Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I want to thank you, for giving me the opportunity to review the Manuscript ID sustainability-1600683, Entitled: Research on Online Destination Image of Zhenjiang Section of the Grand Canal Based on Network Content Analysis.
The manuscript presents an appropriate title, a well-structured Abstract and a correct selection of keywords, which allow potential readers to clearly identify its theme and content.
On the other hand, the manuscript presents a correct structure, is well written and its content is pleasant to read and easy to follow, with a correct analysis and clear and well-written conclusions. For all of the above, I would like to congratulate the authors for their work. At the same time recommending the work for publication in its current state.
The manuscript meets all the formal and academic requirements for publication, in my opinion.
Sincerely

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the positive comments and full affirmation of our research work. It is also our honor that this manuscript can be recognized by you. Thank you again for your recommendation and patience in reading.

Yours sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written and well-prepared study. There is a good framing of the literature on heritage as well, and links to image and place transformation. I think the authors would benefit from bringing in some critical considerations from a new book on heritage and tourism, link: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-41905-9 

Methodology and approach is well defined and clear, only thing authors could do to enhance is be more specific about the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Creative presentation of data, well justified, and the implications are strong at the end, both practical and theoretical recommendations and implications are very clear.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting, and the researched problem has scientific potential. However, some problems need to be solved:

 1. Data processing is performed using descriptive statistics. The article would gain value if complex statistical methods were used to establish the relationships among variables (SEM, multiple regressions, etc.) in the context of content analysis.

 2. The discussion section should be built in the context of dialogue with researchers from the literature review.

 3. In my opinion, more theoretical implications would raise the quality of the paper.

 The paper has scientific value and can be published after carefully reviewing the reported issues. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf