discussion" chapter does not highlight relevant survey results or relate them to the previous theoretical framework.	The authors will supplement the discussion chapter with relevant results of the research conducted.
Conclusions are few, poorly developed and somewhat limited. They also advance some conclusions without being properly analyzed in the research (ex. "Coloring of reality").	Conclusions were formulated based on the analysis of the survey results. After deepening the research, which is planned, the conclusions will certainly be supplemented and presented in the next publication.
In summary, the paper needs to be revised, especially at the level of ambition / objectives, but also to provide more and better information at the level of methodologies, results and their discussion and in the evidence of its main conclusions.	The research covered representatives of generation Y in Poland. The research is of a pilot character and will be deepened and extended to a larger population in further stages of the research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

The abstract presents an exciting conceptualization of the theme to be treated in the paper.
I believe that by placing the results and conclusions obtained at the end of it, the summary will be more attractive to readers.

Introduction.

It would be interesting to explain what Generation Y is all about before the first quote to the term.

The introduction presents a relevant contextualization, but the absence of the main contributions of the paper must be highlighted.
The authors should provide in the last paragraph of the introduction the organization of the rest of the paper.

Literature revision.

The review presents fascinating concepts that guide the reader in the rest of the paper.
However, it should be noted that there are no subtopics, doing the reading to a certain point confusing for those interested in the topic.
The use of figures, topic subdivisions can assist readers in organizing and building ideas about the concepts presented.
I understand the emphasis in Poland due to the nationality of the authors. However, in an article that deals with the importance and relevance of the internet for decision making, it should also be highlighted the countries that have a large number of accesses to social networks, such as the United States and Brazil.
Graphics could help the relevance of the study focused on the characteristics of the Polish public.
Therefore, this section needs to be organized to highlight its relevance to the paper.
Detail: Why is generation Y, the most important for the study, not highlighted in table 1?

Materials and methods.

The search period needs to be presented.
The questions used, the method of selecting them, and the relevance of each question to the questionnaire need to be highlighted.
Does the proportion between men and women correspond to the proportion of men and women of generation Y? Why were there, or were there no distortions?
Did any research need to be discarded?

Results and discussions

Where are the graphics? What percentage of men and women answered each question.
How can the reader analyze results if only texts are presented in the section? It does not follow the characteristic of a scientific paper.
In the discussion of results, it must be evidenced that the collection performed represents the analyzed population statistically. If it is only in Poland, the title should be changed.

Conclusions.

They need to be based on reliable conclusions that allow visualizations of future works, which are even absent and are mandatory to demonstrate the expansion of ideas in the paper.

References.

There is a lack of state-of-the-art articles dealing with the subject in a more recent way (2019 and 2020).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

The abstract presents an exciting conceptualization of the theme to be treated in the paper. I believe that by placing the results and conclusions obtained at the end of it, the summary will be more attractive to readers.	The conclusions as recommended have been supplemented.
It would be interesting to explain what Generation Y is all about before the first quote to the term.	The introduction has been supplemented with a concise explanation of the term Generation Y.
The introduction presents a relevant contextualization, but the absence of the main contributions of the paper must be highlighted. The authors should provide in the last paragraph of the introduction the organization of the rest of the paper.	Introduction supplemented as indicated
The review presents fascinating concepts that guide the reader in the rest of the paper. However, it should be noted that there are no subtopics, doing the reading to a certain point confusing for those interested in the topic. The use of figures, topic subdivisions can assist readers in organizing and building ideas about the concepts presented. I understand the emphasis in Poland due to the nationality of the authors. However, in an article that deals with the importance and relevance of the internet for decision making, it should also be highlighted the countries that have a large number of accesses to social networks, such as the United States and Brazil. Graphics could help the relevance of the study focused on the characteristics of the Polish public. Therefore, this section needs to be organized to highlight its relevance to the paper. Detail: Why is generation Y, the most important for the study, not highlighted in table 1?	The text is divided into sub-themes and supplemented with an international aspect. Generation Y is identical to the Millennials. It is included in Table 1.
The search period needs to be presented. The questions used, the method of selecting them, and the relevance of each question to the questionnaire need to be highlighted. Does the proportion between men and women correspond to the proportion of men and women of generation Y? Why were there, or were there no distortions? Did any research need to be discarded?	The research was conducted in late March/April 2019. In Poland, generation Y represents 22.8% of the population. The study did not take into account the proportion of men and women of generation Y. In the research process, it was not necessary to reject the questionnaires.
Where are the graphics? What percentage of men and women answered each question. How can the reader analyze results if only texts are presented in the section? It does not follow the characteristic of a scientific paper. In the discussion of results, it must be evidenced that the collection performed represents the analyzed population statistically. If it is only in Poland, the title should be changed.	The article has been supplemented with graphics showing the results of the research. The title was changed to The Role of Social Media in the Decision-making Process of the Y-generation Travel, e.g. Polish SM users.
They need to be based on reliable conclusions that allow visualizations of future works, which are even absent and are mandatory to demonstrate the expansion of ideas in the paper.	The research will be deepened in the future. A larger research group is planned.
There is a lack of state-of-the-art articles dealing with the subject in a more recent way (2019 and 2020).	The article has been supplemented with literature from 2019.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The explanation of the method of data collection and analysis is very poor. It is not well explained that it is a pilot study, an approximation, and that the results are not conclusive, it is an approximation.

