The Spatiotemporal Patterns and Driving Factors of Culture and Tourism Listed Companies in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

ID_2343446: Title: The Spatiotemporal Patterns and Driving Factors of Culture and Tourism Listed Companies in China

 

Dear authors and editor,

 

This article focuses on the culture and tourism companies of China and analyze a comprehensive data set from 1992-2021 with some interesting econometric techniques. 

 

I can see there is many aspects of the paper. However, there are some serious concerns regarding the writeup, overall structure and contribution of the paper. 

 

Starting from the abstract, the first two line are not coherent and understandable, similarly the last 3 lines are repetition. Authors should rewrite the abstract.

 

 

In the introduction section, the objective of the study is not clear until end of the introduction. It is recommended to state the main objective of the study write after explaining the importance/motivation of study. 

 

Moreover, Contribution of the study is not clear. Please clarify your research questions, objectives, background motivation, theoretical and empirical motivation and the lines of contributions to the literature. You can do this by sharply articulating your research questions/objectives, identify the potential theoretical, background and theoretical motivation or gaps, and explain how your study contributes to the literature. You can do this by highlighting the weaknesses of prior studies as well. Currently, your introduction is very dry. Additionally, you need state clearly the contributions of the paper. For example, "Consequently, the current paper seeks to make the following contributions to the existing literature. First,…, Second,…., Third, …, Fourth,… and so on". The description of the contribution needs to be more forensic, needs to be more focussed.

 

In the literature review and hypothesis development section is missing. It will help to understand the study main purpose, so explicitly state the hypothesis of the study after explain the research gap. The authors show also base there hypothesis on theoretical foundation: What is the underlying theory that leads to the development of the hypotheses?  The authors need to enhance their hypotheses development by: (i) drawing on the theory; (ii) empirical literature; (iii) research setting/contextual insights; and (iv) then setting up their hypotheses. They will do this for each hypothesis. Currently, They have not developed your hypotheses in this way. They will need to so by drawing on both seminal (old) and recently (newly) published studies. 

 

 

There needs to be a more comprehensive and formal discussion methodology used to conduct this study. Authors should provide the details of the sample such as, companies and years in a separate section. 

Authors needs to provide the more details of the spatial models used in the study. 

 

The authors need to link their findings more strongly to the: (i) theory, (ii) empirics, (iii) context of regions; and (iv) highlight their economic, academic/research and policy implications. In the discussion of the results please focus on the novel findings and insights vis-à-vis the existing literature.

 

In the conclusion, the authors need to expand the discussions relating to implications, limitations and avenues for future research. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment to read our responses.

And we have used a paid editing service to improve our English writing.

Best Regards,

Wenjie Hu ^1,2, Jinhe Zhang ^{1,2, *}, Leying Zhou ^1,2, Yi Sun^1,2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My suggestions to the authors for the improvement of the paper relate to the following:

1.         The abstract is very extensive and should be reduced. In the abstract, only the most important points of the study should be presented. I advise the authors to be more precise with the paper's subject. The authors should note in the abstract that this paper analyzed the spatial distribution characteristics and evolution mechanism of culture and tourism listed companies from a spatial perspective.

2.         The text should be coherent, and the authors should explain in detail in the introduction the methodology they use and the differentiation of the work in relation to previous studies. What is a methodological innovations in their  studies? How do they overcome the methodological issue in the previous research?

3.         In the empirical section, the authors give a detailed account of well-known econometric tests; these should be presented in a more concise manner.

 

4.         The theoretical implications are not discussed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment to read our responses.

And we have used a paid editing service to improve our English writing, thanks for pointing it out.

Best Regards,

Wenjie Hu ^1,2, Jinhe Zhang ^{1,2, *}, Leying Zhou ^1,2, Yi Sun^1,2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

1. Abstract: It would be good to explain the relationship between culture and tourism with listed companies because the subject is significant in the research.
2. The abstract should also briefly introduce sustainable development and its relations to spatiotemporal, cultural, and tourism.
3. The introduction section also needs to have some further discussion, especially to give some research background and to emphasise the relationship between sustainable development and the tourism industry in China. Then it needs also to relate to spatiotemporal patterns and how listed companies play a significant role.
4. To give a better overview to the readers on the situation of the Chinese listed companies in tourism, some background data would be helpful.
5. “The diversified operation of media listed companies is very common, and the overall diversity is significantly higher than that of other industries; however, the implementation of a diversification strategy is not guaranteed to im- 71 prove long-term corporate performance” How is this statement coherent with other explanations in the paragraph?
6. Similar to the introduction section, the literature review section also can be further explained. The section needs a discussion on the spatiotemporal part. What is more important, the discussion in the section needs to explain how all of these subject matters relate to each other. This is important as the findings from the literature section are a fundamental part of the variables in the analysis.
7. The methodology section has been explained very well and structured.
8. The explanations from findings are also very well explained. Nevertheless, this is the literature section that plays an important role. In academic writing, the current research results are better when we relate them with other findings within the exact scope of the study or subject matters, especially in China. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment to read our responses.

Best Regards,

Wenjie Hu ^1,2, Jinhe Zhang ^{1,2, *}, Leying Zhou ^1,2, Yi Sun^1,2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Overall the quality of the paper is good. However, there is always room for improvement. There are few minor comments:

1. Abstract is well written and well presented.

2. Introduction is poor and it need too much consideration. Clearly mention "what is the motivation behind this study", "What is the objective of this study", "what is the research gap of this study".

3. Literature section is good and well explain.

 4.Methodlogy seems good and well written.

5. Results section is excellent.

6. Implications are missing in the last part of the manuscript. 

7. Overall paper quality is good but nee proof read. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment to read our responses.

Best Regards,

Wenjie Hu ^1,2, Jinhe Zhang ^{1,2, *}, Leying Zhou ^1,2, Yi Sun^1,2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for incorporating the suggested changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper in this version is improved.