Post-COVID 19 Tourism: Will Digital Tourism Replace Mass Tourism?
, Nohman Khan 2,*, Muhammad Mahroof Khan 3, Shagufta Ashraf 4, Muhammad Saim Hashmi 5, Muhammad Muddassar Khan 6 and Sanil S. Hishan 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting article, I can see its potential and contribution to scholarship however, requires reflection, in terms of research design, questions, and methods. Extensive editing of English language and style is required. I believe that these elements are important and have a chance to dispel any doubts related to the methodology of the study and the whole merit of this research paper.
Author Response
Interesting article, I can see its potential and contribution to scholarship however, requires reflection, in terms of research design, questions, and methods. Extensive editing of English language and style is required. I believe that these elements are important and have a chance to dispel any doubts related to the methodology of the study and the whole merit of this research paper.
Answer
|
As per the comments from the review 1, research design is changed and methodology section accordingly. The English structure is also comprehensively changed. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to find the digital future of the tourism development after the COVID-19 pandemic situation, and study the collaborative research work among the nations to develop the tourism industry after the current pandemic crisis by choosing 60 articles from the quality and selection synthesis through the PRISM-2015 statement. The study's findings show that digital technologies are vital in the tourism industry in the current time, and virtual spaces develop more features and value additions to achieve consumer’s satisfaction in the future.
On page 3, as the authors stated “The present study is drawing to assess the literature's progress published from 2016-2020 in the two reputed databases, web of science …”, is there any special reason only selected the articles published in these five years?
On page 3, section 2, as authors stated that “virtual travel is advancing with virtual reality and augmented reality”, why authors only used “digital tourism” and “digital technologies” in the search bar, but not included the keywords such as “virtual travel”, “virtual reality and tourism” and “augmented reality and tourism” in the search?
On page 11, section 3.5, as authors stated that “The destinations marketing using the augmented reality and virtual reality experience needs social media marketing to engage the users with these technologies”, it is suggested that authors should suggest some good examples of social media marketing to engage users with the captioned technologies.
On page 13, section 3.6, it is recommended that authors should indicate which three significant collaborations are between China and the United States.
Please review and clarify the following sentences before publication if deemed necessary:
- On page 2, the authors stated “The virtual reality is one of very moderate and advance progress in the industrial revolution”, please clarify if the authors want to state the VR is “moderate and advance” or VR is “modern and advance”?
- On page 5, section 3.1, the authors stated “The year 2016 is second in the list with 16 research papers on tourism …”; however, regarding Figure 2 on page 5, the year 2016 did not show 16 research papers in the graph.
- On page 8, section 3.3, please clarify what is “(2020) shows the concerns about …..”?
- On page 9, section 3.4, please clarify what is “(2018) found that virtual reality …”?
Author Response
On page 3, as the authors stated “The present study is drawing to assess the literature's progress published from 2016-2020 in the two reputed databases, web of science …”, is there any special reason only selected the articles published in these five years?
Answer
The data selection from the year 2016-2020 due to technological involvement in the tourism industry is ever on highest pee
On page 3, section 2, as authors stated that “virtual travel is advancing with virtual reality and augmented reality”, why authors only used “digital tourism” and “digital technologies” in the search bar, but not included the keywords such as “virtual travel”, “virtual reality and tourism” and “augmented reality and tourism” in the search?