The profile of the respondents is not explained, when and how the surveys were carried out, who are the reference authors for the analysis scale? It is not a random survey, it is made on an online platform, how has it been distributed? Was there a pilot test prior to doing the study? The profound limitations of the study are not commented (this must be put in the conclusions).

There is a deep flaw in the methodology.

Author Response

 Proszę zobaczyć załącznik. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made some improvements (e.g. materials and methods, results). There remains, however, a structural problem of unambitious and limited objectives and outputs of the paper.

Whether in the abstract or in the Introduction, the authors communicate in a less assertive way the purpose of the paper; just indicating which social media is most used falls short of the desirable advance of scientific knowledge that the paper should provide.

The chapter "Materials and methods" still not fulfill the objective of giving comprehensive sample information (eg. characteristics of the sample, confidence level, margin of error, etc.).

The "Discussion" chapter does not highlight relevant survey results or relate them to the previous theoretical framework. Not a single change/improvement has been made in this chapter, so the core problems identified earlier remain.

Conclusions are few, poorly developed and somewhat limited. They also advance some conclusions without being properly analyzed in the research (ex. "Coloring of reality"). More consistent and elaborated conclusions are needed in this paper.

In summary, the paper still needs to be revised, especially at the level of ambition / objectives, but also to provide a significantly improved discussion and in evidencing the research main conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors.
Unfortunately, this version presented is of lower quality than the one presented previously.
The title does not follow a scientific standard. The ideal would be instead of, e.g., it would be to put Case Study.

Figures have been excluded from the text. I do not know why.

  In 2019 citations were from websites and not relevant academic texts. There were no citations from 2020.

The text organization paragraph was not included, even though the authors said they did.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Chapter 3 "Materials and methods" is very short. The authors do not explain how they have made the questionnaire (how have they validated the questionnaire ?, have they done a pilot test and if they have not, why?), The scale of questions on which authors are based? If the questions are their own, how have they been validated? ? on what dates was the survey? what means have been used to distribute it? is the sample of interviewees convenient or random? if it is random, why?

In this chapter it is unnecessary to say the gender percentages, this refers to the profile of the respondents, which is not done, there is no average profile, nor has different profiles been related as items in the survey, we do not know if there are moderating factors between the profiles of the respondents and the variables analyzed.
Some hypotheses should be clearly established and discussed in discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Progress in this new version is limited and does not allow for the expected qualitative leap.

Key structural problems already identified remain:

• limited objectives and outputs of the paper;
• little information about the survey;
• the discussion does not effectively confront the results obtained with the literature review and theoretical framework;
• poorly developed, descriptive and unrelated conclusions.

The various arguments used to justify the low ambition expressed in this paper (e.g. "the subject requires further empirical research" ... "the research is of a pilot nature" ... "the research was exploratory and requires deepening" ... "the research needs to be expanded in quantitative terms and requires a replication approach" ...) show that the authors belittles the relevance and scope of this publication. Authors need to properly address the upmentioned comments and must ensure that the relevance of the results presented and their discussion is scientifically sound.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors.
Thank you for the chance to correct your paper again.
However, it seems that you are confusing some terms.
When I say that the final paragraph of the introduction is missing, I say about a traditional paragraph in scientific articles as follows (Example):

Section II presents the theoretical framework. In section III, the premises and explanations about the model are presented. The tests and discussions are presented in section IV, and finally, the conclusions are present in section V.

The most relevant factor for the paper's failure is the lack of explanation about what future work needs to be done in order for this research to progress. This is a critical flaw in the research, and in this review, it was again not addressed.

Finally, the figures that have been added have little added text quality.