Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to Author/s

 Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript draft. It is an important and interesting topic, and it does appear that the authors have novel and interesting results to report. I expect the piece to be of relevance to e-commerce scholars, communications scholars, and tourism policy-makers, among others. At the moment, it is probably of interest mainly to those who are empirically interested in Korea’s online tour, though it does have some operational suggestions related to data especially others might find helpful. To respect the time of Journal called upon to review the piece and to ensure the integrity of the journal, I would have expected more care to have been taken in editing before submission. That said, again, it’s an interesting piece with potential. What follows are comments on particular sections of the text:

 1. Abstract is well written and focused around main theme of the study but in line number 7 author/s don’t need to capitalize few words, further in line 15 its is suppose to be small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

 2. Introduction is clear that the author/s distinctly define its rationale. But I would suggest author/s to rewrite the background information from line 34-62 because the information provided are bit shaking, not consistent and well connected and especially the formatting is not considered at all.

3. Study aims and objectives are written well in the last paragraph of the introduction.

4. Note: Too many formatting issues were identified therefore author/s needs to format whole manuscript according to the aims and scope of the journal. Avoid repetition also.

 5. Literature section is nicely developed clearly under the theme of the manuscript. References are up to date. As i mentioned that manuscript is not formatted well in term of citations, fix that problem.

6. In the data section my only question is that why the author/s didn’t separate the international and national tourist search data in term of keywords. And consider same question in the estimation section also.

7. Why author/s didn’t specify that the study is based on locally or internationally keywords as a count of tourism or this study is just based on local tourism. If that's the case why the author/s didn't mentioned this point in abstract and why not in title also. Please answer this.

8. Methodology section is comprehensive and the author/s tried to cover every possible aspect. Another best part is that author/s visualize the his study theme through CONCOR analysis and also included clusters.

 

9. Figure 4 is author/s self developed or taken fro some other sources. Explain

 

10. Results are well explained and are according to the aims and scope of manuscript.

11. If permission might be granted to resubmit, I therefore recommend author/s to proof read the

 

manuscript and develop it according to the aims and scope of the study.

Best of Luck!

Author Response

Thank you so much for your insights and constructive comments and suggestions. I received the editing service from mdpi. Your review provides valuable input for improving my paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A brief summary

This article based on Korea’s ‘online tour’ is interesting. It intends to identify the major issues related to online tours by analyzing online information gathered from Internet users in the evolving tourism industry since the pandemic.

But the abstract needs to be rewritten.

-It is not clearly explained and not not mentioned the data collected from three media cites and that the research has been  conducted on what an online tour is, prior research related to online tours, what the research trends are on tourists’ motivation to travel, and big data analysis during the pandemic into tourism research.

- There are words repeated:  (was conducted line 5 / were conducted – line 8)

- The results are as follows. It can be said (The results showed:.....)

- Line 10 (Second, interaction is an important element. The interaction between....) These two sentences can be reformulated)

Specific comments

 (line 25) –  Bloomberg 2020 in the reference list (line 507) is 2022. This article is not available, it can not be found.

(line 29) –  the citation (Jeong Dae Yeong 2020) misses the second author.

                 See the reference list (line 547) Jeong Dae Yeong and Lee Su Jin. 2020.

 (line 38-41) – Look at this paragraph. Three times is mentioned the reference Medai and Wu 2022).

One notable trend is the introduction of virtual travel experiences that allow people to virtually experience a tourist destination by using web conferencing systems or video sharing services (Medai and Wu 2022). Medai and Wu conducted a survey of online tour participants 40 in Japan that resulted in positive responses to telepresence (Medai and Wu 2022).            

(line 83) –  the citation (Han Jin Seong et al. 2022), in the reference list (line 533)  is Han Jin Seong and Yoon Ji Hwan. 2016

(line 102) –  the author cited Suzuki K. is not in the Reference list.

Using an approach from the field of media theory research, Suzuki K. defines online 102 tours as a tourist destination experience with online content

 (line 107) –  the citation (Nakano H. emphasizes that it needs to be categorize. )

   See the reference list (line 585) Nakano Fumihiko. 2021. Online Tour Experience: 

(line 360) –  the citation (Wilbert 2003) is not in the reference list 

Delete reference (line 549,550) – it is in the (line 541, 542)

(line 584) – add the year (2022)  to the reference (Myrealtrip.Co…)

(line 587) – add the year (2021)  to the reference (NEWSIS NEWS…)

(line 623) – add the year (2022)  to the reference (Tourism business support center…)

(line 640) change the capital letters  YOMURI ONLINE. Available ...

 

Ø  Some references in the Reference list are not in alphabetical order.

(Deng Zhiming et al. 2018). - line 523 should be in line 520

(Scott Noel, et al. 2017). - line 621 should be in line 607

(Seoul’s Official Local Tour….). - line 618 should be in line 609

References in the line 607 – 621 should be listed like this:

Scott Noel, ….. 2007.

Seok Hwa ….. 2021.

Seoul’s Official Local Tour and Experience

Sigala Marianna. 2020.

Sönmez Sevil F. and Alan R. Graefe. 1998.

Sugimoto Koun, Kei Ota, and Shohei Suzuki. 2019.

Sukaatmadja, I. P. G., ….. 2021.

SHINA NEWSPAPER

(Lin Yi Hsin and Zhang Christal. 2021. ). - line 563 should be in line 568

(Ministry of Culture) - line 572 should be in line 576

Author Response

Thank you so much for your insights and constructive comments and suggestions. I received the editing service from mdpi. Your review provides valuable input for improving my paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Please emphasize originality and research gap in introduction.

2. Method section. Why do you use such methods for analysis?

3. Lack of disscussions. What is similar to previous studies and what is different?

Author Response

Thank you so much for your insights and constructive comments and suggestions. I received the editing service from mdpi. Your review provides valuable input for improving my paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx