Review Reports - The Use of Virtual Reality in Tourism Destinations as a Tool to Develop Tourist Behavior Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article potential to be accepted, but some must be clarified as follows: 1. In lines 290-291, This study used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the variable hypotheses, along with its main and interaction effects. However, the authors didn't clearly describe the characteristic of the data used for the experiment. For example, Each group sample is drawn from a normally distributed population, All populations have a common variance, All samples are drawn independently of each other, etc. 2. In lines 374-376, the author said this research considered the difference between virtual reality and other media platforms. Compared with traditional social media video content, VR experiences are much more engaging, memorable, more persuasive, and interactive. The author didn't show the values of the comparison results. 3. Please improve the abstract.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you for your careful evaluation and helpful, detailed comments on the initial version of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate your valuable feedback and fully agree with the detailed comments and insightful suggestions. We hope we have adequately addressed your concerns. The paper was restructured and linked between sections for a better understanding of our research. There was made some adjustments according to the reviewer’s request in all sections. We also revised Table 1 and Table 2, we introduced Table 4 and we added the discussion section (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript).

Next, we provide point-by-point responses to your comments and explain the changes we made to address your concerns.

The article potential to be accepted, but some must be clarified as follows:

Point 1. In lines 290-291, This study used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the variable hypotheses, along with its main and interaction effects. However, the authors didn't clearly describe the characteristic of the data used for the experiment. For example, Each group sample is drawn from a normally distributed population, All populations have a common variance, All samples are drawn independently of each other, etc.

Response Point 1: Thank you for your valuable and helpful suggestions! We have made modifications according to the Reviewer’s comments to clarify the issues reported (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript – lines 274-297)

Point 2. In lines 374-376, the author said this research considered the difference between virtual reality and other media platforms. Compared with traditional social media video content, VR experiences are much more engaging, memorable, more persuasive, and interactive. The author didn't show the values of the comparison results.

Response Point 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We have added additional text according to the Reviewer’s comments (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript – lines 387-396).

Point 3. Please improve the abstract.

Response Point 3: Thank you for your recommendation. We have made modifications according to the Reviewer’s comments (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript).

We want to thank to reviewer for these observations which determined us for improving our research quality and better explanation of our results by pointing our original contribution in this research! Thank you once again for having appreciated our research paper and we hope that the new version will meet the publication requirements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

your paper is approaching an original topic. All the sections are well approached, the results have practical implications, the paper is adequate referenced. Anyway you should split the results and discussion section into two separate sections and comment your results within the highlight of previous researches.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear authors,

Response: Thank you for your careful evaluation and helpful, detailed comments on the initial version of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate your valuable feedback and fully agree with the detailed comments and insightful suggestions. We hope we have adequately addressed your concerns. The paper was restructured and linked between sections for a better understanding of our research. There was made some adjustments according to the reviewer’s request in all sections. We also revised Table 1 and Table 2, we introduced Table 4 and we added the discussion section (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript).

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

The manuscript analyzed the role of new technologies in tourism and its relationship with the perception of tourists who experience virtual reality during travel. The selected topic of the manuscript is of value both in theory and practice, especially in the post-pandemic context. The level of English is satisfactory, and the presentation is logical and scientific. I would publish the manuscript. However, some shortcomings should be addressed:

Core issues:

Firstly, we can see that the authors did remarkable work at the introduction and literature review parts until the research design part. It seems that the content of the research design part and the empirical analysis part is a little mixed. And come up with the thought that the two parts of the manuscript have become a mere formality. As we know, statistical analysis with rigorous design ideas is the basic principle of methodology. It is a necessary section in an article. And the quality of research design writing determines the rigor and scientificity of the article directly. What’s more, the presentation and explanation of the empirical analysis are also barely satisfactory. Therefore, it could be much more readable if the authors could make some adjustments to enrich the content and present it in an organized and detailed way.

Secondly, some mistakes or misunderstandings need the authors to explain. In the research design section, 1) was the sample selection implemented in a random context? 2) is the 824 selected people the results of sample selection? Is it necessary to exchange the order between the two sentences (page 6, lines 264; page 6, lines 274)? 3) how to distinguish an interviewee is suitable for the questionnaire? 4) why 8-point Likert-type scales was chosen since the common ones are 5-point Likert-type scales and 7-point Likert-type scales? 5) is the “Cronbach’s alpha coefficient” written by mistake? According to the numerical value, it’s more like factor loading. 6) is the numerical value up to the standard as required? 7) isn’t the structural model analysis the way to test the hypotheses in the AMOS software context? Why ANOVA?

In the empirical analysis section, we know the value of AVE is conducted by factor loading, so it is necessary to present the value in table 2. Besides, the meaning of the existence of Mean value and Standard Deviation value is little in table 2. Instead, they are more needed by table 1. Then, it would be more normative to indicate R2, P-value, confidence interval, and path coefficient in figure 2 and rearrange the structure for a more comfortable look. Next, I recommend the authors make a table to summarize the results of hypotheses verification. In this way, readers can catch the results in a short time. Last but not least, the presentation of the results of hypotheses is repetitive in the manuscript, as we can see them both on page 9, lines 320-331, lines 332-334, lines 343-345, and so on.

To address the issues above, the authors need to put time and energy into efforts to get familiar with the procedure of an empirical study. Frankly, the survey of the theme that VR in tourists’ perception is meaningful both in the academic field and practical management. If the authors could handle the method and data things well, I believe the manuscript would be more acceptable.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Core issues:

Point 1) Firstly, we can see that the authors did remarkable work at the introduction and literature review parts until the research design part. It seems that the content of the research design part and the empirical analysis part is a little mixed. And come up with the thought that the two parts of the manuscript have become a mere formality. As we know, statistical analysis with rigorous design ideas is the basic principle of methodology. It is a necessary section in an article. And the quality of research design writing determines the rigor and scientificity of the article directly. What’s more, the presentation and explanation of the empirical analysis are also barely satisfactory. Therefore, it could be much more readable if the authors could make some adjustments to enrich the content and present it in an organized and detailed way.

Response Point 1: Thank you for your careful evaluation and helpful, detailed comments on the initial version of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate your valuable feedback and fully agree with the detailed comments and insightful suggestions. We hope we have adequately addressed your concerns. The paper was restructured and linked between sections for a better understanding of our research. There was made some adjustments according to the reviewer’s request in all sections. We also revised Table 1 and Table 2, we introduced Table 4 and we added the discussion section (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript).

Point 2) Secondly, some mistakes or misunderstandings need the authors to explain. In the research design section, 1) was the sample selection implemented in a random context? 2) is the 824 selected people the results of sample selection? Is it necessary to exchange the order between the two sentences (page 6, lines 264; page 6, lines 274)? 3) how to distinguish an interviewee is suitable for the questionnaire? 4) why 8-point Likert-type scales was chosen since the common ones are 5-point Likert-type scales and 7-point Likert-type scales? 5) is the “Cronbach’s alpha coefficient” written by mistake? According to the numerical value, it’s more like factor loading. 6) is the numerical value up to the standard as required? 7) isn’t the structural model analysis the way to test the hypotheses in the AMOS software context? Why ANOVA?

Response Point 2: Thank you for your valuable and helpful suggestions! We have made modifications according to the Reviewer’s comments to clarify the issues reported (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript – lines 274-297)

Point 3) In the empirical analysis section, we know the value of AVE is conducted by factor loading, so it is necessary to present the value in table 2. Besides, the meaning of the existence of Mean value and Standard Deviation value is little in table 2. Instead, they are more needed by table 1. Then, it would be more normative to indicate R2, P-value, confidence interval, and path coefficient in figure 2 and rearrange the structure for a more comfortable look. Next, I recommend the authors make a table to summarize the results of hypotheses verification. In this way, readers can catch the results in a short time. Last but not least, the presentation of the results of hypotheses is repetitive in the manuscript, as we can see them both on page 9, lines 320-331, lines 332-334, lines 343-345, and so on.

Response Point 3: Thank you for your recommendation. We have made modifications according to the Reviewer’s comments (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript – lines 307-371).

