The Role of Social Media in Shaping Brand Equity for Historical Tourism Destinations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper falls within the scope of this journal. However, this manuscript is graded as preliminary in its current form. Therefore, the paper should be improved by the following comments:

- I encourage you to revise the title. There is no need to mention "A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis” in the title of the paper.

- Please explain clearly this research's novelty and main contributions in the introduction section. It is better to add 3 to 5 contributions for your research before the last paragraph in the Introduction section.

- Please provide a clear explanation of why you have selected Fuzzy BWM and TOPSIS methods. why not other MCDM methods like DNMA, CoCoSo, MARCOS, etc?

- Also, you should enrich the literature about the methodology by citing different versions of the BWM and TOPSIS methods. The following references can help you to enrich the motivation of your methodology.

"A novel approach for group decision making based on the best–worst method (G-bwm): Application to supply chain management." Mathematics 9.16 (2021): 1881.

"An extension of the best–worst method based on the spherical fuzzy sets for multi-criteria decision-making." Granular Computing 9.2 (2024): 40.

- The conclusion of this manuscript is poor. Good methodology and results are presented in this manuscript. The findings of this research can be discussed more in the conclusion section.

- The limitations of the proposed methodology should be discussed in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review work. Our revisions and responses are shown in the annex.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting, such as the methodology by using fuzzy numbers and TOPSIS multicriteria method.

However, some aspects have to be improved to reconsider the paper for publishing:

-In the Introduction, I suppose "domestic trips" and "domestic tourists" are from China, isn't it? Please, indicate the reference of "domestic".

-Along the text, when the authors quote in brackets, the first bracket is stuck with the previous word. A space is required between the last word and the brackets. Revise this in all the text.

-P3, L133. Xi'an, China? In L138 you write together with the country.

-Item 2.1.1. The sub-items (1), (2), (3) and (4) are not the same that in Fig. 1. The ones that appear un Fig. 1 are not in the same order in the text and in Fig.1, why?

-Fig.1, where is it quoted in the text?

-P6, L226. "...theoretical basis is the theoretical support and basis...". Redundant, change some words.

-P6, L233. "...research literature...". References?

-P6, L245. Why quotation marks in "brand recognition"?

-Think if items 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 belong to Methodology item.

-A repeated sentence in P11, L395 and L399.

-In item 2.4, quote the equations in the text. It is not correct to write "...is calculated as follows", but write the number of the equation that corresponds (example: is calculated by aplying equation 8).

-P11, L405. After two column, write capital letter.

-p12, L124. I don't think this is a case study. I think it is an application of the multicriteria techniques. A case study has some characteristics that your information do not have. A case study is a full methodology, it is not a mere description of data.

-P13. After two column, write capital letter. Revise all the page.

-P13, L474. Define IWOM acronym with the full expression the first time (it is not here) it appears in the text. If you don't want to use the acronym, it is also ok, change this acronym by the full expression.

-P14, L525. It seems to be an intro before Table 7 (L526).

-P16, L18. statu quo is the correct expression, write in italics (it is latin, not English). It is not "status quo".

-The main lack of the paper is about references. Authors don't write references in the methodology, theoretical framework and discussion of results (this is compulsory, because you are contrasting your data with literature). My suggestion is to add references from P6 to P16. If you have a sentence affirming an idea, you need a reference. A pair of suggested references you can quote are:

1) Mais Hamdan; Canós-Darós, Lourdes; Guijarro, Ester (2022). The impact of customer reviews in social media on the brand reputation for the online accommodation sector. EN 10th International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Education (INNODOCT 2022). (93 - 100). Online: Universitat Politècnica de València.

2) Mais Hamdan; Canós-Darós, Lourdes; Guijarro, Ester (2022). Factors that influence the people to provide an online review. EN 10th International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Education (INNODOCT 2022). (37 - 44). Online: Universitat Politècnica de València.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be revised, not the spelling, but the punctuation marks.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review work. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a comprehensive and well-structured analysis of the role social media plays in shaping the brand equity of historical and cultural tourism destinations. It proposes an evaluative framework integrating brand equity theory with a fuzzy best–worst method (BWM) and TOPSIS, applied to six attractions in Xi’an, China.

The manuscript is generally clear and coherent, though a few sections require refinement for clarity, academic tone, and methodological transparency. However, there are few areas of recommendation. Please see below.

1. Abstract and Introduction:

The abstract could be more concise. Consider breaking it into clearly labeled sections or trimming repetitive statements.

The introduction could benefit from a more focused articulation of the research gap. You mention existing branding studies, but do not sufficiently highlight what they lack regarding social media integration and the application of brand equity theory.

2. Literature Review:

Overall, the review is good but somewhat fragmented. Some references (e.g., [7], [12]) are repeated with limited synthesis. There is an opportunity to deepen the connection between brand equity theory and destination branding, particularly in relation to cultural heritage contexts.

3. Methodology:

Overall, the methodology is sound, the technical descriptions of fuzzy BWM and TOPSIS may overwhelm some readers unfamiliar with decision analysis. Consider adding a simplified diagram or summary before going into formulaic detail. Include a step-by-step flowchart summarizing the process before diving into mathematical formulations.

•  

4. Data Collection:

The paper relies heavily on social media indicators. While novel, these sources vary in representativeness and reliability. Discuss potential limitations of using social media data (e.g., demographic bias, fake engagement) in more detail in the Discussion section.

5. Results and Discussion:

The ranking results are presented well, but the interpretation of the differences between sites could be more analytical. For instance, why did Xi’an Municipal Museum score highest? Is it due to infrastructure, digital marketing, historical depth?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review work. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a relevant topic. It can still be improved, and I'll make my comments and suggestions along its structure.

The theoretical framework is developed in the Introduction as this paper has no literature review section.Therefore, the Introduction should define some key concepts as brand image (is it from the consumer’s perspective or the marketer’s?) and brand equity. The theoretical foundation is weak. It mentions the brand equity theory, but does not explain it properly. It could state a research question. The research gap could also be stated more clearly. For instance presenting one or more citations to make it clear that research is lacking to addres this topic in the way you did.

Regarding methods, there is no clear explanation of how the social media data were gathered. Please make this clear.

The theoretical framework is extensively explained as well as its metrics and indicators. The results are well presented in a combination of text and tables.

The discussion section makes a solid interpretation of the results. It offers strategies for improving brand awareness, satisfaction, and recognition. It is aware of modern trends and tools as for example AI and AR, inclusion and sustainability, digital storytelling, social media strategies and user generated content. As a suggestion for improvement, it could include the brand equity theory in the discussion of findings. How do they relate? Are brand trust and satisfaction the most influential dimensions of brand equity? Justify.

The paper needs to explain clearly its theoretical contribution. How has it advanced theory?

On the other hand, the paper presents practical implications, and this is one of its strongest contributions.

Considering my comments and suggestions, this paper still needs improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The ideas are communicated clearly. The technical language is used correctly. Citations are done adequately. However, as there are smal errors and redundancies, the text would benefit from professional proofreading.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review work. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the positive evaluation of our manuscript. Thank you for your time and valuable feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has improved a lot, but minor changes have to be done for publishing:

1.When you quote equations in the text, you can write:

-P6, L206. "can be expressed with the equation (1)". "as equation (1)" is not correct.

-P7, L245. "can be obtained as equation (2)" is not correct. "can be obtained with the equation (2)" is correct.

-Correct expressions similars to the previous ones in P7, L252; P7, L261; P7, L266; P7, L276.

2) P16, L596-597. It seem like Table 7 is not in the corresponding line (P596).

3) Reference 8 is not complete. "In 10th International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Education (INNODOCT 2022). (93 - 100). Online: Universitat Politècnica de València." is missing.

4) Reference 27 is not complete. "In 10th International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Education (INNODOCT 2022). (93 - 100). Online: Universitat Politècnica de València." is missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf