Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

thank you for the opportunity given to me to read your manuscript.

I have no particular discussion regarding any of the manuscripts sections (literature review, methodology, results and so on).

However, I'd very much appreciate if you could enlighten in this respect: in some passages you speak of "the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic" (p.2) or "the post-COVID-19 period" (p. 2), "during the 220 COVID-19 pandemic crisis" (p. 5) or  the 'context' of the pandemic

 

- "The COVID-19 context and the resultant psychological mechanism and switching behavior" (p. 10)

- "in the COVID-19 context" (p.10; p. 11)

assumedly acknowledging the transient nature of the pandemic.

In other passages, you take the behavioral changes of sports tourists during and post-COVID-19 period to be a "recent paradigm change" or a "paradigm shift" (p. 2).

I really feel this is quite a leap into the future. I mean, it is too early to infer from current changes in behaviour due to a pandemic if these (and the psychological mechanisms associated with them) will still hold in the future or if facing another health crisis (or any other type of crisis), let alone if they represent a paradigm shift. Could this leap, if accepted as such, in anyway compromise the study's conclusions? Some reflection on this would be appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your review to become a better research. 

1) As you have pointed out, we defined Covid-19 as a special situation and revised the explanation so that it is not confusing in context. 

2) As you have reviewed in conclusion, we have added and revised the context. 

Thank you.  

Reviewer 2 Report

There are several inputs in the manuscript of this article, including:

1. The title is too long, please simplify and make it more interesting.

2. In the discussion section, it is necessary to deepen the interpretation of the data found, discussed in more detail so that advantages and novelties are found in this study, and present these novelties at the end of the discussion.

3. In the conclusion section, it is more simplified, there is no need for discussion in this section, but directly provides answers to research problems accompanied by implications and recommendations. In addition, include research limitations and future opportunities.

4. In terms of reference management, it is very good, but what needs to be improved is that the citation section uses the IEEE style while the reference section uses the Vancouver style. Decide which one to use.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your review to become a better research. 

1) As you have pointed out, we (tried to make it sound intertesting..) have  simplified the title. 

2) We added the theoretical implication in the discussion section. Also we revised and added contents in the discussion section. Thank you.

3) As you have reviewed in conclusion section, we a) simplified the section and b) include research limitations and future opportunities.

4) We double checked the reference part.  We followed the given format of "Sustainability". 

Thank you!  

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author/authors,

It is an interesting study that addresses one of the nowadays challenges of tourism: tourism needs / self-monitoring / switching intention.

The article is good structured. Although, for an easier lecture and understanding, I propose the following adjustments:

- The part of the conclusions should be reformulated in order to better highlight the new elements that the present study brings to the results already existing in the field regarding the analysis of this phenomenon (e.g., a better regrouping the information in the Conclusions section);

- A more detailed description of self-monitoring role in the discussion section is needed as the description of the hypothesis ends very shortly (This study reveals that self-monitoring plays a mediating role between tour needs (relatedness and growth needs) and switching intention, and the same is confirmed in a similar context in previous research [59]);

- There is a big discrepancy between the amount of text allocated to the two chapters (Discussions and Conclusions);

- The reference to golf tourism is made only one time in the Results, Discussions and Conclusions section. It is necessary to mention it more often considering that the analysis of the relationship is not a general one, meaning at the level of the tourism phenomenon as a whole, but only regarding golf tourism.

 

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your review to become a better research. 

- As you have pointed out, we revised and regrouped 'discussion' and 'conclusion' section.

- And in discussion section, we added theoretical part of 'self-monitoring'.

  All of the revised context can be found in the uploaded file. Thank you very much!  

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author/authors,

The updated version of the article looks much more organized.