Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the literature review, it is worth discussing each current virtual tourism and the possibilities of virtual reality.
there is a description of the media in the methodology, why?
lack of indicated links between virtual tourism and the media
hypothesis 5 is self-evident
failure to specify the duration of the research, selection of the research sample, or explanation of why such a methodology
Dry data without descriptions and analysis, suggests to analyze the results
the discussion mixes media and virtual reality again
the literature is tragic - very old

Author Response

I would like to thank the editors and reviewers of this paper for their constructive advice to improve the quality of this paper. All reviewers agreed that the paper was timely and necessary for sustainable growth. Reviewer 1 recommended improving the logical development of this paper, Reviewer 2 recommended improving the abstract to be concise, and Reviewer 3 recommended supplementing the methodology and the content description of the conclusion. I challenged to reflect their advice to revise this paper as it could be possible. I tried to change each line of script; the change had been written in the red character in the revised version. The brief of changes had been discussed in the table as following attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract must be improved. Its structure should comply with the problem justification, the research goals, the method used to find the answers and the main conclusions.

In the abstract, it is not correct to use “I”. Please modify. The last sentence of the abstract must be changed – lines 22, 23 and 24- “also” must be eliminated.

The paper presents research with interest for tourism development within the post-pandemic context. However, there are some problems in terms of the use of informal language that depicts the paper of the scientific tone that has to have. Therefore, It is advisable to correct those sentences, such as:

Not all hope has disappeared yet.

• By the way
• Frankly speaking
• There is no choice but to choose

Also, sometimes some sentences are not justified, and it is not possible to understand the origin of the statement, such as:

• This is because video is most similar to face-to-face communication compared to other media.

In general, the paper needs a revision in English since it sometimes presents a repletion in words (e.g. “issues”) that makes the understanding of the article harder and not pleasant to read.

In terms of references, the paper must be improved since the latest reference reports to the year 2020 and the links to the videos on Youtube and other documents do not seem to be crucial to understanding the research.

Author Response

I would like to thank the editors and reviewers of this paper for their constructive advice to improve the quality of this paper. All reviewers agreed that the paper was timely and necessary for sustainable growth. Reviewer 1 recommended improving the logical development of this paper, Reviewer 2 recommended improving the abstract to be concise, and Reviewer 3 recommended supplementing the methodology and the content description of the conclusion. I challenged to reflect their advice to revise this paper as it could be possible. I tried to change each line of script; the change had been written in the red character in the revised version. The brief of changes had been discussed in the table as following attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1) Under the epidemic of COVID-19, the tourist destination represented by virtual reality can partially solve the depression that people cannot travel directly to the tourist destination. It's a helpless substitute. If the epidemic is over, people will still travel to the real world. If the author agrees with this judgment, please add this point in the part of conclusion.

2) The author selected the interviewees through the Google Survey. I don't know if the author can add the attribute structure table of the interviewees, which can help readers to judge the attitudes of which groups are reflected in the current survey results.

3) The model designed by the author seems fine. But readers will find that this model only answers the attitude of the respondents at the time of the survey. If the survey was conducted in the first half of 2020, or the survey will be conducted in 2023, the results are not the same as this one. The author can predict the impact of the epidemic environment on the attitudes of the respondents.

4) The conclusion of this paper is that virtual reality tourism products can stimulate people’s intention of traveling. Does this also mean that people who cannot travel due to the epidemic will be more vulnerable to being quarantined and restricted from moving after watching virtual reality of tourist destination? This point needs to be explained by the author in the part of conclusion.

Author Response

I would like to thank the editors and reviewers of this paper for their constructive advice to improve the quality of this paper. All reviewers agreed that the paper was timely and necessary for sustainable growth. Reviewer 1 recommended improving the logical development of this paper, Reviewer 2 recommended improving the abstract to be concise, and Reviewer 3 recommended supplementing the methodology and the content description of the conclusion. I challenged to reflect their advice to revise this paper as it could be possible. I tried to change each line of script; the change had been written in the red character in the revised version. The brief of changes had been discussed in the table as following attached PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author ignored the previous comments. Nothing has been changed. And the insertion of 2 references is downright disrespectful.

Author Response

I would like to thank the editors and reviewers of this paper for their constructive advice to improve the quality of this paper. Reviewer 1 recommended adding the recent reference in media richness theory. I reply his advice to revise this paper as it could be possible.Please see attachment for detailed reply

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The author corrected the content. minor editorial corrections required, To be included in the review.

Author Response

I really thank the editors and reviewers of this paper. Reviewer 1 recommended checking the editorial error and mistakes in the paper. I reflect his advice and revise this paper as it could be possible. I checked and corrected editing errors throughout the paper. In particular, the reference was re-edited according to the editing regulations.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.