How Review Valence Shapes Visit Intention: Affective Commitment and Destination Reputation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper, titled "How Review Valence Shapes Visit Intention: Affective Commitment and Destination Reputation," addresses a highly relevant theme The exploration of the interplay between review valence, affective commitment, and destination reputation is pivotal in understanding the dynamics that influence visit intentions.

The authors have skillfully elucidated the contributions of their study, demonstrating a worthy level of clarity and comprehensiveness. The research framework and questions are robustly developed, reflecting a accurate and thoughtful integration of insights garnered from a detailed literature review.

The literature review stands out as a strong foundation for the research framework, providing a comprehensive overview of relevant concepts and theories. The authors accurately connect prior research to the current study, establishing a clear rationale for their research questions and contributing to the depth of understanding in the field.

The methodology section is a notable strength of the paper. The detailed, clear, and well-explained approach inspires confidence in the research design. The transparency in detailing the procedures not only facilitates the replication of the study but also adds to the overall rigor and reliability of the findings.

The authors have well explicated the implications of their study for both theory and practice. The exhaustive discussion underscores the broader relevance of their findings, showcasing how the research contributes to the theoretical landscape while offering tangible insights for practitioners in the field.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper, especially for the affirmation, which has greatly boosted our confidence. We will conduct further research in this field to delve deeper into the topic.

Reviewer 2 Report

Title:

How Review Valence Shapes Visit Intention: Affective Commitment and Destination Reputation

 Yagang Zhao, Binli Tang, Xiaojie Yang ,* and Jeroen Nawijn

The paper provides valuable theoretical insight into how emotional elements in online reviews influence the emotions and attitudes of potential tourists. Particularly for tourism managers, review valence and responsibility reputation hold  practical significance in destination marketing.

Abstract

Please structure the abstract as:

Introduction-Aims

Method

Results and interpretation

Introduction:

Please develop the literature review and update to 2023

Please analyses critically the findings of the articles and the limitations.

Please indicate also at least tree-five similar articles to your research published recently (last 5 years).

Aim of the study is not clear indicated

Methodology

Discussion section: to be extended

References.

The references doesn’t fully meet the publication requirements

Please cite some more recent high-ranking journals (WoS, Scopus) etc : 2023

Double check if all citations are listed in the references list and viceversa.

Extend the references list and implicit the citation. Internationalize and update to 2023.

Please check and please cite also the following paper which may add some more value and internationalization to the presented paper.

DOI

10.35530/IT.072.01.1824

What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question addressed. The subject to which the paper address is actual one and very important. The paper not reviews a wide range of scientific articles etc. The methodology adopted is based on qualitative research methods:  literature search, observation, interview techniques etc.

Is it relevant and
interesting?

The paper is relevant especially in the complex environment of nowadays. It synthetizes the literature data (66 published papers), which should be in depth revised. The methodology is adequate to this paper. The paper is well structured and clear as well. The results are satisfactory presented and discussed.

How original is the topic?

Is an actual topic with medium degree of originality; but it is important subject especially in nowadays period, authors findings confirmed that proposed management models can successfully contribute to tourism development and implicate for wellbeing of individuals.

What does it add to the subject
area compared with other published material?

The paper should be better documented because the authors cited cca 60 scientific published articles and other type of documents; we suggested to develop this aspect and to be updated to 2023.

Is the paper well written?

The paper is well written. The quality of English translation is good.
Is the text clear and easy to read?

The text is well structured. Introduction-literature review section must be revised.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

The conclusions are consistent and relevant for the paper.

Thanks a lot!

Best regards,

January  2024

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed review of the article, and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Based on your feedback, we have made significant revisions to the abstract section, highlighting the purpose of the study and the methods used. In the literature review section, we have included the latest literature from 2023, and cited the reference you provided (Doi: 10.35530/IT.072.01.1824). In the revised manuscript, we have used red font to highlight the relevant changes. Thank you again for your input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with a very current topic - the research on the role of social networks in travel decisions. However, some methodological flaws in this paper are serious. Due to that, the author's statement that they developed a new theoretical model cannot be accepted. In the empirical research, the demographic structure of the respondents (age, country where the respondents live and their level of education, etc..) is unknown. Those components, especially the age of the respondents and the country in which they live, are crucial to be able to produce relevant conclusions and set up a new theoretical model. Because it is not the same whether all the respondents are younger, come from the same country, live on the same continent, etc... Also, from the paper, is not clear, whether these responders travel at all or not, and if so, how much, where... all these are significant components that relevant conclusions could be drawn... For Study 3, it is not clear, how the research have been conducted, what the structure of the questions looked like, how many questions were, etc. Also, from the explanation in the paper, it is not clear why there is a different number of respondents per individual survey (study 1. and study 2.), when the surveys were conducted, what the questionnaire looked like, etc.

Also, to develop a model, a much larger number of respondents is needed.

Due to those numerous methodological flaws in the empirical research, the paper requires significant revisions in the implications part. It is too short. Also, could not be accepted that this research has developed a new theoretical model that can help managers in their business. Brought conclusions as a result of this kind of empirical research cannot be accepted as relevant even by scholars in their work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We appreciate your feedback and suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the quality of the paper. We apologize for any confusion caused by the lack of an overall introduction to the empirical methods in the methodology section; in fact, we employed experimental methods rather than survey methods. In the revised manuscript, we have provided an explanation of the empirical design used to test the hypotheses at the end of the hypothesis section, outlining the purposes and rationale of the three experimental studies conducted.

  Additionally, based on your suggestion, we have removed the statement "developed a new theoretical model that can help managers in their business".

   More importantly, we have made significant revisions to the implications part of the original manuscript. We have highlighted the changes in orange for your review. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable contributions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for this very interesting study. It was a pleasure to read it because of the clarity of analysis and arguments. I have only two considerations about it:

- Line 116 the authors mention “negative bias”. Is it a typo? Because everywhere else it is a “negativity bias”;

- More up-to-date literature sources should be included.

I wish you a good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed review. We have revised "negative bias" to "negativity bias" in line 116. Additionally, based on your suggestions, we have updated the references to include the latest relevant literature from 2023 and 2024. We have marked the revised portions in blue in the manuscript for your review. We appreciate your input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors only partially accepted the remarks. They made an extra effort in the discussion chapter. However, the same objections to empirical research still stand. Although the authors state how they conducted experimental research, without the respondents' demographic and sociological indicators, it is impossible to draw relevant conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Following your advice, we have added demographic information for participants in the three main experiments in the new manuscript. This information includes gender, age, education level, monthly income, occupation, etc. (revised content is marked in orange for your review). Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions, and we wish you a pleasant life..

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf