A Study on the Effect of Authenticity on Heritage Tourists’ Mindful Tourism Experience: The Case of the Forbidden City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting and worth investigating.
I have following remarks about improvement of the reviewed paper:
· The research gap is good stated but I think in the introduction is good to add the aim of the research and research question. It would be good to link it to the research gap. Also link the literature to the research questions.
· Literature analysis is ok, but it lack newest position from last two years – authors should add them to make the literature more relevant and up-to-date.
· In the methodology section describe all methods used in the paper.
· The discussion section is very brief – please give more in-deep discussion with the more links to other research about the analyzed topics.
I think it's ok.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Please refer to the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
While reading this manuscript, I found it very interesting and enjoyed reading through it. However, the writing is at a fair level, needs English proofreading, and the concept is widely used. In recent times, I think people have been talking a lot about this particular area extensively. This trend has continued over the past decades. In order to finish this kind of research, it is essential to determine the study's goals and the substantial contributions it will make. Most recent literature should be taken under consideration since they are widely available. The research gap and hypothesis must be based on the most recent literature, but unfortunately, this is absent in this study. In my opinion, the methodology that was applied in order to support the research was quite interesting. In addition, I would like to make the following observations, which can help in improving the overall quality of this research:
1. What are the objectives/aims of this research? Please clearly mention it and justify.
2. Why is it important to carry forward with this research since sufficient research is available in this area? What new things would this research offer?
3. Why do the authors think data collected in Spring 2021 is recent enough to conduct a widely used research topic?
4. Needs English proofreading. Try avoiding I/We/Us/Our such words.
5. Authors mentioned, “Site managers can target activity planning to improve learning experiences and enjoyment experiences in order to increase tourists' satisfaction”. Could you suggest how it would be done?
Needs English proofreading. Try avoiding I/We/Us/Our such words.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Please refer to the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of authenticity and mindfulness on visitor experience, satisfaction, and loyalty. They used mindfulness theory, a structural model and eight hypotheses. The data was evaluated with confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The results showed that authenticity had a significant impact on mindfulness, and that mindfulness had a large influence on visitors' experiences. The study seeks to fill a gap in the evidence of empirical studies that mindfulness is related to enhanced tourist experiences within in the context of heritage tourism.
Minor issues with the manuscript should be fixed:
Page 10, table 2, the S.E. acronym is not defined.
Page 12, table 3, AU, MI, SA and LO acronyms need to be defined in the text or table.
Page 12, table 3, FW, SU and RI acronyms should be removed
Page 13, paragraph 1, before the third sentence (“… Results from …"), the authors should clarify how the values of beta and t should validate the hypothesis.
Page 13, table 4, asterisks notation should be explained in the text or underneath the table.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Please see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing the comments. I believe this would improve the quality of your manuscript.