Point 4) To address the issues above, the authors need to put time and energy into efforts to get familiar with the procedure of an empirical study. Frankly, the survey of the theme that VR in tourists’ perception is meaningful both in the academic field and practical management. If the authors could handle the method and data things well, I believe the manuscript would be more acceptable.

Response Point 4: We want to thank to reviewer for these observations which determined us for improving our research quality and better explanation of our results by pointing our original contribution in this research! The paper was restructured and linked between sections for a better understanding of our research. There was made some adjustments according to the reviewer’s request in all sections (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript).

Thank you once again for having appreciated our research paper and we hope that the new version will meet the publication requirements.

Reviewer 4 Report

The idea behind this study was actual.The data analysis seems very sound to me. Overall, the theme appears very interesting and worthy of further study. Overall, it is an interesting study, worth publishing after taking into account the suggested changes and additions.

-Literature review: there is no refers to sustainability to apply technology.

-Methods: Some of your results and subsequent discussion will be enhanced if the reader had further information about the sample (p. 6 lines 274..). Are international people? or only Romanian?

-The author describes UTAUT model but need also what advantage the authors found using this tool.

Providing more detail and description will also help future researchers identify potential improvements to and gaps in this analysis.
-Conclusions: the concluding sections of the paper, particularly those dealing with contributions to practice, limitations, and directions for future research, seem too thin. Really p. 10 lines 384-398 ( in the section results) could be insert in the conclusions. Therefore, the authors describe the limitations and future avenues of research but do not conclude the article with some key aspects of their research that would emphasize the original contributions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

The idea behind this study was actual. The data analysis seems very sound to me. Overall, the theme appears very interesting and worthy of further study. Overall, it is an interesting study, worth publishing after taking into account the suggested changes and additions.

Next, we provide point-by-point responses to your comments and explain the changes we made to address your concerns.

Point 1) Literature review: there is no refers to sustainability to apply technology.

Response Point 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We have added additional text according to the Reviewer’s comments (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript – lines 60-68).

Point 2) Methods: Some of your results and subsequent discussion will be enhanced if the reader had further information about the sample (p. 6 lines 274..). Are international people? or only Romanian?

Point 3) The author describes UTAUT model but need also what advantage the authors found using this tool.

Providing more detail and description will also help future researchers identify potential improvements to and gaps in this analysis.

Response Point 3: Thank you for pointing out this aspect. We have made modifications in 2.2. Factors of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and behavioral intention model sub-section according to the Reviewer’s comments (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript– lines 162-171).

Point 4) Conclusions: the concluding sections of the paper, particularly those dealing with contributions to practice, limitations, and directions for future research, seem too thin. Really p. 10 lines 384-398 ( in the section results) could be insert in the conclusions. Therefore, the authors describe the limitations and future avenues of research but do not conclude the article with some key aspects of their research that would emphasize the original contributions.

Response Point 4: Thank you for your recommendation. We have made modifications according to the Reviewer’s comments (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript- lines 423-483).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to update your manuscript.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1. Thanks to update your manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

We can see the authors could tackle most of the issues, and the revised manuscript has been improved a lot.

Then, if table 4 of the manuscript could be slightly revised to clarify the significance levels of hypotheses, that would be preferable. And then line them up in figure 2 at the appropriate places.

Finally, I hope the authors could keep a close eye on the empirical analysis and learn about it. In this way, I believe the authors could make more performance at paper writing.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1) Dear authors:

We can see the authors could tackle most of the issues, and the revised manuscript has been improved a lot.

Then, if table 4 of the manuscript could be slightly revised to clarify the significance levels of hypotheses, that would be preferable. And then line them up in figure 2 at the appropriate places.

Response Point 1: Thank you for your careful evaluation and helpful, detailed comments on the initial version of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate your valuable feedback and fully agree with the detailed comments and insightful suggestions. We hope we have adequately addressed your concerns. There was made some adjustments according to the reviewer’s request in Table 4 and Figure 2 (please take a look at version of our revised manuscript).

Thank you once again for having appreciated our research paper and we hope that the new version will meet the publication requirements.