Managerial Perspectives on the Use of Environmentally Friendly Energy in Accommodation Facilities in Northern Cyprus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for giving me this opportunity to review this manuscript. While this manuscript presents some meaningful results, several changes should be considered:
- The discussion section does not deeply engage in a full dialog with established research or theory, which prevents us from understanding the theoretical contributions of this paper.
- It is recommended that the workload of this article be further fleshed out.
- The literature review section is not specific enough, which makes it difficult to understand the theoretical issues that this paper seeks to investigate.
- It is recommended to add a section of references and discussions of high quality literature.
Author Response
The arrangements made regarding your comments are provided in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors attempt to explore the use of environmentally friendly energy in accommodation facilities in Northern Cyprus is a commendable effort. However, unfortunately, their work is too superficial to support their conclusions. Specifically, they used a questionnaire survey method, and while the low number of responses can be attributed to the small number of accommodation facilities in the area, there are significant issues with the design of the questionnaire itself. For instance, the statement “The accommodation facility has an environmentally friendly energy design” is ambiguous—what exactly does “friendly energy design” mean? Different respondents may interpret this differently, which introduces substantial measurement bias. Additionally, in general, questionnaires should undergo validity and reliability testing, but the authors did not perform such tests.
The authors applied basic statistical methods without a complete and effective empirical design, which further undermines the strength of their conclusions.
There are significant flaws in the research design, and the reliability of the conclusions is questionable.
Author Response
The arrangements made regarding your comments are provided in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors' article is devoted to Managerial Perspectives on the Use of Environmentally Friendly Energy in Accommodation Facilities in Northern Cyprus.
Indeed, the use of green energy compared to traditional methods of energy production will have a more favorable impact on the environment. However, the authors' work can be characterized as a large abstract with a proposal of various ideas for efficiency after implementation, which are not supported by anything.
There are a number of questions and comments regarding the presented work of the authors:
- It would be much clearer to see the advantage of green energy if the authors provided at least one calculation for electricity generation using wind power plants or solar panels, which are repeatedly mentioned in the work.
- The work talks about the possibility of increasing the energy efficiency of buildings at the design stage, but there are no even approximate calculations for the proposed idea. Will the proposed solution be effective at all? Any proposal is better supported by calculations, at least as a first approximation.
- On what basis was the list of questions compiled, as well as the rating scale?
- How reliable can the data provided as a result of the online survey be.
- It would be good to consider obtaining electricity from the use of water movement. We are not talking about hydroelectric power plants, but certain analogs like windmills already exist.
Author Response
The arrangements made regarding your comments are provided in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the article titled "Managerial Perspectives on the Use of Environmentally Friendly Energy in Accommodation Facilities in Northern Cyprus." I find the article interesting; however, it contains several issues that I recommend addressing before publication. My remarks regarding the article are presented in the bullet points below:
-The statement "Northern Cyprus is the largest island in the Mediterranean" (line 55) is inaccurate. Northern Cyprus is a territory on the island of Cyprus, not an island itself, and covers only part of the island. This should be clarified accordingly.
-Theoretical considerations regarding responsible tourism, environmentally friendly practices in the tourism sector, and tourism branding through responsible practices are noteworthy but misplaced. These descriptions are currently in the introduction but should be moved to a separate section titled "Theoretical Background" or "Literature Review," placed after the introduction, as per the requirements of standards for academic articles.
-The introduction should be shorter, focusing on presenting the main aims of the article and explaining why the topic was chosen.
-The description of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus should be placed in a separate section, such as "Study Area," outside the introduction. A location map of the study area is missing in the current version of the article.
-The three pillars of sustainable development (environmental, cultural, social) are mentioned on page 4 (line 141). A graphic diagram presenting these pillars would be beneficial.
-Scheme 2 (page 6) lacks a source.
-The article mentions a quantitative study as the core methodological approach, referencing a survey of 15 respondents. It should clarify the study’s design (e.g., was it a self-reported questionnaire distributed online?). Additionally, I question whether the small number of participants is sufficient to classify it as a quantitative study.
-Some results are presented in the "Materials and Methods" section (lines 350–374). These should be moved to the "Results" section (Section 3).
-The references should include a greater number of international publications on the topic.
-The article must be revised and resubmitted for a second round of peer review.
Author Response
The arrangements made regarding your comments are provided in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI can see authors really did a fine revision and I respected this. Following Journal’s policy and rules, I accepted the invitation and happy to re-evaluated the manuscript. Here are my comments:
- Avoid overly similar sentence patterns in the context, this happens many places throughout the manuscript.
- Good start in the abstract, but also needs to highlight your important findings.
- Also at the end, one sentence to show your contribution/novelty.
- Recommended focus on “Environmentally 2Friendly Energy in Accommodation Facilities”, “Managerial Perspectives”, and “why study this in Northern Cyprus” and introduced them by orders in the introduction. Currently. Line 91 to line 102 is too fragmented with other contents.
- At the end of introduction section, summarized your scientific purpose, why and how you plan to do the study, what value it might bring?
- Research gaps needs to be concluded and it will directly connected to your novelty and research contribution.
- Figures quality can be improved. Some figures can be done using professional software such as Origin or Matlab.
- Clearly show the interesting findings in the conclusion one by one, one sentence to summarized them and provide the supplementary descriptions.
- Discussion is the place to compare your important results with state-of-art literatures and their works, please figure out the difference between conclusion and present it before conclusion. Please noticed that discussion is different from conclusion, don’t mixed them up.
- Please accurately cited the right references, instead of putting them all together at the end.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Our letter containing the corrections we made in line with your suggestions is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made significant changes to the work and it may be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your contributions to our work
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the second version of the article titled:
Managerial Perspectives on the Use of Environmentally Friendly Energy in Accommodation Facilities in Northern Cyprus
The text has been significantly improved based on the initial review. However, I have a few comments that should be addressed:
-The Tourism Planning Department is mentioned (line 186). Please clarify which department is referred to, e.g., the Northern Cyprus Tourism Planning Department.
-I disagree with placing the study area description in the introduction. This content is not suitable for the introduction and should be presented in a separate, concise Study Area section or at the beginning of Section 3: Materials and Methods. Including a map would also be beneficial.
-The Discussion and Conclusions section (starting on page 14) lacks references. Academic discussions should always engage with previously published works to meet scholarly standards.
-On page 12 (lines 12 and 362), the text reads, “Before moving on to verifying my third hypothesis...” As the article is co-authored, this should be revised to “our third hypothesis” to reflect the collaborative authorship.
These are minor issues, but they should be resolved before publication. I recommend publication after these corrections are made, leaving the final decision to the journal editor.
Decision: Publish after minor revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Our article containing the corrections we made in line with your suggestions is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my comments has been addressed
