Impacts of Leisure and Tourism on the Elderly’s Quality of Life in Intimacy: A Comparative Study in Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Please don't use in in article footnotes, see pages 1 and 2.
- Please include which is the novelty of the research.
- It is not necessary to define the notion quality of life, see lines 88-97.
- Point after each title of the tables: 1 and 2.
- Please detailed how was evaluated the QOL.....which a questionnaire?? is not clear
- Please include the limits of the research.
- Please rearranged the references with the policy of the journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
In the attached file, we provide our overall response for the revision and point-by-point response to your comments.
We upload the revised manuscript and the tracked version ( You can find where your raised comments were revised.)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It becomes in fact necessary to expand and integrate the concepts underlying the paper with the appropriate reference literature, which is currently not taken into consideration.
The concept of quality of life is currently at the center of a lively debate - both internationally (OECD, 2010a, 2010b and 2010c; Scrivens et al., 2010; Hall et al., 2010; Stiglitz et al., 2008, etc.), which European level (European Commission, 2009; EENRD, 2010, etc. ) - aimed at drafting a conceptual framework capable of allowing the carrying out of surveys on the state and progress of societies (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993; Sen, 1993 and 2016; Prescott-Allen, 2001; Alkire, 2003 and 2016; Ura et al, 2004; Stiglitz et al., 2008; Layard, 2011, etc.).
The vivacity of this debate is confirmed by an analysis of the documents produced by the institutions, which, at any level, deal with the subject, and which demonstrates how, in recent years, the production of studies, research, surveys and normative documents is exponentially increased.
The concept of quality of life, already complex by its nature, has indeed evolved, taking on different connotations in a path that seems not to have ended. Generally speaking, it is possible to identify some major strands of research that need to be explored in order to clarify the theoretical outlines of the concept.
For example, some areas of study concern the theoretical framework that underlies the concept and finds its origins in a path that evolves from the first studies on happiness up to a whole series of fields of analysis concerning human needs (Heller, 1974 and 1982) and the analysis of collective well-being (Clark and Oswald, 1994; Easterly, 1999; Dissart and Deller et al., 2001; Barro et al., 1996; Barro, 1997, etc.).
Empirical studies on happiness, in different branches of the social sciences, have developed since the 1960s. However, even though some economists deal with the topic (Oswald, 1997, Frank, 1997 and 1999, Frey and Stutzer, 2002a and 2002b), in the definition of the term "happiness" there is still a certain inaccuracy, already in the terminology, precisely in the studies of most contemporary authors who focus their interest on the subject: for example, happiness is used as a synonym of pleasure, utility, welfare, or subjective well-being (Frank, 1997; Veenhoven, 1994; Oswald, 1997; Easterlin, 2001).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2:
In the attached file, we provide our overall response for the revision and point-by-point response to your comments.
We upload the revised manuscript and the tracked version ( You can find where your raised comments were revised.)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript presents a research about impacts of leisure and tourism in elderly’s and quality of Life. The manuscript is generally well written, but it is unclear what this review adds to what is already known and have been published earlier. No clear research question seems to be formulated, and the conclusions are unclear. I recommend formulating a specific research question and respond major concerns with the manuscript that require attention and these will be discussed below relative to the sections of the manuscript.
TITLE
The title should be amended slightly to ensure that the reader understands immediately to type of research realized for analize this problem.
ABSTRACT
It is hard to get the detail in an abstract when the word count is limited and this is often the hardest part of a paper to write. However, I do feel that it would be beneficial to explain what specifically you are looking at in relation to impact of leisure and tourism in elderly’s and quality of Life (this also applies to the main body of the paper). This needs to be made clearer throughout the paper.
KEYWORDS:
Please use recognised MeSH terms as this will assist others when they are searching for information on your research topic. The following website will provide these (simply start typing in a keyword and see if it exists or find an alternative if it does not): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh
The introduction is weak. An introduction should announce your topic, provide context and a rationale for your work, while catching the reader´s interest and attention. The above has not been given in the introduction that I have read. Also mi suggest shorten this section only with the information related with the state of art related with impacts of leisure and tourism in elderly’s and quality of Life in Japan, remove sub-titles this section is too long.
Also, please describe the hypothesis in this section and objectives.
METHODS
This section is poor, needs to present a better rationale for the study and the methodology employed. Also, neither appear information related with inclusion and exclusion criteria, dates, protocol. The study design is a????
Please, expand and clarification information related with the questionnaire related with reliability and validity and the actual measurements.
Likewise more detail about information calculate sample size and data should be provided.
Lastly, please provide the number ethics committee of Medical Research Ethics Committees United or to explain aspects ethics and legal requirement about this research.
RESULTS
The results in basis of the used method are not informative. I dont believe this study adds a great deal of novel and new information.
DISCUSSION
Include this section the principal strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing important differences in results; the meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications and unanswered questions and future research
CONCLUSIONS
These conclusions need to be softened, modified a in order to reflect only the study findings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3:
In the attached file, we provide our overall response for the revision and point-by-point response to your comments.
We upload the revised manuscript and the tracked version ( You can find where your raised comments were revised.)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- Please include point after each title of tables.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
As suggested, we revised our paper as follow:
1. We included point after each title of tables/figures.
2. We further checked grammatical and spelling errors.
3. We further descriptions about conclusions.
Best regards
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have clearly and adequately addressed all comments raised by the reviewers. Please also consider adding the study information related with conclusión in unique section, please divide the discussion sections and conclusions in two independient sections.
Also, in the methoods section please explain aspects ethics and legal requirement about this research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 3,
As suggested, we revised our paper as follow:
1. We separated the discussion and conclusion sections and add the study information related with conclusion.
Section 5. Discussion & Conclusion à Section 5. Discussion
Section 6. Limitation and future expectation à Section 6. Conclusion
We have kept most of the original contents in the original “Section 5. Discussion & Conclusion” for the new section ”Section 5. Discussion”. Instead, we added the new section “Section 6. Conclusion” by adding more specific conclusion contents and combining the contents of the original section “6. Limitation and future expectation”.
2. In section “3. Methodologies”, we added a subsection “3.4. Ethical and legal considerations”.
3. We further checked grammatical and spelling errors.
Best regards
Authors
