Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to read the paper. I have reviewed the article, and the authors failed to address the following issues. 

1.       This paper started from a very narrow background. There is no discussion from the world's perspectives. The authors have started what exists in China. The arguments should be extended to the outer world.

2.       The authors mentioned the impacts of RT in the first paragraph, which has no relation to the analysis and implication generated. Either it should be deleted or discussed based on their results.

3.       The researchers mentioned a literature gap on tourist flows, but why did they focus only on Chinese perspectives? I found a lot of the latest articles conducted in different countries and destinations, even in google scholar.

4.       Mention the QAP abbreviation in 58 where it first appears.

5.       The authors focused review on theoretical perspectives, and nothing is mentioned about theory in the conclusion. These two are inconsistent.

6.       In line 121, the authors mentioned their study focus on rural areas and non-tourists cities. However, in Line no 136, they mentioned the study area receives a lot of tourists.

7.       I prefer looking at the characteristics of the data used for QAP modeling.

8.       In the characteristics of network node structures, the authors just provided facts monotonously. For example, the authors mentioned in Line no 370, they mentioned, Xijiang Thousand Households Miao Village, Zhaoxing Dong Village, Zhenyuan Ancient Town, Danzhai Wanda Town, Basha Miao Village, Xiaohuang Dong Village, and Langde Miao Village have high out-closeness centrality and in-closeness centrality. Rather it can be mentioned how many villages have high-out-closeness (eg.00~00) and in-closeness. An international reader like me does not want to spend time reading the village names. If readers want to know the village name, they can refer to the Table—additionally, the authors better mention the range of parameters of high out-closeness and in-closeness. Similar writing styles in the following sections can be followed for a better readership.

9.       Put zero and one for each variable in Table 1. E.g., (nodes are in the same area=1, otherwise=0). The authors provided references and co-efficient in the same Table. They should not place the references here. Remove it and put the references in the above variable definition section. Sample size, and sources are needed to mention in each Table and figure. Table 1 and discussions related to Table one are too far. Readers are rambling.

 

Discussions:

10.   The author's discussions are limited. They provide some discussions focusing on Qiandongnan prefecture. However, how it can be implemented in another scenic spot is missing. If they want to limit their discussions just only Qiandongnan prefecture, it becomes beyond the scope of an international journal. They should extend their discussions from international perspectives.

 

11.   In the conclusion section, the authors just repeated what they have explored in their study area, where the conclusion should be more generally focused and can be utilized in other destinations.

12.   There is no linkage between the introduction and conclusion. For example, in the introduction section, the authors mentioned, “…this paper hopes to provide a theoretical basis for the development of tourism products, tourism marketing and tourism route design in southwest ethnic regions by studying tourists’ travel preferences…” what is the explored theoretical basis?

13.   What are the implications generated from this study that can be implemented other tourism destinations are missing

 

14.   No single word “Sustainability” is used. Add some discussions of RT sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study applies social network analysis and QAP regression analysis to study the network structural characteristics and influencing factors of tourism flow in Qiandongnan Prefecture. However, in its present form, the paper has some serious shortcomings that must be amended before I can recommend publication.

 

1. In the abstract, the authors should indicate clearly the purpose of the study and the reference to practice. The authors also need to show the research results more clearly.

 

2. The introduction section needs to be reorganized. Although the author provided an overview of the reason why they use SNA and QAP to explore the network structural characteristics and influencing factors of tourism flow in Qiandongnan Prefecture, they need to add some necessary parts to better position their work within the introduction section. For example, what are the methods and results of relevant studies especially in rural areas? Why this study uses these methods rather than other methods to show network structural characteristics and influencing factors of tourism flow? It is worth noting that the authors need to summarize the research gaps in the existing research literature to support the study's contribution.

 

3. The literature review section needs to be modified. Authors also need to add international and rural references, rather than just citing studies on Chinese cities.

 

4. The methodology section need to provide more details. (1) Please add a paragraph to introduce the methodological procedure of this paper. (2) The authors should clearly indicate the advantages of the methods in the methodology section. See (1) Zhou et al. (2020). Actors and network in the marketization of rural collectively-owned commercial construction land (RCOCCL) in China: A pilot case of Langfa, Beijing. (2) Casanueva et al. (2016). Social network analysis in tourism.

 

5. Figure 2 is too small and not clear enough.

 

6. I also suggested that in the discussion of results should compare with similar research.

 

7. There are several grammar errors in the paper. Please improve the language.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the paper is very interesting. This paper presents results of the network structural characteristics of tourism flow in Qiandongnan Prefecture and identifies the factors influencing the structural characteristics based on the data information of online tourism blogs. After reading the text carefully, the following points were formulated.

- line 58: there is no explanation for "QAP"; The explanation is in Abstract, but the abstract is a branch of the paper;

- "spatial network structure" - this network is not defined;

- lines 123-126: it is written that: "This paper aims at addressing the above shortcomings by utilizing online travel blogs data to analyze the network structure characteristics and influencing factors of the tourism flow with a case study of Qiandongnan Prefecture." however, there is no explanation of what is meant by "network structure";

- in the "Literature review" section, it is proposed to increase the number of research provided by continent;

- Fig.1: there is no reference to this Fig.1 in the text;

- Fig.1: the legend lacks a precise description of "Attraction" and "high", "low";

- line 179-183: it is not known what is "node" and what is "scenic spot", ie whether inside "node" there can be more than 1 "scenic spot", or maybe "node" is the same object as the "scenic spot"?

- formula (1): "A_i is the average travel time of node i" - what does that mean? Is it the average travel time to node from the rest of the node or from the scenic spots; there is no explanation of what is "node" and what is "scenic spot", because these terms are used interchangeably, it can be assumed that they are the same objects in the network under study, but it is not clearly explained; doubts arise from the fact that, for example, "node" may be a place with more than 1 "scenic spot";

- formula (1): check if the sum index should be "j = 1 to n"?

- line 189: "A-level scenic spot" - there is no explanation for the term "A-level";

- line 198: "...the above indicators were used as independent variables." - what "indicators" are you talking about?

- line 202: "the intersection is assigned a value of 1, otherwise it is 0." - what "intersection" mean? Is this an intersection in the motor road network in the village, or is it a "binary matrix" value for the two analyzed "nodes"? There is no representation of even a fragment of the "binary matrix", so the description is very convoluted, e.g. "If the node code is the same at the intersection of two nodes in the matrix, the value is 1; otherwise, it is 0." - there is a confusion between the terms "nodes", "intersection", "indicators", "scenic spots";

- Table 1: there is no value description in the text of the paper, incl. for "Regression coefficient", "Significance", "***";

- lines 263-269: too general description for "Core-periphery structure model"; there are no appropriate formulas;

- lines 270-277: too general a description of "Cohesive subgroups"; there are no appropriate formulas;

- Fig. 3(b) - "Fall" -> "Autumn";

- section "Methodology" is missing part on social network analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

A subject of research, well recognized in lieterature, was undertaken. The problem was presented in an original way and related to a specific tourist area

The results of the work are interesting and valuable.

Literature review requires significant development.

The adopted research methodology is original, but too poorly justified.

Moreover, the article does not formulate unambiguous research assumptions (goals, hypotheses, research questions).

The scope of the Discussions is unsatisfactory.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript entitled Network structure features and influencing factors of tourism flow in rural areas: Evidence from China is very interesting and contains innovative research methods. Although the manuscript is well written and the authors show comprehension of the subject at hand, some aspects can be improved to increase the overall quality of this research:

- The literature review should include some recent research in this area

- The conclusion section should include linkage to past and current studies and imply the findings in accord with aims and objectives, further highlighting the contributions of the study. 

- Row 37. 2. literature review,   insert capital letter L

After the above-mentioned suggestions for improvement are implemented into the manuscript, I highly suggest to the Editorial Board of Sustainability scientific journal consider it for publication. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Table one is missing in the manuscript

Author Response

I've corrected the order of the tables.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revisited the manuscript based on my comments. And the manuscript has improved compared to the first version.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the article.

I’ve added some references about the research methods of tourist flow and the time scale of tourist flow in the literature review.

And I've added to variable assumptions in Line 480-514.

Reviewer 3 Report

The explanations of the authors and the extension of the content of the manuscript are satisfactory.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

In fact, none of the comments previously mentioned in the review were taken into account. The Authors only partially referred to the suggested issues, especially the issues of research assumptions, methodology and literature studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

I accept the scope of the introduced changes. I recommend the article to be accepted in its current form.