Answer
The keywords are used “digital tourism”, “digital technologies”, “virtual travel”, “virtual reality and tourism”, and “augmented reality and tourism” in the search bar
|
On page 11, section 3.5, as authors stated that “The destinations marketing using the augmented reality and virtual reality experience needs social media marketing to engage the users with these technologies”, it is suggested that authors should suggest some good examples of social media marketing to engage users with the captioned technologies. Answer For example, a user may argue their mobile at a restaurant, instantly provide reviews or menus, or aim their tablet at a historic landmark and be presented with information about its history (Gibson & O’Rawe, 2018). On page 2, the authors stated, “The virtual reality is one of very moderate and advance progress in the industrial revolution”, please clarify if the authors want to state the VR is “moderate and advance” or VR is “modern and advance”? Answer modern and advance On page 5, section 3.1, the authors stated “The year 2016 is second in the list with 16 research papers on tourism …”; however, regarding Figure 2 on page 5, the year 2016 did not show 16 research papers in the graph. Answer Reference updated On page 8, section 3.3, please clarify what is “(2020) shows the concerns about …..”? Reference updated On page 9, section 3.4, please clarify what is “(2018) found that virtual reality …”? Reference updated
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article refers to current social problems. It is well documented. Its structure is clear, but it requires some correction - the part with the literature review should be distinguished, and the discussion should also be separated from the conclusions.
Authors should carefully conclude on the performed analyzes and results and their extrapolation to the future.
Considering that the analyzed articles (published in the period 2016-2020) were based on pre-pandemic data and situations. Currently, the question arises whether people tired of constantly sitting in front of computers in their leisure time will avoid the Internet and digital reality (according to the compensatory theory), or will continue habits and routine activities (familiarity theory) and Digital Tourism will be their continuation?
Analyzes and conclusions should take into account these current conditions for the development of tourism and changes in social behavior.
Author Response
the part with the literature review should be distinguished, and the discussion should also be separated from the conclusions
Answer
Classifications of Literature is entirely changed with distinguish table derived.
The discussion and conclusion are already separate, the discussion of literature in literature part is done strongly.
Authors should carefully conclude on the performed analyzes and results and their extrapolation to the future.
Answer
The world scenario is going to change entirely in recent years. Before COVID-19, tourism was an essential tool for communication between multicultural nations, but now nations are fighting to protect people. In this situation, virtual reality is a very vital tool for the tourism and hospitality industry
|
This reads like a rough draft that gets progressively harder to read in the final sections of the article. I will be honest: it needs editing for English language style and grammar. There are numerous grammatical errors here and there through the beginning of the article, and then the final two sections of the article need extensive editing that is beyond what I can do in a peer review. I think the overall concept of the article is fine and I encourage the author(s) to edit this for English language style/grammar. I have a hard time commenting on the soundness of the argument as the language issues muddle the argument. Answer The language style and grammar are checked carefully in the revised manuscript. The proof reading is done by the third person to remove the language errors. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This reads like a rough draft that gets progressively harder to read in the final sections of the article. I will be honest: it needs editing for English language style and grammar. There are numerous grammatical errors here and there through the beginning of the article, and then the final two sections of the article need extensive editing that is beyond what I can do in a peer review. I think the overall concept of the article is fine and I encourage the author(s) to edit this for English language style/grammar. I have a hard time commenting on the soundness of the argument as the language issues muddle the argument.
Author Response
This reads like a rough draft that gets progressively harder to read in the final sections of the article. I will be honest: it needs editing for English language style and grammar. There are numerous grammatical errors here and there through the beginning of the article, and then the final two sections of the article need extensive editing that is beyond what I can do in a peer review. I think the overall concept of the article is fine and I encourage the author(s) to edit this for English language style/grammar. I have a hard time commenting on the soundness of the argument as the language issues muddle the argument.
Answer
The language style and grammar are checked carefully in the revised manuscript. The proof reading is done by the third person to remove the language errors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for your answer to my review. It is visible now that authors followed suggested guidelines and suggestions and introduced changes to the text and paragraphs, accordingly. Despite authors` assurance of double-checking the English language, the article still needs moderate English check and changes. Sentences that require corrections were marked in .pdf file. I have a feeling that the abstract miss the corrections.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have done the corrections as per reviewers suggested.
Reviewer 4 Report
This essay needs English language editing. I am not comfortable offering review suggestions until the language is edited to professional standards, as I'm not entirely sure I understand sections of it.
Author Response
We have done the corrections as per reviewers suggested.
