Virtual Reality Destination Experiences Model: A Moderating Variable between Wisesa Sustainable Tourism Behavior and Tourists’ Intention to Visit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors and Editors,

I am grateful for the opportunity to review this paper. In the manuscript "Virtual Reality Destination Experiences Model: A Moderating variable between Wisesa Sustainable Tourism Behavior and Tourists' intention to visit." the authors have conducted relevant and timely issues. I also believe that this paper will be of interest to the readership of your Journal. As a moderating factor between sustainable tourism behavior (STB) and tourist visit intention (TVI), this study intends to create a virtual reality destination experience (VRDE) model.

I recommend a major revision before further consideration, along with the following comment that should be considered with care and love for detail.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

We have revised the manuscript 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your article could be an interesting piece of research since it serves an original dataset and is dedicated to a perspective topic. However, it should be significantly improved. I would suggest the following modifications:

1. First of all, language and style are a bit bizarre, typos stand out the mile, thus, extensive English editing is required. I would suggest native-speaker proofreading. 

2. (47-49) Where did you get this statement? Can it be proven by statistics or citations?

3. (50-53) This kind of definition of VR is not looking appropriate for an academic article. I would invite you to launch an introduction to VR in your article through the Milgram et Kishino (1994) continuum. Then, it should be presented as a technology (far from new) with a disruptive potential (see Glebova E. (2020), Définir la réalité étendue dans les sports : limitations,facteurs et opportunités, in (Eds) Desbordes, M., Hautbois, C. (2020) Management du sports 3.0;Economica, chapter #10, pp.271-293).

4. In H2, H3, and H4 how do you measure "significant"? It seems vague.

5. Please emphasise links between all 4H and explain why is it necessary (is it?) to test all of them in a single paper, which is quite encumbering for a reader.

6. (160) at Kebon0 village?

7. (182-183) the illustration's quality is poor. Please improve or delete.

8. The Discussion should be more coherent with the theoretical part.

9. The theoretical framework must be straightened and better justified alongside the methodology.

10. Limitations should be extended and perspective future research directions can be complementary proposed.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

We have already revised the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

REVIEWER REPORT

Summary

The article aims to investigate the relationship between sustainable tourist behavior (STB) and tourist visit intention (TVI) via virtual reality destination experience. The subject is good and innovative and the research results have some contributions to concurrent international literature. However, the paper needs some fundamental improvements to be publishable; the abstract, introduction, methodology, and finding sections have some shortages as follows.

Abstract and Keywords

1.     This section is too short and incomplete since it doesn't cover all necessary materials in the scientific abstract (well introducing the subject, clear methodology, etc.)

2.     There is an undefined acronym (TRVI) that should be addressed.

3.     Keywords don't cover all the research content and some of them need to be replaced by some contextual words that have been addressed in the article sections.

Introduction

4.     This section suffers from a compelling argument about the relationships between virtual reality in tourism and tourists' behaviors and intentions since it cannot focus on the main concern of the research and discuss many things.

5.     There is weak cohesion between the research questions and hypothesis; a significant relationship between the variables stated in the hypotheses has not been established. In other words, the hypotheses are neutral, while they should have a specific direction in order to guide the research structure. For instance, H1 says "Sustainable tourist behavior affects VR experiences significantly" what does it mean by significantly? This is an overall response, a Positive effect, or a Negative one? And to what extent in both cases? Thus, they need to be reorganized regarding temporary guesses of the authors and the research questions.

Research methods

6.     The results presented in Table 3 (Cross Loading Value) should be checked again precisely since there may be some miscalculating.  

7.     It seems that the authors have utilized the structural equation model in Figure 2. Research Model Result. If so there should be an explanation for this model and its application justification for the present study. 

Research Findings and Discussion

 8.     Following general assumptions in the introduction section (see No.5), the findings of the article have fallen into a general conclusion that declines the results' reliability and applicability.

9.     In line with the contributions of the paper, this section can highlight and differentiate the results of the present study from findings of other similar studies in the region or other places of the world.

 Language and Referencing

 10.  Referencing style should be corrected based on the Sustainability journal.

 11.  There are some grammatical mistakes throughout the text and it seems that the whole text should undergo a native English language editing process.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your comments and suggestions 

Attached we have revised the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The concepts covered, especially Virtual Reality, are interesting and up-to-date. The type of analysis carried out implies the use of a consolidated and recognized methodology. In addition, the length of the paper is very reasonable. But there are several elements that must be corrected:

The methodology used is PLS-SEM, but it is not really mentioned or exposed what it consists or its advantages for the proposed study.

In section 3 (it would be better to separate it into two sections: Methodology and Results) no citation is used to support the criteria and statistical tools used in the analysis.

Nor is any citation used to indicate the source of the data used in the first paragraph of section 1 (Introduction).

In addition, the citation format must be reviewed: multiple citations within the same bracket; explicit citations should keep the names of the authors in the wording, etc.

The Conclusions and Limitations section is too short. It should be developed a bit more.

On the other hand, there are several recommendations for improvement in the presentation:

At the end of section 2, a Figure with the causal model resulting from the proposed hypotheses would be good.

The field work carried out could be further detailed.

Tables 4, 6 and 7 could be merged into one, like how the SmartPLS program itself generates the data.

If these defects are corrected, an interesting article may remain.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

We have revised the manuscript as per your suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The subject of the article is interesting and actual. However, I present some suggestions so that the article can be published:

-        Firstly, It is necessary to observe the citations, there are some incorrect citations in the text.

 -        In the introduction, I felt some gaps between the issues. It is necessary to link the paragraphs. For instance, you are talking about batik and suddenly pass to write about VR. Also, the introduction, it is not presented the aim of the study. 

-        There is no call to the tables in the text, which is confusing. It presents the profile of the sample right in the Research Method, but I suggest that this must be presented in the results. The analysis of this profile is very weak. How does this profile affect the results? Is this sample data similar to the profile of the tourist visiting the region? Is it similar or different to the official tourism data?

-        Check the quality of Fig. 1, it is out of standard.

-        The presentation of the paper is so confusing. Chapter 3 is dedicated to Research Method, but you are already presenting the results in the middle of that.

-        In Convergent Validity why the criteria used for factor loading was 0.7? According to whom?

-        In Line 204: in the statement “The constructs' finding have good validity of discriminant” - what does that indicate?

-        Line 209: The minimum necessity of AVE value is larger than 0.50 - according to whom? Why was this value used?

-        To conclude: The presentation of the paper is very confusing. It is necessary to better present the methodology chapter, dropping only the explanation of how the collection and analysis were done, presenting the variables of the questionnaire and how the data were analysed.

-        In the chapter on the results, the results tables should be presented. However, it is necessary to better explain the criteria for the validation of each hypothesis and, finally, the model validation.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

we have revised the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your effort in revising the paper. I am now confident to recommend acceptance of your paper.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your fruitful reviews that improve our article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing all recommendations.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your valuable reviews to improve our article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has been improved considerably. However, there are some comments that have yet to be addressed;

- Comment 5 (each question should be answered temporarily by one hypothesis so the authors should formulate more hypotheses to cover all the questions

- Comment 7(the explanation requested should be added)

Author Response

We thank you very much for your insight that imrpove our article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The indicated points have been reasonably corrected.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your reviews that improve our article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

It is noted that the authors have substantially improved the paper, however, there are still considerations regarding the document:

- There are still problems with the citations that should be revised. Sometimes, it does not make sense to only present the number of citations. See the correct way to present this type of citation. 

 - Lines 49-51 cite sources of the statement:

Tourists use more energy, food, water hence making more waste than they do at home, placing a pressure on some of the world’s most susceptible and or 50 poor locations.

 - Line 120-122 - on what basis is this claim made?

Experiential tourists not only want to see the beautiful scenery of an environmentally friendly area but are also moderated by the development of modern VR experience technology.

 - Line 123-137 This paragraph is confusing. It is unclear whether the objectives are from previous studies or present studies.

- Line 244-247 In this item the location is presented. I did not understand why PLS_SEM was presented here.

 - Line 251-252 and lines 418-419 - It is not necessary to cite the title of the paper.

 -        All tables should be presented in the text.

 -        Cite Smart-PLS version 3.0 many times is not necessary.

-        These adjustments will still be needed for the article to be published.

Author Response

We thank you for your fruitful reviews, we attached herewith the revised version

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf