In Search for Meaning? Modelling Generation Z Spiritual Travel Motivation Scale—The Case of Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very good

You need to write the articles DOI

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review.

Please find attached answers to reviewers comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting manuscript.

As the authors rightly write, spiritual tourism is intuitively identified with religious tourism and pilgrimage tourism. It is also sometimes referred to as esoteric, existential or holistic tourism. A clear definition of its conceptual boundaries is almost impossible in practice. The development of spiritual tourism is fostered by modern man's sense of loss. During "spiritual journeys", the tourist searches for his or her own "I". The authors' interest in the motives of Generation Z is a very important contribution to the development of this type of tourism.

MY COMMENTS:

1/With the introduction, the authors should clearly indicate what the purpose of the article is, pose research questions or formulate research hypotheses

2/In the conclusion, the authors should clearly write whether the research objectives were achieved and provide answers to the research questions. Then present generalisations.

3/ please improve the way you cite in section 5 Discussion

4/ please improve the bibliography according to the requirements of the journal

5/ section 4.1 presenting the research sample should be in section 3

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review.

Please find attached answers to reviewers comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review.

Please find attached answers to reviewers comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

A fine article.  Well written.  Even with the extensive statistical discussions, the findings are clear. The article results in a clearer instrument to measure religious travel and will assist sites and marketing firms to assist in presenting and encouraging site visits.  

My only concern is clarity about research subjects and demonstration of ethical research procedures.

First, I understood the number of research subjects, but how were they chosen, where were they found, and who were they. Since the questionnaire was used six months into COVID, who were they, how were they found, and how were they accessed.

Second, was the study reviewed by an IRB.  How were research subjects recruited and how were they informed of ethical protections and use of the research?

These last two concerns of clearer description of research subjects, how they were chosen, and how were they informed and dealt with ethically MUST be added for the article to be published. 

Honestly I assume that the authors can answer these concerns. They are essential. I hope this informative article can then be published. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review.

Please find attached answers to reviewers comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Paper 2228193 review to Sustainability – In Search For Meaning? Modelling Generation Z Spiritual Travel Motivation Scale

All issues raised in this review can be considered to be minor reviews.

General considerations

The subject under study is very relevant with an approach to a near future of spiritual tourism (Generation Z). The article is well structured, the contents are well explained and articulated with each other. The literature review seems to be adequate. Data collection method and its limitations are both well explained. The analysis of the results obtained are presented in a perceptible way. The conclusions are well pointed out, as well as the limitations of the investigation and future work. All issues raised in this review can be considered to be minor reviews.

1.   Title, Abstract and Keywords

·         The title has key information, is concise and appealing to readers. But it should indicate that the study refers to Serbia (if a research work carried out with data from a specific geographic location, then it cannot be generalized).

·         The abstract is well constructed and valuable. The main purpose of the study is presented. But the methods used in the investigation are not mentioned, as well as the main conclusions obtained are not pointed out, and they should be, for the abstract to be complete.

·         The keywords are adequate. But some are capitalized and others are not, even though they are of the same grammatical type. So authors should check what the journal template says about this. At the end of the last one is a semicolon, which it certainly shouldn't be.

2.      Authors' names and affiliations

Everything seems to be correct with the numbering of the authors and the symbology used.

3.   Structure of the article

The structure of the article is well elaborated, but some flaws were detected, namely in lines:

·         129 - the title of section 3 could be " Methods used in this investigation". As it is, it’s extremely vague;

·         130 - the title of subsection 3.1 could be "Data collection methodology". Once again, as it is, it’s extremely vague;

·         167 - the numbering must be 4.1.1;

·         183 - the numbering must be 4.1.2;

·         216 - the subtitle of table 5 should have 1 space separating it from the body of the text;

·         223 - the numbering must be 4.2.

On the other hand, the subtitles of the various tables must comply with the journal's template, as some are all in bold, others have only a few words in bold. So, there is no homogeneity.

The numeration of the tables is well elaborated.

4.      Grammar, spelling and syntax issues

The whole article it's well written in terms of grammar and spelling. But some flaws were detected, namely in lines:

·         155 - when authors use acronyms EFA and CFA, they should spell out the full meaning the first time the acronym is used, and when they do so, the first letters that make up the full name of each one, should be capitalized. So, when these acronyms appear later in the text, it should just be just the acronyms itself (see lines 169 and 187);

·         171 - the acronym KMO should be accompanied by its full meaning (that is presented just in the line 172, so, in a wrong timing);

·         179 - either the acronym MALSI has an extra letter M, or a word beginning with this letter is missing at the beginning of the full meaning (please check the 3^rd raw main title: “Escapism, Ascetic Life and Social Interactions - MALSI”. Is it right (shouldn’t be EALSI?);

·         186 and 202 (between them) – there are several acronyms which lack their full meaning (e.g. RMSEA and SRMR).

5.      Semantic and technical issues

The entire article is well explained. The issues are explained clearly and the concepts and ideas are well articulated between themselves. The data collection method is well explained. The qualitative and quantitative analyzes are presented in a perceptible way.

6.      References

The list of references is well prepared, the number of references is appropriate to the depth of the theme's approach in the article. The references are strong in the scope of this investigation. But throughout the article, the authors indicate the references in two ways simultaneously: with names and with numbers. So, if the authors must reference in the first way, they should put all the terms "et al." in italics, because it is not an English term (it is Latin).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review.

Please find attached answers to reviewers comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The new draft has responded to all of my questions about research and research ethics. It should be published and will have a helpful impact on all future research in religious travel/ pilgrimage. We’ll done!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestions that improved the overall quality of the paper.