The Influence of Competitiveness Factors on Sustainable Business Performance in the Hotel Industry: From the Perspective of the Perception of Hotel Service Users

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for this interesting topic, which is increasingly being addressed in the field of hospitality. I will give some suggestions that will increase the quality of the manuscript, but this does not mean that the manuscript currently does not have quality content.

I ask the authors to change the abstract by adding something about the importance and innovation of the manuscript. I also ask the authors to pay attention throughout the text, whether it starts with the title, introduction, literature, methodology, and finally the discussion... to the fact that this is not about proving the impact, because we have not proven it in any way with certain parameters that we have been monitoring for decades in hotel business, and accordingly, in the mentioned parts of the manuscript, they write that this is about examining the views on the impact of competitiveness factors on sustainable business performance in the hotel industry. Also, in the limitations, they can state that this is actually only about perceptions or views on a possible impact.

 

As for the introduction, it fully satisfies the structure. The literature review is adequate to the research problem. The methodology is adequate and clearly explained, no changes are necessary. The results are clearly and precisely presented, so that they are understandable to the wider public.

I suggest separating the discussion chapters, the conclusion with theoretical and practical implications, and directions for future research. Limitations are listed. Also, let the authors check the writing style of Author Contributions. I suggest a reference that would help them: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) and the internet of things (IoT) to enhance operational efficiency and sustainability. Sustainability, 16(17), 7279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177279

Author Response

Letter for reviewer 1.

 

First, thank You for useful comments and suggestions. We acted by your request, according to each point.

 

 

1. I ask the authors to change the abstract by adding something about the importance and innovation of the manuscript.

 

 

In accordance with your request, but also respecting the requests of other reviewers, we expanded the abstract. So now it sounds like:

 

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of key competitiveness factors on sustainable business performance in the hospitality sector through the application of an integrated approach. The research was conducted on a sample of 1,640 hotel guests who stayed in hotels operating in the Republic of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia. Utilizing a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework, the study meticulously analyzed various competitiveness factors, i to: service quality, service, service recovery, hotel user satisfaction, loyalty and discretionary behavior and dysfunctional consumer behavior. The results of the research reveal that all identified key factors significantly impact the sustainable performance of hotel operations, suggesting that hotels must prioritize these elements to enhance their competitiveness and ensure ongoing success in a challenging market environment. Notably, one intriguing finding is that loyalty does not serve as a buffer in the relationship between customer dissatisfaction and dysfunctional behavior, indicating that even loyal customers can exhibit negative behaviors when their expectations are not met. This underscores the importance of addressing guest satisfaction proactively to mitigate potential adverse outcomes and retain a loyal customer base. Moreover, the study provides valuable insights for hotel management, highlighting the necessity for holistic strategies that not only aim to improve guest experiences but also consider the intricate dynamics between various competitiveness factors that ultimately contribute to the sustainability and profitability of the hospitality industry. Rejecting the sub-hypothesis that loyalty among hotel service users moderates the impact of dissatisfaction on the expression of dysfunctional consumer behavior. the need to review certain theories that make up the dominant theoretical framework in the field of catering. This implies the need for further analysis of the validity of the dominant theories in the hospitality industry, especially in defining the conditions under which their postulates hold indisputably. Second, further examination of the role of loyalty is needed, since there are different types of loyalty.

 

2. I also ask the authors to pay attention throughout the text, whether it starts with the title, introduction, literature, methodology, and finally the discussion... to the fact that this is not about proving the impact, because we have not proven it in any way with certain parameters that we have been monitoring for decades in hotel business, and accordingly, in the mentioned parts of the manuscript, they write that this is about examining the views on the impact of competitiveness factors on sustainable business performance in the hotel industry. Also, in the limitations, they can state that this is actually only about perceptions or views on a possible impact.

 

We appreciate your suggestion; we have first changed the title so that it now reads: The influence of competitiveness factors on sustainable business performance in the hotel industry: through the lens of the perception of hotel service users. By adding: through the lens of the perception of hotel service users, we wanted to emphasize that it is about the perspectives of hotel guests and the impossibility of directly investigating the impact, just as you suggested.

 

Secondly, in the introductory section, after presenting the research goal, we added the following: Of course, to be completely precise in presenting the research goal, it is important to emphasize that it examines the influence of the mentioned factors through the lens of the perception of hotel service users, as it is not possible to investigate their direct impact.

 

Additionally, in other sections of the paper, we clearly indicated this perspective wherever possible.

Once again, in the section of the paper that addresses limitations, we emphasized that: At end, since it is not possible to directly examine the impact of competitiveness factors on the sustainable performance of hotels, as such research would require a methodology that is currently not available, the research results should be accepted with caution, as they reflect the opinions and perceptions of the respondents. Given that their perceptions and opinions are influenced by various factors, and that these may change depending on changes in circumstances and those factors, the research results should be interpreted with this fact in mind.

 

3. I suggest separating the discussion chapters, the conclusion with theoretical and practical implications, and directions for future research. Limitations are listed. Also, let the authors check the writing style of Author Contributions. I suggest a reference that would help them: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) and the internet of things (IoT) to enhance operational efficiency and sustainability. Sustainability, 16(17), 7279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177279

 

We have divided the discussion into managerial and theoretical implications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We added new reference.

 

At end, it should be emphasized that given the increasing integration of modern IT and AI into all aspects of life, future researchers are encouraged to include this variable in their research as a factor of competitiveness. This is particularly highlighted in light of the findings of result presented by [82].

 

[82] Gajić, T., Petrović, M. D., Pešić, A. M., Conić, M., & Gligorijević, N. Innovative Approaches in Hotel Management: Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) to Enhance Operational Efficiency and Sustainability. Sustainability, 2024, 16(17), 7279.

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is devoted to the study of the influence of competitiveness factors on sustainable business performance in the hotel industry.

The questionnaire was initially tested using principal component analysis and then confirmed through factor analysis, noting that the adequacy of the sample for testing the validity and reliability of the questionnaire was also assessed.

It is necessary to expand the abstract, reflecting the scientific novelty and the obtained results of the study.

The applied research methods also require a formalized description.

To improve the quality of the presentation of illustrative material, Figure 2 should be changed.

Please check the references and table numbering (line 377) carefully.

Perhaps, the literature should be updated to take into account the impact of Covid on the studied indicators.

Author Response

Letter for reviewer 2

 

First, thank You for useful comments and suggestions. We acted by your request, according to each point.

 

 

1. It is necessary to expand the abstract, reflecting the scientific novelty and the obtained results of the study.

 

We have expanded the abstraction.

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of key competitiveness factors on sustainable business performance in the hospitality sector through the application of an integrated approach. The research was conducted on a sample of 1,640 hotel guests who stayed in hotels operating in the Republic of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia. Utilizing a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework, the study meticulously analyzed various competitiveness factors, i to: service quality, service, service recovery, hotel user satisfaction, loyalty and discretionary behavior and dysfunctional consumer behavior. The results of the research reveal that all identified key factors significantly impact the sustainable performance of hotel operations, suggesting that hotels must prioritize these elements to enhance their competitiveness and ensure ongoing success in a challenging market environment. Notably, one intriguing finding is that loyalty does not serve as a buffer in the relationship between customer dissatisfaction and dysfunctional behavior, indicating that even loyal customers can exhibit negative behaviors when their expectations are not met. This underscores the importance of addressing guest satisfaction proactively to mitigate potential adverse outcomes and retain a loyal customer base. Moreover, the study provides valuable insights for hotel management, highlighting the necessity for holistic strategies that not only aim to improve guest experiences but also consider the intricate dynamics between various competitiveness factors that ultimately contribute to the sustainability and profitability of the hospitality industry. Rejecting the sub-hypothesis that loyalty among hotel service users moderates the impact of dissatisfaction on the expression of dysfunctional consumer behavior. the need to review certain theories that make up the dominant theoretical framework in the field of catering. This implies the need for further analysis of the validity of the dominant theories in the hospitality industry, especially in defining the conditions under which their postulates hold indisputably. Second, further examination of the role of loyalty is needed, since there are different types of loyalty.

 

2. To improve the quality of the presentation of illustrative material, Figure 2 should be changed.

 

We attempted to divide Figure 2 into several parts. In that case, readability improves slightly but it takes up a lot of space. Since Figure 2 contains the same information as Table 4, we decided to remove it from the text. At the same time, this was a request from another reviewer.

 

3. The applied research methods also require a formalized description.

 

We added:

For testing the established hypotheses, SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) was used. The application of the SEM model in examining the influence of competitiveness factors on the success of hotel business is beneficial as it allows researchers to better understand the complex relationships among various variables. This method enables simultaneous testing of multiple hypotheses and analysis of both direct and indirect effects, providing deeper insights into the dynamics of competitiveness within the hotel industry. The SEM model also allows for the evaluation of latent constructs, such as perceptions of service quality or customer loyalty, which can be crucial for formulating strategic decisions aimed at improving hotel business performance. Furthermore, this methodology enables researchers to assess the validity and reliability of the model, which further enhances the credibility of the research findings.

 

 

4. Please check the references and table numbering (line 377) carefully.

We checked the references.

We have corrected the numbering of tables.

 

5. Perhaps, the literature should be updated to take into account the impact of Covid on the studied indicators.

 

In the research limitations section, we added:

When interpreting the findings of this study, it is important to consider the period in which the study was conducted. The study was conducted after Covid19, when COVID-19 protection measures in hotels were no longer in effect. We note this because research [79-81] shows that during Covid, hotel guests showed problems with respecting the rules of behavior, showing selfishness and disregard for the safety of others. This behavior can be treated as a form of dysfunctional behavior.

 

We added new literature:

 

Madunická, V. (2022). Change in guest behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: Research study of health spa hotels in Slovakia.

Kim, J. J., & Han, H. (2022). Saving the hotel industry: Strategic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hotel selection analysis, and customer retention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 102, 103163.

Indrianto, A. T. L., & Kristama, B. Y. (2020). The changing behavior of hotel guest during pandemic COVID 19: Case of Surabaya Hotels.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, first of all, I would like to note that your research is interesting, but the article has a number of drawbacks. I believe that after revision, your article may be recommended for publication. Let's dwell on the remarks.

1. Pay attention to Figures 1 and 2. Even with increasing text size, a number of terms in Figure 1 are difficult to read. In Figure 2, most of the information is unreadable. Maybe you need to split figure 2 into two or three figures? maybe reformat it? But leaving in this form is not necessary.

2. It is believed that the main indicator of the activity of any hotel is the load factor. You are conducting an interesting study, you get interesting results, but your article does not compare these results with the load factor of these hotels. There may be a situation that your research, in principle, does not make sense if the load factor in the studied hotels is high. Why should the hotel management change something, improve if the load factor is high.

3. Now let's look at your main conclusion in the Conclusion. It turns out that such an indicator of the hotel's activity as customer loyalty is useless? Hotels do not need to maintain the loyalty of their customers? Or is the value of this indicator so insignificant that you do not want to take it into account? I emphasize that such a conclusion is obtained on the basis of your Conclusion. Maybe you meant something else, but could not express it.

4. You can explain the interesting term "Digital nomads" - it is indicated in your hotel customer structure. What does this term mean when the term was introduced into scientific circulation. I have not met this term before.

5. Please expand the Abstract.

I believe that my comments will improve the quality of your article.

Author Response

Letter for reviewer 3

 

First, thank You for useful comments and suggestions. We acted by your request, according to each point.

 

 

1. Pay attention to Figures 1 and 2. Even with increasing text size, a number of terms in Figure 1 are difficult to read. In Figure 2, most of the information is unreadable. Maybe you need to split figure 2 into two or three figures? maybe reformat it? But leaving in this form is not necessary.

 

We attempted to divide Figure 2 into several parts. In that case, readability improves slightly but it takes up a lot of space. Since Figure 2 contains the same information as Table 4, we decided to remove it from the text. We have rearranged Figure 1 to make it more targeted. We omitted the subdimensions, as they are presented in Table 2.

 

Figure 1.

 

 

2. It is believed that the main indicator of the activity of any hotel is the load factor. You are conducting an interesting study, you get interesting results, but your article does not compare these results with the load factor of these hotels. There may be a situation that your research, in principle, does not make sense if the load factor in the studied hotels is high. Why should the hotel management change something, improve if the load factor is high.

 

In the introductory part of the paper, where we pointed out the significance of our research, we also added the data that the capacities of the selected hotels are, on average, filled from 73% to 92%. The exception is during the peak season. Therefore, the results of the research can contribute to the improvement of hotel occupancy. Regardless of this, strong competition, which increases day by day, makes it necessary for hotels, regardless of their current position, to continuously work on improving their business.

 

We added:

In addition to what has been previously stated, it should be noted that the occupancy of hotels in these countries ranges from 73% to 92%. The exception is during the peak season. Therefore, the research findings can contribute to improving capacity occupancy even outside the season. Regardless of this, strong competition, which increases day by day, means that hotels, regardless of their current position, must continuously work on improving their business.

 

3. Now let's look at your main conclusion in the Conclusion. It turns out that such an indicator of the hotel's activity as customer loyalty is useless? Hotels do not need to maintain the loyalty of their customers? Or is the value of this indicator so insignificant that you do not want to take it into account? I emphasize that such a conclusion is obtained on the basis of your Conclusion. Maybe you meant something else, but could not express it.

 

Of course, we didn't mean to say that.

 

The research results described and discussed in the finding and discussion section clearly indicate the importance of loyalty to the success of hotel business. We were careless to point out in the conclusion that the immediate emotions caused by dissatisfaction with the service provided outweigh those resulting from loyalty, which is a consequence of long-term relations with the hotel brand. Therefore, it cannot amortize current dissatisfaction, which suggests the importance of service quality and recovery.

 

In order to eliminate the confusion that you point out, we have reformulated the conclusion. So instead of confusing statements:

Specifically, the rejection of the sub-hypothesis stating that loyalty among hotel service users mitigates the impact of customer dissatisfaction on the expression of dysfunctional consumer behavior indicates that the hypothesis claiming that loyalty among hotel service users has a moderating effect on the relationship between customer satisfaction and consumer behavior was not fully accepted as valid. Such findings contradict certain theories that represent a dominant theoretical corpus in hospitality. The implication of this is the need for further analysis of the validity of dominant theories in hospitality, specifically to define the conditions under which their postulates hold unconditionally;

stand:

Specifically, the rejection of the sub-hypothesis stating that loyalty among hotel service users mitigates the impact of customer dissatisfaction on the expression of dysfunctional consumer behavior, indicates that the immediate emotions caused by dissatisfaction with the service provided outweigh those resulting from loyalty, which is a consequence of long-term relations with the hotel brand. There are two implications of this. First, a reexamination of certain theories that represent a dominant theoretical corpus in hospitality. The implication of this is the need for further analysis of the validity of dominant theories in hospitality, specifically to define the conditions under which their postulates hold unconditionally. The second is a further examination of the role of loyalty, since there are different types of loyalty. It should be determined which loyalty, in accordance with dominant theories in hospitality, mitigates dissatisfaction and prevents dysfunctional behavior.

 

4. You can explain the interesting term "Digital nomads" - it is indicated in your hotel customer structure. What does this term mean when the term was introduced into scientific circulation. I have not met this term before.

 

The differentiation between digital nomads and business travelers was based on the study conducted by Reichenberger (2018). Digital nomads are irresistible, who have permission to stay in a foreign country for a longer period of time. The length of their stay is not determined by business obligations, but by the motive to get to know a certain culture and customs. While business tourists travel for business obligations, and their destination is determined by business obligations, digital nomads combine work with exploring new destinations and cultures, so they are not tied to a place, but are motivated by exploring new cultures and customs.

 

Reichenberger, I. (2018). Digital nomads–a quest for holistic freedom in work and leisure. Annals of Leisure Research, 21(3), 364-380.https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2017.1358098

 

We added definition of digital nomads and their motivation to stay on destination, in text.

 

5. Please expand the Abstract.

 

We have expanded the abstraction.

 

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of key competitiveness factors on sustainable business performance in the hospitality sector through the application of an integrated approach. The research was conducted on a sample of 1,640 hotel guests who stayed in hotels operating in the Republic of Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia. Utilizing a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework, the study meticulously analyzed various competitiveness factors, i to: service quality, service, service recovery, hotel user satisfaction, loyalty and discretionary behavior and dysfunctional consumer behavior. The results of the research reveal that all identified key factors significantly impact the sustainable performance of hotel operations, suggesting that hotels must prioritize these elements to enhance their competitiveness and ensure ongoing success in a challenging market environment. Notably, one intriguing finding is that loyalty does not serve as a buffer in the relationship between customer dissatisfaction and dysfunctional behavior, indicating that even loyal customers can exhibit negative behaviors when their expectations are not met. This underscores the importance of addressing guest satisfaction proactively to mitigate potential adverse outcomes and retain a loyal customer base. Moreover, the study provides valuable insights for hotel management, highlighting the necessity for holistic strategies that not only aim to improve guest experiences but also consider the intricate dynamics between various competitiveness factors that ultimately contribute to the sustainability and profitability of the hospitality industry. Rejecting the sub-hypothesis that loyalty among hotel service users moderates the impact of dissatisfaction on the expression of dysfunctional consumer behavior. the need to review certain theories that make up the dominant theoretical framework in the field of catering. This implies the need for further analysis of the validity of the dominant theories in the hospitality industry, especially in defining the conditions under which their postulates hold indisputably. Second, further examination of the role of loyalty is needed, since there are different types of loyalty.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There are no particular new findings, only what is known in the discussion from line 402. You should write a brief description of what the biggest findings are and how they contribute to hospitality research.

2. It is too much of an exaggeration to claim that service quality is the most important factor when it is only compared to some factors such as recovery and customer behavior. For example, customers place importance on price and location.

3. How did you ask for service recovery? If there was no service failure, there should be no opportunity to receive compensation. Did you limit respondents to those who had experienced service failure?

4. I calculated from Factor loadings that the AVE for BP was 0.261 and the CR was 0.514. What calculations did you do shown in Table 4? In the first place, why is there a question item (P54) included that is less than 0.5?

5. The abbreviation for Discretionary behavior is not shown in Table 2. And I'm not sure why this is CCB.

6. The first four lines of 3.3 are redundant. The authors can start from "The first limitation stems~."

7. Hofstede discussed cultural differences of individuals, and since it was the region that was the subject of this study, there is a jump in logic here. The nationality and culture of the guests who stayed at the subject hotel were not necessarily Western.

8. There are many typos (e.g., "X3: Service failure has" [line 210]).

Author Response

Letter for reviewer 4

 

First, thank You for useful comments and suggestions. We acted by your request, according to each point. With the note that you will make the MDPI service to correct translation and errors in typing before publishing the final version of the paper.

 

1. There are no particular new findings, only what is known in the discussion from line 402. You should write a brief description of what the biggest findings are and how they contribute to hospitality research.

 

In the introductory part, we emphasized that the novelty is in the research model. This basic research model takes into account the interaction of all factors. There is no showing off with this kind of model. In addition, it was not applied to the example of the countries treated in the work, and the specific working conditions affect the characteristics of the competitiveness factors that are the subject of the study. We made this clear in the introductory part.

 

• Following your advice below line 402, we briefly pointed to the contribution:

Dva su osnvna dopirnosa rada:

1. Key contribution:

…. suggests that the immediate dissatisfaction caused by the provision of inadequate service outweighs the cognitive reasons that justify the maintenance of a long-term positive relationship between the hotel and the users of its services. In other words, negative emotions resulting from dissatisfaction with the service provided can outweigh positive emotions resulting from loyalty. This suggests that emotions caused by an ineffective service recovery process can further increase dissatis-faction and have a stronger impact on immediate behavior compared to loyalty that develops from long-term affective and cognitive responses in the guest-hotel relationship.

2. We have pointed out the implications of the finding that loyalty does not act as a shock absorber in the relationship between dissatisfaction and dysfunctional behavior, which is contrary to the prevailing theory in the hospitality industry:

The implication of this is reflected in the re-examination of the dominant theoretical framework in the hotel industry, or at least the definition of the conditions under which it is absolutely valid, because according to the leading theories, the moral obligation to…

3. According to the findings, we pointed out clear implications, and gave recommendations aimed at the behavior and decision of the management, which were not directly the result of the investigation, but were carried out in an indirect way. Such as, for example, the adequacy of the service promotion and its influence on the formation of perceptions and expectations regarding the quality of the service...

 

At the request of the second reviewer to separate the theoretical and managerial implications, the key contributions and innovation of the work can now be more clearly observed.

 

2. It is too much of an exaggeration to claim that service quality is the most important factor when it is only compared to some factors such as recovery and customer behavior. For example, customers place importance on price and location.

 

1. Everywhere in the paper, we softened the statement related to the importance of service quality. So now the text reads: a significant factor instead of the most significant factor.
2. Instead of:

Considering that this coefficient has the highest positive value among all tested factors in the paper, it can be concluded that service quality represents the most important factor of competitiveness in hospitality

It now reads:

This coefficient has the highest positive value among all tested factors in the paper, which indicates the importance of this factor in the business of the sampled hotels.

 

3. How did you ask for service recovery? If there was no service failure, there should be no opportunity to receive compensation. Did you limit respondents to those who had experienced service failure?

 

The respondents were not separated according to whether they had experience with SR or not, because we wanted to make a comprehensive perspective on services in the hotel industry. Their experiences were co-opted through the answer of strongly disagree. Second, you are right about the question regarding compensation, one of the reasons why this question fell out of the further analysis, so that it does not affect the results (Q21 Compensation is adequate). It was not entered into further analysis after factor analysis.

 

4. I calculated from Factor loadings that the AVE for BP was 0.261 and the CR was 0.514. What calculations did you do shown in Table 4? In the first place, why is there a question item (P54) included that is less than 0.5?

 

It is a typing error, the factor loading is 0.948, not 0.48 as stated.

 

5. The abbreviation for Discretionary behavior is not shown in Table 2. And I'm not sure why this is CCB.

 

In using the abbreviation, we were guided by the fact that numerous authors equate customer citizen behavior with discretionary behavior. However, we have changed everything. So instead of CCB stands DB.

 

6. The first four lines of 3.3 are redundant. The authors can start from "The first limitation stems~."

 

We have removed a redundant part of the text: When analyzing the results achieved in the context of adopting or rejecting the hypotheses and fulfilling the research objectives, it is important to consider some limitations of the research. These limitations can affect the obtained results and the interpretation of the conclusions. For this reason, we mention them.

 

7. Hofstede discussed cultural differences of individuals, and since it was the region that was the subject of this study, there is a jump in logic here. The nationality and culture of the guests who stayed at the subject hotel were not necessarily Western.

 

We mentioned cultural differences in the context of research limits because we did not consider differences. In the structure of guests in hotels in Slovenia and Croatia, guests from Western Europe dominate, while in Serbia guests from Eastern Europe dominate. For this reason, we wanted to point out that this component should be included in future papers.

 

8. There are many typos (e.g., "X3: Service failure has" [line 210]).

 

We reformulated hypothesis H3 so that instead:

Service failure has a negative effect on hotel user satisfaction.

Now it reads:

Service failure has a negative effect on user satisfaction in hotels.

 

We note that all typing, and translation errors will be corrected through the MDPI service, before the final version of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and recommendations were taken into account. 

Author Response

Thanks for your support. 

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I hope that the improvements you made made made it possible to reveal your article more interestingly. I wish you the success of your publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your support.

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Novelty
From the description in Chapter 2, it can be read that the proposed model integrates three existing research streams. Indeed, this could be argued as a novelty. However, in the results and discussion, it is ultimately only discussing between individual dyadic variables, and as I pointed out in the previous review report, there is consequently little novelty. In addition, it must be said that integration has failed in the models which claim to have been integrated, in terms of data collection and analysis, as explained later.

3 & 4. Data collection
 It is not reasonable to analyse those who have suffered service failures and those who have not by grouping them together. In addition, it is inappropriate, by the original definition of the concept, to ask people who have not suffered a service failure about service recovery. It is not only in Q21 that the word compensation appears, but also in Q20.
It does not make sense that customers are criticised for (their?) service failures and should explain how it was cited as there is no such measure in reference [48].
It is unnatural for customers to assess business performance. Existing studies did not integrate performance with failure or customer behavior because it is unnatural to take data from the same respondents, to begin with? The literature [50] does not focus on performance evaluation on the customer side either. The authors must explain how they could accept from this literature the rationale for customers' evaluation of BP.
The factor loading of Q54 was still 0.48 (By the way, why P not Q?). However, even if this is 0.948, the AVE is 0.484 and the CR is 0.721. There is a possibility of falsification of the results of the analysis.

6. Redundancy
3.2 is redundant. For example, it is clear from the table that quality has a significant impact on satisfaction. In the first place, it is useless to explain individual influences, since you said in the introduction that a comprehensive analysis is needed. This whole section should be deleted.

7. Culture
First, the target region is mentioned from line 83, and it is also argued that research needs to be conducted in regions that have not been studied. But there is no mention of the academic significance of targeting this region/country.
In addition, claiming to need to conduct research in other countries because of cultural differences is contradictory once a specific region has been targeted by necessity. Furthermore, the study does not respond at all to the reviewer's point that it is inappropriate to cite Hofstede discussing individual culture when discussing the service (or space) of a hotel.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 i to: service quality, 17 

 behavior. the need to review certain theories that make up the dominant 31 

[28], [29], Koc (2019), and [2] stress that service recovery may be as im-156 

X3: Service failure has a negative effect on user satisfaction in hotels 234 (why X not H?)

expectations [41, 42, 43, 44, 4]. Furthermore, research by [45] indicates that the motivation 303 (Citation notation is inconsistent. Not following instructions.)

And many many other typos..................

Author Response

Letter for reviewer 4

 

Dear,

Once again, we thank you for pointing out the errors and omissions, and we apologize for the additional time you have spent. With the note that you will make the MDPI service to correct translation and errors in typing before publishing the final version of the paper.

 

We will begin with the most critical part and the comments, along with an explanation of the error that occurred during the transfer of data from the original software to Word. We constantly checked our database to see why our calculations did not match; we thought it was not about decimal records, etc., so we recalculated.

	FL.	FL^2	Error
	0.948	0.898704	0.101296
	0.523	0.273529	0.726471
	0.598	0.357604	0.642396
Sum	2.069	1.529837	1.470163

 

AVE = 1.529837/3 = 0.50994

 

CR = (Sum FL)^2/((Sum FL)^2+sum(error) =

= 2.069 ^2/2.069 ^2+1.470163 =

= 4.280761/5.750924 =

= 0.74436056

But we did not take into account the entered data in Word document. Now we have corrected it. We also noticed an error in the satisfaction variable, where the values ​​for AVE and CR were missing.

 

We note that we have made the original database available to the public, so all data is publicly available and verifiable.

 

 

It is not reasonable to analyses those who have suffered service failures and those who have not by grouping them together. In addition, it is inappropriate, by the original definition of the concept, to ask people who have not suffered a service failure about service recovery. It is not only in Q21 that the word compensation appears, but also in Q20.

 

Before the study was conducted, the respondents were informed about the purpose of the research and were suggested to respond to the items if they had experiences, knowledge, and perceptions regarding any aspects service failure and service recovery. A significant portion of the respondents did not respond to the (contentious) items, so a large number of questionnaires were not even considered. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that this was agreed upon. Since the questionnaire did not contain censoring variables regarding type of  experience for the contentious issues, we added:

 

According to your comment:

 

1. We added the following text in section Research limitations:

 

A key limitation of the research pertains to the issue of selection bias among respondents, as it did not consider the type of experience with service failure and service recovery. The assumption was made that general experience, knowledge, perceptions, and expectations of the respondents influence their evaluations of the quality of various elements of the hotel offerings, which in turn affects their brand experience. The validity of this assumption underscores the necessity to consider this limitation when interpreting the findings of this research. Furthermore, it is recommended for future researchers to utilize specific models, such as the two-step Heckit model.

 

2. As text in section Data and Sample of the Research

The research was conducted on a sample of 1,640 hotel guests who stayed in one of the 94 hotels operating in the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Croatia, and the Republic of Slovenia, which share a common socialist historical heritage, which shapes the operating conditions in hospitality. We note that we only included properly filled-out questionnaires in the further analysis. A significant percentage of the questionnaires were omitted from further analysis because they did not contain answers to the questions asked, which primarily concern negative service experiences, compensation, and others. stionnaire had experience with service failures, service recovery, and possessed sufficient knowledge to assess other items. Business performance was evaluated in accordance with the business excellence methodology.

 

It can be found a similar in the paper:

Perumal, T. S., Sundaram, V., & Arunachalam, A. (2022). A study on impact of online-service quality on customer satisfaction in e-retailing business. Serbian Journal of Management, 17(1), 61-71.

 

It does not make sense that customers are criticized for (their?) service failures and should explain how it was cited as there is no such measure in reference [48].

 

We have emphasized that we developed the questionnaire based on the analyzed literature, rather than using ready-made items. For this reason, we also conducted a more detailed analysis of the questionnaire. Otherwise, we would have only conducted analyzes of internal consistency.

 

Reference [48], Quote:

 

It is unnatural for customers to assess business performance. Existing studies did not integrate performance with failure or customer behavior because it is unnatural to take data from the same respondents, to begin with? The literature [50] does not focus on performance evaluation on the customer side either.

 

Performance was evaluated in accordance with the business excellence methodology.

 

The literature [50] uses evaluations of external customers, which can be interpreted in context rational consumer theories. According to rational consumer theories, tourists, when choosing, choose the best alternative for them (Campos, J., Oliveira, M., & e Turismo, E. S. D. H. (2018, March), and therefore have information or a specific judgment on the defined issues.

 

 

From the description in Chapter 2, it can be read that the proposed model integrates three existing research streams. Indeed, this could be argued as a novelty. However, in the results and discussion, it is ultimately only discussing between individual dyadic variables, and as I pointed out in the previous review report, there is consequently little novelty. In addition, it must be said that integration has failed in the models which claim to have been integrated, in terms of data collection and analysis, as explained later.

 

According to your comment:

 

In the Results section, we added the findings of the analysis related to the indirect influence of SF on SAT, which is achieved through QS and SR, indicating the existence of a partial effect that further implies the validity of integrating these two research streams. To support the integration of this third research stream with the first, we included the regression results of SF on BP, which show that SF has no statistically significant effect on BP, but that there is an influence through SAT and Loyalty, indicating a complete mediation effect. Following the same principle, we also highlighted the importance of integrating the second and third research streams. The direct effect of SAT (regression model) indicates that SAT influences BP, but there is an indirect effect through Loyalty, as well as through DB. An interesting finding is that these two indirect effects are identical, which may suggest that DB has an equally significant influence as Loy; however, it should not be considered without the impact of Loyalty, as Loyalty has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between SAT and DB.

