Using Augmented Reality to Improve Tourism Marketing Effectiveness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors examined the impact of Web based augmented reality (Web AR) on destination visit intention through various aspects of the tourists’ organism including their perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, perceived certainty, perceived enjoyment, and perceived immersion. Using responses from 384 participants, their findings showed that the organism mediated the relationships between Web AR stimuli including interactivity and vividness and the tourists’ response i.e., their destination visit intention. The scope of the study is relevant to Sustainability. Nevertheless, I have several comments regarding the manuscript that the authors should address.

 

1^st Concern: On page 18, Institutional Review Board Statement: The authors asserted, “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Science and Technology Development Department – The University of Danang, Vietnam (Approval code 75/HD-KHCN-2019, Approval date: 30 March 2020).” This statement appears to have been copied directly from the paper titled “How VR technological features prompt tourists’ visiting intention: An integrated approach,” authored by T.B.T Nguyen, T.B.N. Le, and N.T. Chau from the University of Danang in Vietnam https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064765 . Such behavior is entirely unacceptable. Please provide the evidence of approval from MISR International University in Egypt, with which the first author is affiliated.

 

2^nd Comment: On page 1, the Abstract: The authors stated that “…through the lens of Stimulus organism response (SOR) framework, technology acceptance model (TAM) and flow theory into a novel theoretical framework.” I suggest that the authors use “…an integrated theoretical framework” instead of “…a novel theoretical framework.” This suggestion is based on the fact that researchers have previously utilized SOR, TAM, and flow theory collectively to examine various VR technologies in tourism, as evidenced by Nguyen et al.’s (2023) paper referenced in the first concern. A search in Scopus reveals additionally studies employing SOR, TAM, and flow theory in tourism, including
- Do, H. N., Shih, W., & Ha, Q. A. (2020). Effects of mobile augmented reality apps on impulse buying behavior: An investigation in the tourism field. Heliyon, 6(8).

- Hediansah, Z., & Noviaristanti, S. (2024). Analysis of virtual tourism usage to encourage tourist’s visit intention in Indonesia: Integrated models of SOR, TAM, and Flow Theory. In Achieving Sustainable Business Through AI, Technology Education and Computer Science: Volume 2: Teaching Technology and Business Sustainability (pp. 385-397). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

 

3^rd Comment: On page 1, the Introduction: The authors referenced articles [1] and [2], followed abruptly by reference [29], and subsequently reference [3]. It is recommended that the authors should cite references in the order of their initial appearance. Please revise the reference list accordingly, such as reference [29] is renumbered to [3], and the original reference [3] is updated to [4], and so forth.

 

4^th Comment: The authors have not maintained consistently in the use of abbreviations. For instance, in the Abstract (line 8), the abbreviation for Web based augmented reality is stated as Web AR. Subsequently, the authors utilized Web AR multiple times through the manuscript. Nevertheless, the authors also sporadically referred to “Web based augmented reality …” in various sections (refer to line 16, line 23, line 116, line 331, line 364, line 517, line 536, line 557, and line 563). Furthermore, the term “destination management organization(s)” appears in line 25, line 68, line 94, line 561, line 565, line 567, line 570, line 577, line 580, and line 585, while its abbreviation “DMOs” is used (without prior definition) in line 124, line 128, and line 548.  

 

5^th Comment: On page 2, lines 42-43: The authors mentioned that “…, the practical application of augmented reality was confined only to specialist who did not use it much…” This phrase is unclear. Please clarify or rephrase it.

 

6^th Comment: On page 10, lines 399-401: The authors indicated that “Vividness was measured with 6 indicators and Perceived usefulness was measured with 5 indicators. While, the remaining six were measured with four indicators each (Table 2).” However, Table 2 only presented five indicators for Vividness and three indicators for Destination visit intention. Although I understand that VIV3 and DV3 were excluded due to their low factor loadings as noted on Page 12, I recommend that the authors include VIV3 and DVA3 in Table 2 to ensure consistency with the text referenced in lines 399-401.

 

7^th Comment: On page 12, lines 430-432: The authors stated that “Moreover, square root of the AVE of each construct was greater than the correlation coefficient of the specific construct with any of the other constructs, indicating sufficient discriminant validity [81] (Table 4).” This statement is incorrect. Table 4 indicates that the square root of the AVE for Perceived enjoyment was 0.707, which is smaller than the correlation coefficient between Perceived enjoyment and Destination visit intention at 0.797.

 

8^th Comment: On page 12, lines 435-436: The authors indicated that “…, however, the following constructs Perceived usefulness and Perceived enjoyment are near to threshold (0.90).” This statement is misleading. Given that the HTMT ratios for Perceived usefulness and Perceived enjoyment were 0.920 and 0.914, respectively, the authors ought to state clearly that “…however, the following constructs Perceived usefulness and Perceived enjoyment exceed the threshold of 0.90.” Additionally, as one of the AVE values was less than 0.50, the correlation coefficient between Perceived enjoyment and Destination visit intention surpassed the square root of the AVE for Perceived enjoyment, and two HTMT ratios exceeded the recommended threshold, the authors should at a minimum recognize and address these issues in the Discussions and Limitations sections of the study.

 

9^th Comment: There are several typing and grammatical mistakes, including:

• Page 1, line 28: Please delete “)” after “Destination visit intention.”
• Page 3, line 105: “…about several destination, …” should be written as “…about several destinations, …”
• Page 8, line 327: “This thesis …” should be written as “This paper …”

 

10^th Comment: Almost all references were not formatted in accordance to the Journal’s requirements. Please revise them in the updated manuscript. Additionally, I found that reference 11 – Understanding factors influencing virtual reality acceptance using a unified SOR-TAM approach was published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, volume 34(4), pp. 1025-1047. Therefore, please update its details instead of citing SSRN. Reference 43 – Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence is a book chapter – but not a journal article. Reference [80] – Multivariate data analysis, 7 ed., … lacks a publication year, and so forth.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores how Web-based augmented reality (Web AR) influences tourists’ destination visit intention by integrating the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and flow theory into a comprehensive conceptual model. Utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) on data collected from 384 participants who experienced a Web AR tourism interface, the study demonstrates that interactivity and vividness—key Web AR features—positively affect destination visit intention by enhancing users’ perceived ease of use, usefulness, certainty, enjoyment, and immersion. The authors argue that Web AR can be a valuable tool for tourism marketing and destination promotion, contributing to sustainable tourism development and offering strategic insights for destination management organizations (DMOs). However, the current version still exhibits several issues that require further refinement to fully meet publication standards.

1. The introduction section of the manuscript lacks a well-organized structure and fails to clearly articulate the unique research contributions of the study. While the topic is timely and relevant, the authors should strengthen the positioning of their work by explicitly highlighting how it advances existing literature or fills a specific gap. Without a clear delineation of the study’s novelty and theoretical value, it is difficult to assess the manuscript’s marginal contribution to the field.
2. There appears to be an issue with Figure 3, which may contain errors or inconsistencies. I recommend the authors carefully review this figure for accuracy. Greater attention to detail is necessary to ensure the clarity and reliability of the manuscript’s presentation.
3. Table 1, which presents the demographic profile of respondents, appears to be incomplete or lacking sufficient detail.
4. In Table 2, titled “Summary of elements in the conceptual model”, the sequence appears inconsistent, as it jumps from DV2 directly to DV4, raising concerns that DV3 may be missing or mislabeled.
5. The Results section currently includes only one subsection, 5.1 Inner model/measurement model assessment, which appears insufficient given the scope of the study.
6. The manuscript includes both 6. Discussion of the findings and 6.1 Discussion of the findings, which appear to contain identical or highly overlapping content. This redundancy suggests a structural oversight and raises concerns about the manuscript’s organization.
7. The discussion section includes several tables and figures that primarily present empirical results, which would be more appropriately placed in the results section. This blending of results and discussion creates confusion regarding the manuscript’s structure and undermines the clarity of the analysis.

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is already in its second revision and demonstrates a high level of completeness. The following minor suggestions are provided for the author's consideration and possible revision:

1. The research topic addresses current trends in technology and sustainable tourism, offering strong timeliness and practical relevance.
2. The introduction contains many repeated concepts, which reduces the conciseness of the section. It is recommended to remove unnecessary descriptions and adopt a more concise and focused narrative.
3. Although theoretical integration is mentioned, the logical connections and complementary relationships among the three theoretical models are not sufficiently explained.
4. The study includes 15 hypotheses, and the author is able to support each with relevant literature, demonstrating a solid theoretical foundation. This was well done.

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my appreciation to the authors for their efforts in addressing the concern and comments I provided during the previous round of review. After a review of the revised manuscript, I have noted a few minor issues as below.

• Line 5: “Faculty of business administration…” should be corrected to “Faculty of Business Administration…”
• Line 340: The authors mentioned “Figure 3 in Appendix.” Therefore, I recommend that the authors amend “Figure 1” to “Figure 3” in Line 658 (Appendix) on page 26.
• Table 2: “VIV3 The visual display (turtle)…” should be revised to “VIV3 The visual display (sea turtle)…”
• Furthermore, some reference details were incomplete. For instance, the first reference, namely, Carman and Ciochina (2014) publication, should have page numbers 218 to 235 (or 218-235) rather than just 218. The third reference, which is Carnmer, E. E.’s publication, is a doctoral thesis. The authors ought to include its details such as “…Doctoral Thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University.”

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx