Chinese VFR Travel in Budapest: The Hosts’ Roles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
VFR travel is a concept that has hardly been studied in tourism research, possibly due to its limited effect on the hotel industry. Making progress in your study is convenient, and relevant.
The work is interesting in this sense, however, in its current configuration, it is very poor in terms of empirical contribution.
Given that the authors have carried out fieldwork, with a survey, it should be further developed, especially in terms of the construction of the questionnaire, with its variables and scales, and, above all, in terms of the depth of the analyses, which right now they are barely interesting.
Author Response
Answer for reviewer please see in the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Chinese VFR Travel in Budapest: The Hosts’ Roles” reports on findings derived from a survey of Chinese immigrants to Hungary who host inbound visiting friends and relatives. While this study focuses on a novel phenomenon (Chinese VFR to Hungary) there are considerable shortcomings to this work including:
1. The authors fail to frame this work in a meaningful way. In other words they do not illustrate why this work needs to be done to advance theoretical and managerial knowledge. The gap or managerial need that this work is addressing must be more clearly stated in the introduction and then referenced throughout the manuscript.
2. The amount of literature review in relation to the amount of data and meaningful conclusions is too great. The authors need to be more precise in identify the existing knowledge and gaps (see comment 1) that support the need for this work.
3. Significant details are absent in the methodology leading to concerns regarding data reliability and validity.
a. First, how were the initial sample members identified and contacted?
b. Second, how were subsequent members of the snowball sample identified and contacts?
c. Third, how was the pilot test used to ensure reliability of the data?
d. Lastly, what processes (e.g. DeVellis’s approach) used to ensure the reliability and validity of the developed scales. It is not sufficient to say they were “developed from the VFR literature”. Please approach this section with the mindset that a different researcher could easily replicate your study.
4. The data presented in quite superficial and it is unclear how it all relates to the driving research question. Several areas stand out as insufficient
a. Presentation of two factors within one scale (without any background on how the scale was developed) doesn’t tell us anything about how VFR drives social relations. How these data relate to the research question is very unclear and simply conducting factor analysis doesn’t illustrate the impact or value of knowing these two types of roles. Additional analysis is needed to connect this back to the research question and demonstrate value.
b. Similarly, descriptive analysis of relationships prior to settling in Hungary and household size do not clearly align with research question or provide sufficient evidence of a relationship with VFR and social connections.
5. The results and implications are equally superficial to the results. There is not a cohesive story being told here that could guide future research or tourism management or marketing practices. Additionally, statements are presented without supporting data (e.g., Our results show that Chinese VFR travelers, compared to Chinese outbound tourists, spend a longer period in Hungary and have higher expenses).
6. This manuscript needs a thorough review for grammatical errors.
Author Response
Answer for reviewer please see in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
With the changes made it has been ok
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is clear the authors have made an effort to address some of the points raised in prior reviews particularly in regards to data collection and scale development, this has strengthened this manuscript. However, there is still a discontinuity between: 1.) the need for this study and research question (i.e., what gaps in knowledge exist in the literature, what practical needs are unmet); 2.) the analysis conducted; and 3.) the conclusions drawn. I do not feel the authors have addressed the issues of what gap exists in the literature (there are no modification to the literature review and limited effort to integrate literature in the introduction). The expanded discussion of the results doesn’t align with the conclusions/discussion (e.g., the paragraph added in lines 422 – 429 is not supported by data or literature to illustrate why providing discounts would be beneficial). And it is still unclear why these three points of analysis (factor analysis for role, frequency of network status prior to moving to Hungary, and household size) were selected to address this research question – there should be justification for that in the literature review. Overall, this work still fails to make a convincing contribution to the literature.
Author Response
Please see in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
