Measuring Sustainable Tourism Lifestyle Entrepreneurship Orientation to Improve Tourist Experience
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Thanks to the authors for their response. All my comments and suggestions have been answered correctly.
Author Response
Reviwer #1
Thank you for the supportive comment.
Reviwer #2
The paper has improved and the literary review is more organized.
R: Thank you for the supportive comment.
the Manuscript still needs text editing and revising as some problems remain.
line91 7 sections or 5 sections and 2 subsections Please refer to the main sections only for clarity
R: Thank you for pointing this out. The line was revised, and the number of sections where correct.
line 147 (Peters et al., 2019).
R: Thank you for pointing this out. The line was revised, and the reference was corrected.
line 531.,
R: Thank you for pointing this out. The line was revised, and the error corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The paper has improved and the literary review is more organized.
the Manuscript still needs text editing and revising as some problems remain.
line91 7 sections or 5 sections and 2 subsections Please refer to the main sections only for clarity
line 147 (Peters et al., 2019).
line 531.,
Author Response
Reviwer #1
Thank you for the supportive comment.
Reviwer #2
The paper has improved and the literary review is more organized.
R: Thank you for the supportive comment.
the Manuscript still needs text editing and revising as some problems remain.
line91 7 sections or 5 sections and 2 subsections Please refer to the main sections only for clarity
R: Thank you for pointing this out. The line was revised, and the number of sections where correct.
line 147 (Peters et al., 2019).
R: Thank you for pointing this out. The line was revised, and the reference was corrected.
line 531.,
R: Thank you for pointing this out. The line was revised, and the error corrected.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Grammatically the manuscript is correct and appropriately written. The choice of the problem and its importance have academic and practical relevance. The literature was reviewed properly and satisfactorily. Methods used are standard and appropriate justifying the objectives and title of the research data have been collected systematically as per the standard norms. The collection of the data is adequate and sufficient. Data analysis and interpretation are made adequately as per objectives and are appropriate and relevant. The way the result was presented. and discussed with suitable tables and figures with relevant updated literature are good. Measurement, scientific terms properly cited.
Very good work!
Congratulations! and wish you continued success with a good contribution to society through your research.
wish you the best Thanks and regards
|
Point 1 |
Follow the rules and guidelines provided by the journals while writing the contents and structure of the manuscript |
|
Point 2 |
Please provide the reference number for each reference in the manuscript and follow the rules and guidelines given by the journal while writing the references. |
|
Point 3 |
Scope to improve research gaps and research contribution |
|
Point 4 |
Scope to improve the value of the study |
|
Point 5 |
Scope to improve the practical application for the implication |
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are very thankful for all the supportive comments
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic proposed by the authors is interesting and is quite well focused throughout the article. However, I think some changes should be made:
The introduction is correct and contains the main objective of the paper is defined on page 2 lines 85-87. However, the methodology used to achieve this objective does not appear in the introduction. The authors should comment what mythology will be applied (EFAX, CFA, etc.) to measure tourism lifestyle entrepreneurship.
The reviewed literature is complete and extensive. He reviews from what is the concept of entrepreneurship to the tourism lifestyle entrepreneur, noting the importance, and the main result of previous studies, but since the manuscript is focused on measuring the tourist’s perception of entrepreneurs, in the literature review it should be cited some studies about this aspect.
In section 3: Material and Methods, the authors say thar: “items generated in this study were based on the existing literature regarding tourism lifestyle entrepreneurship. To choose the most relevant articles, the “Scimago” platform was used to find out if the papers fit within the first and second quartile, 334 which were the two suggested for the purpose”, but which papers where used for this purpose? There are not references about this aspect in the paragraph.
On the other hand, according to the manuscript, “Respondents were asked to access the different statements with a five-point Likert Scale, 390 where 1 corresponded to strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 neither agree nor disagree; 4 391 agree and 5 strongly agree”, but then on page 10 (line 411), the use of another scale is mentioned in the new survey formed by 10 items, what is that scale? is it the above Likert-type scale? Please clarify this point.
Apart from that, the discussion and conclusions are adequate. They summarize the main result of the manuscript, some limitations of the study, as well as some suggestions for further research.
Author Response
- Follow the rules and guidelines provided by the journals while writing the contents and structure of the manuscript – checked and corrected accordingly
- Please provide the reference number for each reference in the manuscript and follow the rules and guidelines given by the journal while writing the references - checked and corrected accordingly
- Scope to improve research gaps and research contribution – checked and corrected accordingly
- Scope to improve the value of the study – checked and corrected accordingly
- Scope to improve the practical application for the implication – checked and corrected accordingly
- In section 3: Material and Methods, the authors say thar: “items generated in this study were based on the existing literature regarding tourism lifestyle entrepreneurship. To choose the most relevant articles, the “Scimago” platform was used to find out if the papers fit within the first and second quartile, 334 which were the two suggested for the purpose”, but which papers where used for this purpose? We revised this paragraph. Item generation was based the literature review conducted in section 2 and also through the interviews. For this reason, the references are not presented here.
- On the other hand, according to the manuscript, “Respondents were asked to access the different statements with a five-point Likert Scale, 390 where 1 corresponded to strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 neither agree nor disagree; 4 391 agree and 5 strongly agree”, but then on page 10 (line 411), the use of another scale is mentioned in the new survey formed by 10 items, what is that scale? is it the above Likert-type scale? Please clarify this point. – It was also a 5 point. We now added this information and corrected accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The theme of the submission is significant and pertinent as these types of entrepreneurs although have been studied in tourism, there is a lack of studies concerning demand´s perception of (TLE).
The main problem is that in this submission,a quick and easy read, shows several problems as it is concerning a dissertation about the theme and we can find those problems here. This is never mentioned in the text.
Examples in the introduction section there are several problems which show that it was poorly developed and written submission while attempting a Scopus publication.
First: a general review of English has to be developed as many sentences were translated directly from Portuguese to English and would hardly be used by an English native example (l33/34Entrepreneurship was seen because of most small and medium businesses that were in the eco-tourism, sustainability, or agricultural sectors; l37As regards the present, most studies focus on technology innovation, family business, and digital value co-creation; l89The research existent on the tourists’ perspective is scarce). Among many others. I suggest using the revision services of the university or of the journal concerning this issue. Please use Grammarly or another free language software/plug-in for word. It helps a lot.
Second: The introduction section must be improved as the authors start to suggest new lines of research in lines 40 to 46. But who will do this research? Is it important to mention this here? Does this concern future or ongoing research? Authors should think about this.
Third: the text "seems" to belong to a Dissertation (see lines 85-87)
Fourth: (93-98) There are seven chapters in the present dissertation. In the first one, there is a brief introduction to the topic, in the second chapter, a literature review of the main concepts can be found. The third chapter will present the research methodology. Following a careful analysis, the data obtained, and respective results will be presented. Finally, a discussion will take place about the results obtained, followed by the main conclusions of the present dissertation, alongside suggestions for future research. This was just copy pasted and will not do as authors well know for a Scopus Standards Journal.
The literature review section is a bit confusing and should be divided into two to three subsections to facilitate its global understanding. While doing this consider shortening the introduction section to compensate for these subsections. So these subsections must be developed according to for example Lifestyle entrepreneurs' definitions (TLE), and motivations; then approaches to the theme in what concerns rural areas and business models than the idea of cocreation or interaction among participants and their perceptions that these are not ordinary entrepreneurs. This is a suggestion only. As it is the literature revision section lacks organization and a logical reading of it.
Several citations finish their sentences with a full mark others not, so this has to be standardized throughout the text. See Lines 143-146. The APA style is not always followed while citing in the text see lines 184 or 200. Another problem can be found several times like in line 190 According to (Ratten, 2020) tourism. In line 204 Author or authors?? Another problem is: see lines (271-273) is this a literal citation? so where is the page number?
Materials and Methods are consistent with what is expected for a quantitative approach and its development is well discussed and justified.
Discussion and conclusions are in line with what is proposed throughout the submission but again a dissertation is mentioned again. This must be addressed and a proper version of the submission must be very much improved.
In the end and for the reasons I have mentioned before some significant improvements must be done and are mandatory.
Author Response
- First: a general review of English has to be developed as many sentences were translated directly from Portuguese to English and would hardly be used by an English native example (l33/34Entrepreneurship was seen because of most small and medium businesses that were in the eco-tourism, sustainability, or agricultural sectors; l37As regards the present, most studies focus on technology innovation, family business, and digital value co-creation; l89The research existent on the tourists’ perspective is scarce). Among many others. I suggest using the revision services of the university or of the journal concerning this issue. Please use Grammarly or another free language software/plug-in for word. It helps a lot. Thank you for the recommendation. We now checked the manuscript using Grammarly following the reviewer suggestion.
- Second: The introduction section must be improved as the authors start to suggest new lines of research in lines 40 to 46. But who will do this research? Is it important to mention this here? Does this concern future or ongoing research? Authors should think about this.
- Third: the text "seems" to belong to a Dissertation (see lines 85-87) – checked and corrected accordingly
- Fourth: (93-98) There are seven chapters in the present dissertation. In the first one, there is a brief introduction to the topic, in the second chapter, a literature review of the main concepts can be found. The third chapter will present the research methodology. Following a careful analysis, the data obtained, and respective results will be presented. Finally, a discussion will take place about the results obtained, followed by the main conclusions of the present dissertation, alongside suggestions for future research. This was just copy pasted and will not do as authors well know for a Scopus Standards Journal. – checked and corrected accordingly
- The literature review section is a bit confusing and should be divided into two to three subsections to facilitate its global understanding. While doing this consider shortening the introduction section to compensate for these subsections. So these subsections must be developed according to for example Lifestyle entrepreneurs' definitions (TLE), and motivations; then approaches to the theme in what concerns rural areas and business models than the idea of cocreation or interaction among participants and their perceptions that these are not ordinary entrepreneurs. This is a suggestion only. As it is the literature revision section lacks organization and a logical reading of it. – Thank you very much for this important recommendation. Following the reviewer suggestion, we divided the literature review in two sections.
- Several citations finish their sentences with a full mark others not, so this has to be standardized throughout the text. See Lines 143-146. The APA style is not always followed while citing in the text see lines 184 or 200. Another problem can be found several times like in line 190 According to (Ratten, 2020) tourism. In line 204 Author or authors?? Another problem is: see lines (271-273) is this a literal citation? so where is the page number? – Thank you for pointing this out. The sentence is now revised
- Materials and Methods are consistent with what is expected for a quantitative approach and its development is well discussed and justified. – Thank you for the supportive comment
- Discussion and conclusions are in line with what is proposed throughout the submission but again a dissertation is mentioned again. This must be addressed and a proper version of the submission must be very much improved. Thank you for pointing this out. The manuscript is now revised to avoid this mistake.
