Professionalizing Sharing Platforms for Sustainable Growth in the Hospitality Sector: Insights Gained through Hierarchical Linear Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
References do not agree with the journal.
In the Abstract, the purpose of the study needs to be clarified.
How original is the paper? You must complete the Abstract with this information.
There are ideas in the introduction that are not grounded in the literature. For example, in the second paragraph, there are more unsubstantiated ideas.
In the 4th paragraph, the authors identify some studies on the subject. But they don't exploit them. What are your findings? What is new about this new study compared to the existing ones?
The last paragraph can be deleted as it adds nothing to the study.
The introduction needs to be developed. I recommend revising the introduction as follows:
1- Framing the reader
2- Issues of the topic under analysis
3- Show the GAP of the literature based on the literature
4- Purpose of the study
5- Originality of the study
6- Main results and contributions (to captivate the reader)
One or two research questions should be formulated in the introduction and answered in conclusion.
A good Introduction section should be answering several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are research questions? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Why is to propose this particular method? Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument. At the moment, research questions are unclear.
I recommend including a theory in the introduction so that it is the "lens/perspective" through which the study will be analyzed.
They must include the theory in point 2.1.
I recommend structuring the literature review a little better. Structure to follow:
2. Literature review
2.1. Theory …
2.2. (review of the general literature on the subject)
2.3. Formulation of hypotheses
2.3.1. (each "variable" create a subsection)
The literature review still needs to be updated, it has few studies published recently (cite one or two studies from 2023).
A quantitative study has hypotheses to be formulated in the literature review. They must be numbered and appear when addressing the topic and not all at the end of the literature review.
In my opinion, the hypotheses are not well formulated. Considering what the literature points out, they must be formulated positively or negatively. The literature must justify this.
The study must still have a robust research model at the end of the literature review.
I recommend having your English proofread by a professional. Some ideas are not 100% understood.
The methodology is not clear. What they write is confusing. Making a figure or table with all the steps would help the reader better understand what was done. As written, it is not possible to replicate the study.
The methodology needs to be justified, clear and detailed. It is not clear what was done. It is not possible to replicate the study.
I recommend starting the methodology section by reminding the reader of the purpose of the study.
They must justify the methodology used. Indicate advantages and substantiate with literature.
Why did they use this methodology and method and not another?
In the methodology, it is unclear why the sample was from Airbnb? This needs to be justified.
Data is from 2012-2019... Surely they can update to 2021 or 2022? This data is no longer current… Before the pandemic…
Place a table in the methodology with a brief definition of each variable and the authors who have already studied them.
The results are worrying.
Since the hypotheses are not well formulated and grounded in the literature, the results are unclear. What hypotheses are accepted or rejected?
Not having a robust research model, the results fall into a "void".
It needs to be fully revised as they need to make a robust research model in the literature review. They have 4 hypotheses formulated, in my opinion, not correctly, which is insufficient.
A discussion of results should not start with practical and then theoretical implications.
They must first discuss the results of the hypotheses on the subject and compare them with the literature. Only later should come the implications.
By changing the hypotheses and research model, the conclusion will certainly change.
In conclusion, they must respond to the research questions formulated in the literature review.
In conclusion, should they also clarify what the paper adds to science?
Finalize the section with limitations of the study and future lines of investigation.
English needs to be proofread, preferably by a native speaker.
In the review, I ask the authors to write a rebuttal letter and include the answers to all recommendations. Also, mark the revisions made in a different colour.
Author Response
Hi Reviewer,
The response has been provided as an attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Variable descriptions needs to be.improved.
How the authors analyzed the data?
Moreover, research hypotjeses and its development process needs to be.strengthended.
Acronyms need to be used after presenting full name.
Theoretical contribution of this work is weak. It shoud be based on organized literature review.
Author Response
Variable descriptions needs to be.improved.
Response: The variables have been worked upon throughout the paper
How the authors analyzed the data?
Response: We utilized the hierarchical linear model via Stata 14 Software.
Moreover, research hypotjeses and its development process needs to be.strengthended.
Response: The hypotheses have been rectified and it now align with universal principle for hypotheses (see the summary of hypothesis)
Acronyms need to be used after presenting full name.
Response: This has been dealt with.
Theoretical contribution of this work is weak. It shoud be based on organized literature.
Response: This has been substantially developed see section 4.1.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has potential for publication but the authors should improve some concepts in order to clarify and significantly improve their scientific study
Improve the clarity and coherence of the introduction: The introduction of the paper could be clearer and more concise. It should provide a brief overview of the problem and the main arguments that the paper presents.
Provide more evidence to support the claims: The article makes many claims without providing enough evidence to support them. The author should provide more examples, statistics, and research to support the arguments.
Use more recent references: Although the author cites some recent studies, some of the references are quite old. Using more recent research would make the article more relevant and up to date.
Develop the methodology further: The article briefly mentions the use of hierarchical linear regression, but does not provide enough detail on how this method will be used to analyze the data. The author should provide a clear and concise explanation of the methodology: Although the text mentions the use of hierarchical linear modeling and a survey to supplement existing research, it is not entirely clear what the methodology entails. The authors should provide a detailed explanation of the methods used, including the specific steps taken and the rationale for choosing these methods. Discuss the limitations of the methodology: It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the chosen methodology, such as potential biases in the survey or limitations in the data used for hierarchical linear modeling. By acknowledging these limitations, authors can strengthen the overall credibility of their findings.
Improve the organization of the article: The article jumps from one topic to another without a clear structure. The author should organize the article more clearly, with clear headings and subheadings to guide the reader.
Consider alternative viewpoints: The article focuses primarily on the benefits of professionalism in the e-hospitality sector. The author should consider alternative viewpoints and address potential counter-arguments.
