Does the Digital Economy Improve Urban Tourism Development? An Examination of the Chinese Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very good and the subject is topical treated with significant information and statistics.

Probably, just further implications for stakeholders, private an public ones, should be defined in the conclusions.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your comments on our article "Does the Digital Economy Promote Urban Tourism? A Review of Chinese Cases "(Manuscript ID Sustainability -2022027). All these suggestions are valuable and helpful to the revision and improvement of our paper. Many of your comments are very good and I would be happy to make detailed changes to the article based on your comments. We have carefully studied the comments and made corrections, which we hope will be approved. The redacted section is highlighted in the document. Major corrections to the paper and responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows: (See attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. In the second line of Page 1, Authors have used the term "high permeability". I would suggest authors to explain it with a few examples. They can extend the statement by saying "with the characteristics of high permeability and speedy dissemination" such as, %%%%%%%%, @@@@.

2. Authors are advised to give proper citation for their claim that China's digital economy is second to that of the United States (line 35). Similarly, line 50, 11.05% of GDP  and 10.31% of employment.

3. Authors are required to highlight the research gap. It is still not clear as to why there is a need to conduct this study? Simply having less number of theoretical studies in a particular area/domain doesn't warrant a need to carry out a research.

4. Research Questions need to be re-drafted. Specially the second research question which says that "Second, if question one is answered in the affirmative, is the positive effect of the digital economy on urban tourism development nonlinear?" 

5. We should discuss the full form of ICT initially before introducing the abbreviation.

6. Methodology and Analysis is appropriate.

7. Implication section need to be further strengthened.

8. What are the new recommendations to future researchers.

9. At few places, grammar syntax requires authors' attention. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Does the Digital Economy Improve Urban Tourism Development? An Examination of the Chinese Case” (Manuscript ID sustainability-2022027). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. Many of your comments have been very good, and I'd be happy to make detailed revisions to the article based on your comments. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked highlight in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as following: (See Attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 The results of this paper show that the digital economy can directly drive the development of urban tourism. It is suggested that an actual prefecture-level city case as an example to fully illustrate the impact of the digital economy on urban development.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your comments on our article "Does the Digital Economy Promote Urban Tourism? A Review of Chinese Cases "(Manuscript ID Sustainability -2022027). All these suggestions are valuable and helpful to the revision and improvement of our paper. Many of your comments are very good and I would be happy to make detailed changes to the article based on your comments. We have carefully studied the comments and made corrections, which we hope will be approved. The redacted section is highlighted in the document. Major corrections to the paper and responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows: (See attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your revision. Authors did a commendable job during R1. The manuscript can be accepted for publication in its present form.