The Effect of COVID-19 Countermeasures on Korean Air Passenger Confidence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting context and timely data during the vaccination phase of South Korea's COVID control. I am jumping straight into the methodology.

What does Cronbach's alpha value say about the data, exactly? The paper cites multiple sources to back up its seemingly "borderline" alpha values. How much confidence should we have on the internal consistency (is it the same as construct reliability?) when the alpha values are relatively low? 

(see section 4 line 266 "Cronbach’s 266 alpha values are above 0.70 for health measure (0.72), vaccine measure (0.89), and passenger confidence (0.94), accepted by Anderson and Gerbing [42]. Cronbach’s alpha value for 268 social distancing measures is 0.67, acceptable according to Hulin, Netemeyer, and Cudeck 269 [43] indicating sufficient internal consistency". 

The novel results the paper show is that vaccine measures are by far the most important source in influencing passenger confidence. And that, because of this result, the novel contribution is in also showing that social distancing and health measures are in comparison weak, if not insignificant. The empirical results are somewhat expected, given that vaccine is really the most effective solution and that the general population would be aware of this already through extensive government information, other experiences with vaccines, etc. So I would like to challenge the author(s) to offer more on why the readers should invest time into reading the paper. 

Finally please provide some details on the research ethics application process/protocols/evidence. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Title good

Abstract good

Introduction: What is the the supporting reference of L29

What is the value taken in Table 3 under different statement. Give the data collected under Table 3.

Under structural equation modelling (SEM) possibility of estimating coefficients /weights under different sub headings. For example, authors have calculated weights of Social distancing measures. What is the weights of Physical distancing and Sneeze guard need to be estimated.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article discusses an interesting topic for airlines. The analysis of the influence of factors influencing passenger confidence was carried out using structural equation modelling (SEM) on a sample of 307 passengers. Although the research effort seems relevant, the work needs to be reinforced.

In the introduction, the authors argue that their aim is to extend the study by Vichiensan et al. However, these authors analyse the confidence of rail passengers and the authors analyse the confidence of airline passengers. What is the relationship between the two types of passengers? 

Regarding the Literature Review, it goes into great depth on Covid-19. However, it does not clearly set out previous studies that have examined the main factors influencing passengers' confidence to travel by air.

Finally, the sample is formed by passengers from Korea, isn't this a limitation of the article, and could future lines of research extend this research to a larger number of regions? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations for your interesting paper. In my view, it still needs some improvements, que I'll detail:

- The study needs to present clearly the research gap that it addresses. Somewhere between lines 60-65 you could mention the research gap. Just to make an example it could be a trext like this «The lack of studies that use vaccination as a variable to assess air passenger confidence led us to identify this research gap that will be addressed by the present study».

- If you wish to introduce a sentence on air customer involvement or satisfaction I can recommend  https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2021.170303 

- line 150, the reference Suau-Sanchez et al. is not in the references list. I guess you intended to cite Budd et al. "An assessment of air passenger confidence a year into the Covid-19 crisis: A segmentation analysis of passengers in Norway". Suau-Sanchez is the second author of this work. 

- You base your subsection 2.2 Passenger Confidence on only four authors. However, there are other relevant authors to be included, as that gives you a greater margin for discussion later. Please check the adequacy of the following sources:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2020.11.002 

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIS50930.2021.9395850

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2022.06.285

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2020.11.002

The article loses momentum as it approches ist end. It should be the opposite. Instead of having a section titled "Discussion and Conclusions" you should separate them and extend the Discussion section as it is poor. Again, if you had used more sources in the Literature Review, you would have more to compare with your results and reach stronger conclusions.

- The text of lines 338-343 belongs to the Literature review and should not be presented for the first time in the conclusions.

- You should have subsections in the Conclusions section for Theoretical Contribution (for this use the text of lines 343-350) and Practical Implications for the Airline Industry (here you have to write new text and explore this item). Then you could have also a subsection for Limitations (you could use the text of lines 351-357) and another for Future Research (lines 358-363).

Overall good, still needs the improvements mentioned above. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am statisfied with the revised version, as all the suggestions made were incorporated in the revised manuscript.

 The article may be accepted in present form 

Reviewer 3 Report

Following the changes made, your manuscript has improved considerably. I therefore consider that it should be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for incorporating my suggestions successfully. Wish you much success with this article.