Edit for grammar and style: The article could benefit from some editing for grammar and style. The author should review the article carefully and consider having a professional colleague or editor review it as well.
Author Response
The article has potential for publication but the authors should improve some concepts in order to clarify and significantly improve their scientific study
Thank you we glad you considered to provide
Improve the clarity and coherence of the introduction: The introduction of the paper could be clearer and more concise. It should provide a brief overview of the problem and the main arguments that the paper presents.
Response: The copyeditors have made significant input to the study, which has helped covered the lapsed in the problem statement.
Provide more evidence to support the claims: The article makes many claims without providing enough evidence to support them. The author should provide more examples, statistics, and research to support the arguments.
Use more recent references: Although the author cites some recent studies, some of the references are quite old. Using more recent research would make the article more relevant and up to date.
Response: More recent references have been provided.
Develop the methodology further: The article briefly mentions the use of hierarchical linear regression, but does not provide enough detail on how this method will be used to analyze the data. The author should provide a clear and concise explanation of the methodology: Although the text mentions the use of hierarchical linear modeling and a survey to supplement existing research, it is not entirely clear what the methodology entails. The authors should provide a detailed explanation of the methods used, including the specific steps taken and the rationale for choosing these methods. Discuss the limitations of the methodology: It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the chosen methodology, such as potential biases in the survey or limitations in the data used for hierarchical linear modeling. By acknowledging these limitations, authors can strengthen the overall credibility of their findings.
Response: We have provided the trajectory of how the data for the manuscript was sourced and utilized. From data collection until sampling, before we introduced a paragraph of the limitation of the HLM.
Improve the organization of the article: The article jumps from one topic to another without a clear structure. The author should organize the article more clearly, with clear headings and subheadings to guide the reader.
Response: The technicalities of the manuscript have been dealt.
Consider alternative viewpoints: The article focuses primarily on the benefits of professionalism in the e-hospitality sector. The author should consider alternative viewpoints and address potential counter-arguments.
Response: We have now introduced such instance in this research to give it some balance (see the literature section)
Edit for grammar and style: The article could benefit from some editing for grammar and style. The author should review the article carefully and consider having a professional colleague or editor review it as well.
Response: This manuscript has now gone through copyeditors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are sections in the paper that are not numbered.
The introduction has improved, but the order of ideas suggested earlier was not fully followed. For example, the purpose of the study should be written after justifying the GAPs. That is, in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction. Furthermore, the purpose of the study is unclear.
This version's last paragraph of the introduction can be deleted as it adds nothing to the study. The last paragraph of the introduction should highlight the contributions of the study. What does the study add to science? What brings it again?
The literature review is not well organized. Previously it was suggested.
2. Literature review
2.1. Theory …
2.2. (review of the general literature on the subject)
2.3. Formulation of hypotheses
2.3.1. (each "variable" create a subsection)
Furthermore, they do not need to repeat hypotheses over the research model.
In the research model, the hypotheses (h1, h2 …)
Place a table in the methodology with a brief definition of each variable and the authors who have already studied them. The table they make does not have it!
The authors must clearly write whether the hypotheses are accepted or rejected in the results.
The discussion of results has to be developed.
In the review, I ask the authors to write a rebuttal letter and include the answers to all recommendations. Also, mark the revisions made in a different colour.
Author Response
Point by point response by the authors
|
Reviewer’s comments |
Authors’ comments |
|
Please kindly check and carefully revised R1's comments (The authors must clearly write whether the hypotheses are accepted or rejected in the results.
The authors must clearly write whether the hypotheses are accepted or rejected in the results.
|
Thank you for this suggestion, we have created a table for this purpose (see page 17) |
|
This version's last paragraph of the introduction can be deleted as it adds nothing to the study. The last paragraph of the introduction should highlight the contributions of the study.
What does the study add to science? What brings it again?
|
This depends on the writing style of the researcher. The conventional style of writing demands that the researcher introduces the audience to the other sections of the discourse in the last paragraph, especially in social and management sciences.
First there are two kinds of professional conduct in the sharing accommodation space: ticket clippers and end-to-end model. Moreso, there are more complaints from residents concerning ticket clippers and it was noted that this model has caused severe shutdown in several cities and regions. The end-to-end model appears to be more sustainable. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that professionals tend to improve the overall rating, and where the overall rating mediates the relationship between management firm (property/apartment/accommodation venue) and price. It was further observed that there was no relationship between overall rating and the number of HomeAway supply types; nevertheless, the professionals promote the image and reputation of the property.
|
|
The literature review is not well organized. Previously it was suggested. 2. Literature review 2.1. Theory … 2.2. (review of the general literature on the subject) 2.3. Formulation of hypotheses 2.3.1. (each "variable" create a subsection)
|
We used the following header to present our argument:
2. Related literature 2.1 Sharing economy 2.2 Antecedents of the sharing economy 2.3 Access over ownership in Australian market 2.4 Professionalism of the sharing economy 2.5 Formulation of hypotheses 2.5.1 Summary of hypotheses
If there are no violation to literature writing we would want to keep it this way. Thank you. |
|
Place a table in the methodology with a brief definition of each variable and the authors who have already studied them. The table they make does not have it!
|
Thank you for this suggested we have adapted it as seen in page 15 |
|
The discussion of results has to be developed.
|
The discussion section has been updated see p. 18 |
|
In the review, I ask the authors to write a rebuttal letter and include the answers to all recommendations. Also, mark the revisions made in a different colour and so on.) |
Because most of the concerns raised were in line with universal convention, there is no rebuttal letter at this time but a *Point by point response*, including my responses to all comments. All the revisions in the manuscript are shown in red. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision is well done,
Author Response
Thank you
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has improved a lot since the first version. I think it can be accepted.
