The Effects of Travelers’ Price Sensitivity on Information Search Behaviors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript presents interesting research. However, it needs to be corrected.

Remarks:

1. In my opinion, the results of the survey may not be fully reliable due to the time taken to conduct the survey (from April 7 to 13, 2020). This is the time of a pandemic, i.e. an unusual situation.
2. No research hypotheses / research questions were formulated.
3. Sections ‘6. Conclusions and limitations’ should be extended. The presentation of the relationship between the theory and research results is insufficient.
4. Newer items are missing from the reference list. It's worth adding a few.

 

15.02.2022

Author Response

Reviewer's comments are much appreciated. The manuscript has gone through a revision, with all suggestions taken into consideration.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you so much for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Coastal Interconnection: "The Effects of Travelers’ Price Sensitivity on Information Search Behavior".

The paper addresses an interesting issue of the relationship between sustainability and circular economy. The topic fits well with the current situation and seems to be suitable for the Sustainability editorial line.

However, I have concerns about the execution of this paper, as illustrated in detail below. In any case, I think there are some areas where improvement can be made. Hope my suggestions are useful.

1. The manuscript has to undergo thorough grammatical, lexical and spell-check - starting with the title;
2.   State clearly the aim, methods and methodology applied at the very beginning - the Abstract;
3. The manuscript will gain scientific merit if the authors update the references applied;
4. How the questionnaire was distributed online - via which application or network, or e-mails?
5. Not clear how the estimations/calculations when the ANOVA and  Bonferroni's multiple range tests were done; why they were done and how their accuracy was tested?
6. Consider presenting the results graphically for better visualisation;
7. Clarify what do you mean by "information search"?
8. The Conclusion has to be revised - apart from limitations and further research opportunity - what exactly did you achieve with your experiments, why is significant from a scientific perspective, what is the practical use of your results?

Author Response

Reviewer's comments are much appreciated. The manuscript has gone through a revision, with all suggestions taken into consideration.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept in present form

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking into consideration my suggestions!

Congratulations on the manuscript improvement and its scientific merit encirclement!

Kind regards!