Efficiency Evaluation and Influencing Factors of Sports Industry and Tourism Industry Convergence Based on China’s Provincial Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research presents a solid state of the art that duly justifies the need for it. The objectives are clear and the methodology is appropriate. Furthermore, the results obtained are of great scientific interest. However, the manuscript needs to redefine certain sections, as well as to improve and adapt some of its parts.
Comments:
Very long abstract: 288 words. The journal sets a maximum of 200 words.
In general, the manuscript is too long. The journal recommends that the text should be 4000 words. Perhaps it would be interesting to include the tables in the "results" section as supplementary material. Finally, more references are missing in the discussion, which would show that the results of your research have been compared with previous work.
The first keyword is too long. It would be advisable to express this idea in a concise form.
Revise each of the citations in the text, as in some of them there is no blank space between the bracket and the text. Also, the wording in certain parts of the manuscript, such as in lines 144 and 145, needs to be improved. Blank spaces appear in places where they do not belong and are needed elsewhere in the text.
Some concepts appear repeatedly. For example, from line 168 to 171 the term "sports industry" is used up to 5 times.
You should capitalise the following concepts:
- Table 1: “indicator”.
- Table 2: “variables”.
- Line 126: “fuzzy-set”.
Line 688. What does "Su found" mean?
Beyond these issues, I would like to congratulate the authors of this research for their excellent work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, Your paper is well prepared, especially the methodological part and the scope of the analyzes carried out. But I have doubts that this paper is sufficient for a sustainability journal because you have not defined a clear relationship between sustainability and the industries you researched and the results/implications of your study.
I miss the theoretical part of your paper, where you would define the scientific hypotheses/research question, clearly define the research gaps and also explain the link between "your goals and researched sectors" and the issue of sustainability. Of course, everything based on relevant and up-to-date literature.
The paragraphs in the introduction are very long and difficult to read. The structure of the introduction should be as follows - first paragraph = introduction to the issue and a link to sustainability; second paragraph = what we know so far and what is missing, what needs to be researched; third paragraph = the aim of this study and how you want to overcome research gaps; the following paragraphs should be devoted to contributions, etc.
In the methodological part, you lack references to other studies published in high-quality journals, also working with a combination of DEA and fsQCA, for example
Prokop, V., Hajek, P., & Stejskal, J. (2021). Configuration paths to efficient national innovation ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168, 120787.
The discussion should be divided into subsections, for example "discussing results"; "contributions"; "Implications". Are the results of the study transferable to other countries? Or, for example, to Europe? Are there similar European studies?
Limitations are not highlighted enough.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I found the paper very good and I am wondering why it was not mentioned about 361 degree and Li Ning sport's good industry and might be another manufactories in China.
Secondly with the brilliant findings the conclusion and discussion is very brief and it could be more discussion and analysis which support the paper!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of the paper is very interesting, but I have few recommendations:
- I would recommend giving the paper a thorough proofread before final submission since there are some grammatical errors in the paper, especially in the introduction section.
- Discussion section: The authors summarized the results obtained from the preceding quantitative analysis. However, I would like to ask whether the authors have found anything different from the previous research. It would be more interesting if the authors would indicate some differences and state the possible reasons for such differences. The inclusion of such differences would make this research much more interesting and meaningful. Also, this section should have clear subsections like practical and theoretical contributions.
· - Conclusions: In this section you repeated what we already saw in the result section. This section should give clear recommendation for future research and limitation of your research.
· - One of my main concerns is how is this research connected with the subject of sustainability. Authors have not even mentioned this word at all in the article, let alone describe why the convergence of the sports and tourism industries is important for their sustainability or how it can contribute to sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for their responses and congratulate them on improving the paper. Paper is now ready for acceptance.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your approval of our paper. We wish you have a happy life and good work!
Sincerely,
Mei Yang.
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors provided much improved version of the paper. I am quite satisfied and I recommend accepting this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your approval of our paper. We wish you have a happy life and good work!
Sincerely,
Mei Yang.
