Defining the “Hip Factor”: Analysis of Location Properties, SNS Usage, and Other “Hip-Place” Characteristics That Influence Visitor Satisfaction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors corrected everything that was required of them and improved the work based on the reviewers' suggestions.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 had no suggestions regarding this.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript has been improved in comparison with the original version, and I am suggesting its acceptance.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 had no suggestions regarding this.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, I have read the manuscript "Defining the “Hip Factor”: Analysis of Location Properties, SNS Usage, and Other “Hip Place” Characteristics that Influence Visitor Satisfaction", prior to its further processing, I would like to ask you to respond to the following comments.
The map of the study area cannot be understood by a reader who does not know the country or area of study. Please make a map that allows to identify the location in relation to the world map and the continent. Subdivide the figure. see this example https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/221
How did you sample separately Instagram or not instagram. You asked one question before the survey, did you have two surveys? Or one question asked if you had instagram social network. This part is not clear.
In general I would like to make a second revision asking the authors to clearly state the research questions, which will surely be related to the specific objectives or questions that appear in the methodology and results.
It is important that the authors do not join the discussion and conclusions, I recommend joining the discussion with the results in case the discussion is complicated in a separate section.
The results should be clearer and should clearly answer the questions or objectives. Avoid statistical information that is not used to conclude.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The figure has improved, the description of the figure should refer to the literals that have been assigned. It has a reason to be the figure that the reader understands the study area at first glance. In that sense in the foot of the figure describe each one of the literals, example:
Figure 1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; A) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; B xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; C) Location of stores and field work surveys.....
Author Response
We revised the description of the figure as you suggested.
I'm grateful for your suggestion.
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
Very interesting topic, interesting to read.
Nicely written. The choice of reference is good.
Suggestions for paper improvement:
-The methods used should be inserted into the abstract
-In the section Data sources authors should explain how the research was conducted (e.g. face to face), who conducted the research...
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for this good quality manuscript that I read with the pleasure. My only comments would be to:
- Change the title of the Section 3 to cover its whole contents.
- In Discussion and Conclusions section, please highlight and summarize more precisely (in just a few words, though) the impact of Instagram and other SNSs on place consumption and the related user satisfaction. Also in this Section, it would be good to provide references to other similar studies.
Kind regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors:
The manuscript "Defining the “Hip Factor”: Analysis of Location Properties, SNS Usage, and Other “Hip Place” Characteristics that Influence Visitor Satisfaction" was revised.
Prior to further processing the manuscript it is necessary to consider the following recommendations:
- The abstract should be rewritten, it is not clear, briefly describe one sentence about the subject of study "Hip place". Then a sentence about the problem or how your study arises. Then the objective, methodology and results-conclusion.
- The title does not match the development of the manuscript.
- The objective of the study is not clear to me, both in the abstract and in the last paragraph of the introduction.
- Compress the literature review more, if you can, just leave the introduction, that is, move the most important part of the literature review to the introduction.
- Generate a paragraph for each subtitle of the literature review and place it in the introduction.
- The last paragraph of the introduction should be grouped with the last paragraph of the literature review.
- I can't continue with the analysis because the author doesn't make the objectives clear...in the area of study it talks about "hot sites" being considered, I mean, you already know the hot sites, I thought you would find out what they are perhaps with "Hip place" search parameters/algorithms. I note a table and the social network Instagram is referenced. Authors should make the objectives clear and then order the procedure in the methodology, be more precise. If they find it difficult to write the methodology, they can at the beginning of the methodological section, in a paragraph describe the design, approach, techniques for each objective... Then be orderly and present the results in the same way.
- The methodological figure should not be at the end of the section.
- The results do not answer the objective of the study, I do not understand what they are trying to demonstrate.
