Effect of Exhibition Facilities, Professional Competence, and Green Procurement on Green Meeting, Incentive Travel, Convention, and Exhibition Industry Performance Measurement: A Case Study of the Exhibition Industry of Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Let me begin by congratulating you on your research.
I think the article has an adequate structure and is well-developed.
However, I have some doubts that I will now describe:
1- What is the viable population for the study? You mention 375 respondents. But how many are 375 out of a total of how many?
2- Was the questionnaire developed from scratch? Or did you use a validated questionnaire? I want to ask if a pre-test was carried out and if it was developed from scratch.
3- SEM seems adequate, and I particularly appreciate it in studies. The question which raised my doubts is related to the conclusions presented. Besides being very extensive, I think they are very ambitious. I give as an example section 5.2.4, with which I disagree. The study developed does not seem capable of responding to what is described in this section.
In the conclusions, they do not mention a single study referred to in the literature review. They should compare previous studies to demonstrate if this study validates the previous ones if it adds new evidence, or if it contradicts the other studies.
I hope I have contributed to improving the quality of the study presented.
Best of luck with your article.
Kind regards
Author Response
- What is the viable population for the study? You mention 375 respondents. But how many are 375 out of a total of how many?
Response: Corrected please refer to P.10，3.1
- Was the questionnaire developed from scratch? Or did you use a validated questionnaire? I want to ask if a pre-test was carried out and if it was developed from scratch.
Response: Corrected please refer to P.10，3.2
- SEM seems adequate, and I particularly appreciate it in studies. The question which raised my doubts is related to the conclusions presented. Besides being very extensive, I think they are very ambitious. I give as an example section 5.2.4, with which I disagree. The study developed does not seem capable of responding to what is described in this section.
In the conclusions, they do not mention a single study referred to in the literature review. They should compare previous studies to demonstrate if this study validates the previous ones if it adds new evidence, or if it contradicts the other studies
Response: Corrected please refer to P.18，5. Conclusion and Suggestions (The contents of 5.1 and 5.2 have been added and rearranged)
Reviewer 2 Report
I have carefully studied the article. The manuscript is well-articulated, but I have the following concerns to incorporate before considering it for publication.
Abstract
The abstract is not in line with the standards of the journal - it needs to be corrected.
Introduction
The introduction did not deliver what and how this research contributes to the existing knowledge base.
A poorly demonstrated research gap. Why is the topic discussed important? So far, according to the authors, no one has undertaken it - what could it mean?
No description of the adopted methodology.
No description of the chapters with a clearly defined purpose, etc.
The introduction is incomplete and needs to be sorted out.
Literature Review
Part of the „Literature Review” – is very cursory, it requires deepening. The paper lacks an in-depth literature review.
What definition of MICRE do the authors adopt? What follows from the adoption of such a definition (arguments)?
There is no discussion in the Results and Discussion section.
These recommendations aim to improve the original version of the manuscript. The authors have made a significant research effort and their results are relevant to the academic literature. However, there are some flaws that make it difficult to understand the context and generate the new knowledge provided.
I hope that the authors receive these recommendations positively. All the best!
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
- The abstract is not in line with the standards of the journal - it needs to be corrected.
Introduction
Response: Corrected please refer to P.1, Abstract content has been modified.Thank you for your advice. The abstract has been corrected according to your suggestion, but it is not clear what you pointed out. The abstract is not in line with the standards of the journal - it needs to be corrected. Is it the content? Or the format ?Does the above correction match your correction suggestion?
- The introduction did not deliver what and how this research contributes to the existing knowledge base. A poorly demonstrated research gap. Why is the topic discussed important? So far, according to the authors, no one has undertaken it - what could it mean? No description of the adopted methodology. No description of the chapters with a clearly defined purpose, etc. The introduction is incomplete and needs to be sorted out
Response: Corrected please refer to P.3，1.1
- Part of the „Literature Review” – is very cursory, it requires deepening. The paper lacks an in-depth literature review.What definition of MICRE do the authors adopt? What follows from the adoption of such a definition (arguments)?
Response: Corrected please refer to P.3 2.1 Exhibition Industry content has been corrected.
- There is no discussion in the Results and Discussion section.
These recommendations aim to improve the original version of the manuscript. The authors have made a significant research effort and their results are relevant to the academic literature. However, there are some flaws that make it difficult to understand the context and generate the new knowledge provided.
Response: Corrected please refer to P.18，5. Conclusion and Suggestions(The contents of 5.1 and 5.2 have been added and rearranged).
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very good paper and I enjoyed reading it.
I suggest to explicit the research question in the intrudaction and to brefly describe the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction,
Author Response
- I suggest to explicit the research question in the introduction and to briefly describe the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction,
Response: Corrected please refer to P.3,1.1 and 1.2
Reviewer 4 Report
Thanks for submitting to sustainability. The paper has certain merits and presents interesting outcomes. However, the paper needs to be improved to enhance its possibility of publication. The followings are my suggestions to improve the paper:
1. The title is not representative as it reflects only one variable out of five variables. rephrase the title to make it more reflective.
2. Literature review is well written but most of the citations are not recent. The authors should add the latest literature to make their arguments more strong.
3. The paper lacks theoretical basis. The authors should include relevant theory or theories to provide sound theoretical foundation to the study.
4. Figure 1 is not a component of Research Methods section. Place it after hypotheses.
5. What is the sampling method? Mention it clearly
6. Create a separate section on Results/Analysis
7. Create a separate section on Discussion having sub sections on implications, suggestions, limitations and conclusion.
GOOD LUCK
The manuscript needs to be proofread thoroughly.
Author Response
- The title is not representative as it reflects only one variable out of five variables. rephrase the title to make it more reflective.
Response: Corrected please refer to P.1, The manuscript title has been renamed.
- Literature review is well written but most of the citations are not recent. The authors should add the latest literature to make their arguments more strong.
Response: Corrected please refer to P.4 2.1, P.5 2.2. Added recent literature.
- The paper lacks theoretical basis. The authors should include relevant theory or theories to provide sound theoretical foundation to the study.
Response: Corrected please refer to P.4 2.1, P.5 2.2. Added recent literature.
- Figure 1 is not a component of Research Methods section. Place it after hypotheses.
Response: Corrected please refer to P.10 figure 1 (including text content) after the narrative of 2.5 assumptions, Chapter 3 is amended to 3.1～3.3.
- What is the sampling method? Mention it clearly
Response: Corrected please refer to P.10 3.1, in the 2023 Taipei International Machine Tool Show (2023 TIMTOS). For a total of 748 Taiwanese exhibitors, the random sampling method was used to choose more than half of participants as the respondents.
6. Create a separate section on Results/Analysis
Response: Corrected please refer to P.12 4. change title Data Analysis Results
P.16 4.3 change title,Model Verification Results
P.18 5.1 Conclusion and Discussion
7. Create a separate section on Discussion having sub sections on implications, suggestions, limitations and conclusion.
Response: Corrected please refer to P.18 5. Conclusion and Suggestions(The contents of 5.1 and 5.2 have been added and rearranged).
8. Comments on the Quality of English Language The manuscript needs to be proofread thoroughly.
Response: The English quality re-editing of the manuscript has been completed in response to the comments, please refer to the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for your adjustments and improvements.
I wish you fortunate with your article.
Kind Regards,
Rui Bertuzi
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form Notes: The article has been corrected. This is not very high-quality text.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have successfully incorporated my suggestions and the manuscript is much better now.
English language is good, moderate editing is required