 

We added in the Result section:

In the second part of Table 6, the results related to the indirect influence of SF on SAT are presented, which is achieved through QS and SR. The overall indirect effect of SF on SAT indicates the existence of a partial effect, which further implies the necessity to integrate the two individual models (the research stream that studies the influence and significance of SF, SQ, SR) and the research stream related to Satisfaction and Loyalty. The finding that SF has no statistically significant effect (when examined through the individual regression model), but that there is an indirect effect through SAT and Loyalty, indicates the presence of a total effect. This further supports the importance of integration.

In the third part of Table 6, the findings related to the indirect influence of SAT on BP, which is achieved through LOY and DB, are presented. The direct effect of SAT (regression model) indicates that SAT influences BP, but there is also an indirect effect through LOY, as well as through DB. An interesting finding is that these two indirect effects are identical, which may suggest that DB has an equally significant influence as LOY,  but should not be considered without the impact of loyalty since loyalty has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between satisfaction and discretionary behavior.

 

3.2 is redundant. For example, it is clear from the table that quality has a significant impact on satisfaction. In the first place, it is useless to explain individual influences, since you said in the introduction that a comprehensive analysis is needed. This whole section should be deleted.

 

We deleted 3.2, but we transferred some sentences to the Implication part

 

First, the target region is mentioned from line 83, and it is also argued that research needs to be conducted in regions that have not been studied. But there is no mention of the academic significance of targeting this region/country.

 

We pointed out that the countries were chosen because they share a common socialist historical heritage, which shapes the business conditions in hospitality, influencing the applicability of results from other studies. Additionally, we noted that Slovenia and Croatia are well-known tourist destinations where tourism contributes over 10% to GDP, while Serbia aims to leverage its tourism potential for economic development.

 

In addition, claiming to need to conduct research in other countries because of cultural differences is contradictory once a specific region has been targeted by necessity.

 

It was not our intention to suggest that research should be conducted in other cultures, but rather that hotel guests coming from different cultures may have different attitudes depending on their culture. This stance is based on the statement by Kotler and Keller (2009), which has been verified in hospitality by Huang & Crotts (2019) and Kozak (2001).

• Huang, S. (Sam), & Crotts, J. (2019). Relationships between Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions and tourist satisfaction: A cross-country cross-sample examination. Tourism Management, 72, 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2018.12.001
• Kotler, P. R., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management (13th ed.). Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
• Kozak, M. (2001). Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two nationalities. Tourism Management, 22(4), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00064-9

 

Furthermore, the study does not respond at all to the reviewer's point that it is inappropriate to cite Hofstede discussing individual culture when discussing the service (or space) of a hotel.

 

If we have understood correctly, your comment is that it is not appropriate to use Hofstede in the hospitality industry. If so, we will remove this part from the paper. And this part of paper we started by quoted: Culture and its multiple layers play an important role in shaping customers‘ needs and preferences in the hospitality industry (Radojevic et al., 2024). Surveying customers from Belgrade, Manchester, Thessaloniki, and Porto, Djekic et al. (2016) found that customers have meaningfully different expectations and preferences and consequently value and assess the same dining service differently.

 

• Radojević,T. et al.–How culture shapes the restaurant experience: A study of Hofstede’s dimensions and service quality–Hotel and Tourism Management, 2024, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 43-59,
• Djekic, I., Kane, K., Tomic, N., Kalogianni, E., Rocha, A., Zamioudi, L., & Pacheco, R. (2016). Cross-cultural consumer perceptions of service quality in restaurants. Nutrition & Food Science, 46(6), 827–843. https://doi.org/10.1108/NFS-04-2016-0052

We have corrected the errors.

 i to: service quality – corrected.

 behavior. the need to review certain theories that make up the dominant - corrected.

[28], [29], Koc (2019), and [2] stress that service recovery may be as im - corrected into  [2,5,28.29]

H3: Service failure has a negative effect on user satisfaction in hotels 234 (why X not H?) – corrected into H.

expectations [41, 42, 43, 44, 4]. [4,41-44] Furthermore, research by [45] indicates that the motivation 303 (Citation notation is inconsistent. Not following instructions.) - corrected into Makuljevic and Radivojevic [45].

Best regards,

Authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx