Aspects Regarding Safety and Security in Hotels: Romanian Experience
, Georgia-Daniela Tacu Hârșan 3, Alina-Petronela Haller 3,* and Gina Ionela Butnaru 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting and explores the current topic.
In my opinion, the article needs major revisions to be considered for publications (parts - Materials and methods and discussion). The research part of the work needs to be deepened, especially the methodology needs to be clarified. In article the research strategy or model construction is missing. The methodology is an improvement because it is too vague. The method is given but it is not explained why such a method is used. It is not known what criteria the authors were guided by when selecting the research sample. It is not known whether the study is representative? The structures of respondents by generation (age) are very different (the shares by gender and generation affiliation to these groups vary greatly), which makes it questionable to compare these research groups. Was there a random selection of respondents?
Furthermore, the results and conclusions must be clarified. There is a lack of discussion, e.g. comparison with results in other countries, because such research was done for selected countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Author Response
Ref: information-1064084
Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers
Regarding Reviewer Report of: Aspects regarding safety and security in hotels: Romanian experience
Notes:
- We reproduce the original comments in italics for reference and respond beneath each point.
Response to Reviewer 1
Dear Reviewer,
We really appreciate your careful review of our manuscript and thoughtful suggestions on how to improve it. Thank you for your advice and for your valuable observations that have certainly increased the added value and highly improved our article. We hope the revised manuscript will meet your expectations.
Comment 1. The article is interesting and explores the current topic.
Response to comment 1: The authors thank you very much for the appreciation.
Comment 2: In my opinion, the article needs major revisions to be considered for publications (parts - Materials and methods and discussion). The research part of the work needs to be deepened, especially the methodology needs to be clarified. In article the research strategy or model construction is missing. The methodology is an improvement because it is too vague.
Response to comment 2: Thank you very much for your feedback. We extended the methodology with a series of ANOVA tests in order to obtain a clear perspective about the perception of the respondents about the safety and security measures and the differences between the groups regarding those perceptions.
Comment 3: The method is given but it is not explained why such a method is used.
Response to comment 3: Thank you for the feedback and for the suggestion. In order to improve the quality of the paper we tried to explain in more detail why ANOVA is the right type of statistical test for our paper.
Comment 4: It is not known what criteria the authors were guided by when selecting the research sample. It is not known whether the study is representative?
Response to comment 4: Although there is no general method for determining the optimal sample size, the researchers proposed recommendations and guidelines on appropriate sample sizes when performing a statistical analysis. Comrey and Lee (1992) provided the following recommendations for appropriate sample sizes: 100 = poor, 200 = ok, 300 = good, 500 = very good, 1000 or more = excellent. We believe that 314 valid questionnaires are enough for this type of research, one that also collected a lot of qualitative data.
Comment 5: The structures of respondents by generation (age) are very different (the shares by gender and generation affiliation to these groups vary greatly), which makes it questionable to compare these research groups. Was there a random selection of respondents?
Response to comment 5: Another limitation of this study could refer to the unequal sample sizes and the fact that it could affect the ANOVA results. However, we believe that the Bartlett’s test for homogeneity of variances showed that this is not a major issue.
Comment 6: Furthermore, the results and conclusions must be clarified. There is a lack of discussion, e.g. comparison with results in other countries, because such research was done for selected countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Response to comment 6: As you recommended, we have identified research conducted in this field for countries of Central and Eastern Europe and highlighted the most relevant results, including the limitations that currently exist, at the international level on the standardization of classification systems.
Also, at the suggestion of Reviewer 2, we brought clarifications through which we also enriched the number of valuable bibliographical references. As a result, we brought additions to two of the article subchapters, more precisely to 2.2 Dimensions of safety and security in hotels and 3.1 Material and sample size. As a result, the number of references increased by 12 researches indexed in valuable databases. In subchapter 2.2 Dimensions of safety and security in hotels we brought clarifications, which added two bibliographic sources in the first paragraph (Cró et al, 2018 and Falk and Young, 2020), in the second paragraph, three more bibliographic sources (Chan and Law, 2013; Simpeh and Adisa, 2020; Akababa, 2006), and in the fifth paragraph we referred to four other researches (Nunkoo et al, 2019; Cró and Martius, 2016; Awan and Shamim, 2020; Nagaj and Zuromskaite, 2020). To explain the reason for choosing the target group in subchapter 3.1 Methods and sample size, we considered it necessary to refer to three other researches that have enriched the number of references (Bento, 2013; Tomasi et al, 2020; Yousoff et al, 2017).
We tried to improve this part and clarify the conclusions.
All the authors thank you for your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article concentrates on an interesting topic. We should remember that tourism is an importand economic sector and safety is crutial for its development.
The paper is interesting and prepared carefully, according to standards. I have positive opinion about literature review however more papers indexed in Scopus or Web of Sciences databases could be used.
The hypotheses are clear and consistent with the text. My main objection concerns the research sample - students and teaching staff. This is a very specific group and it is difficult to generalize conclusions based on it.
First of all, students are not typical hotel customers (especially premium ones). They have also specific attitude to the issue of security during their travels. Secondly, am I not sure if 314 valid questionaires is a satisfactory amount. Moreover we must remember that students (I quess they were the majority of the sample group) are young people, so it may be difficult to make inter-generational analysis here.
I am aware that it it is difficult to repeat or extend the study, however I would expect broader comments indicating limitations connected with the target population.
Futhermore I would suggest broadening the comments on the verification of the hypotheses, especially I would focus on possible reasons for this.
The last issue, in my opinion the conclusion saying that " the higher the level of classiffication of a hotel, the higher its guests' requirements for safety and security measures" is too general and too clear.
To sum up, I assess the paper positively however authors shoudl correct the methodology and discussion about results and recommendations.
Author Response
Ref: information-1064084
Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers
Regarding Reviewer Report of: Aspects regarding safety and security in hotels: Romanian experience
Notes:
- We reproduce the original comments in italics for reference and respond beneath each point.
Response to Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer,
We really appreciate your careful review of our manuscript and thoughtful suggestions on how to improve it. Thank you for your advice and for your valuable observations that have certainly increased the added value and highly improved our article. We hope the revised manuscript will meet your expectations.
Comment1: The article concentrates on an interesting topic. We should remember that tourism is an importand economic sector and safety is crutial for its development.
Response to comment 1: The authors thank you very much for the appreciation.
Comment 2: The paper is interesting and prepared carefully, according to standards. I have positive opinion about literature review however more papers indexed in Scopus or Web of Sciences databases could be used.
Response to comment 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We tried to add more citations from high-quality papers indexed in Scopus or Web of Sciences databases. We followed your suggestion and, as a result, we brought additions to two of the article subchapters, more precisely to 2.2 Dimensions of safety and security in hotels and 3.1 Material and sample size. As a result, the number of references increased by 12 researches indexed in valuable databases. In subchapter 2.2 Dimensions of safety and security in hotels we brought clarifications, which added two bibliographic sources in the first paragraph (Cró et al, 2018 and Falk and Young, 2020), in the second paragraph, three more bibliographic sources (Chan and Law, 2013; Simpeh and Adisa, 2020; Akababa, 2006), and in the fifth paragraph we referred to four other researches (Nunkoo et al, 2019; Cró and Martius, 2016; Awan and Shamim, 2020; Nagaj and Zuromskaite, 2020). To explain the reason for choosing the target group in subchapter 3.1 Methods and sample size, we considered it necessary to refer to three other researches that have enriched the number of references (Bento, 2013; Tomasi et al, 2020; Yousoff et al, 2017).
Comment 3: The hypotheses are clear and consistent with the text. My main objection concerns the research sample - students and teaching staff. This is a very specific group and it is difficult to generalize conclusions based on it. First of all, students are not typical hotel customers (especially premium ones). They have also specific attitude to the issue of security during their travels.
Response to comment 3: Thank you very much for your feedback. We applied the questionnaire to students, graduates and alumni of "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University of Iași and "1 Decembrie 1918" University of Alba Iulia, constantly concerned with travelling for tourist purposes. It should be mentioned that the students are from tourism specializations and most of them are quite familiar with safety and security measures in hotels, even premium ones.
Comment 4: Secondly, am I not sure if 314 valid questionnaires is a satisfactory amount. Moreover we must remember that students (I guess they were the majority of the sample group) are young people, so it may be difficult to make inter-generational analysis here.
Response to comment 4: Although there is no general method for determining the optimal sample size, the researchers proposed recommendations and guidelines on appropriate sample sizes when performing a statistical analysis. Comrey and Lee (1992) provided the following recommendations for appropriate sample sizes: 100 = poor, 200 = ok, 300 = good, 500 = very good, 1000 or more = excellent. We believe that 314 valid questionnaires are enough for this type of research, one that also collected a lot of qualitative data.
Comment 5: I am aware that it is difficult to repeat or extend the study, however I would expect broader comments indicating limitations connected with the target population.
Response to comment 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have identified research conducted in this field for countries of Central and Eastern Europe and highlighted the most relevant results, especially the limitations that currently exist at the international level on the standardization of classification systems. We tried to expand the discussion and conclusion part.
Comment 6: Furthermore, I would suggest broadening the comments on the verification of the hypotheses, especially I would focus on possible reasons for this.
Response to comment 6. Thank you very much for your feedback We focused on better explaining the verification of hypotheses and the obtained results.
Comment 7: The last issue, in my opinion the conclusion saying that "the higher the level of classiffication of a hotel, the higher its guests' requirements for safety and security measures" is too general and too clear.
Response to comment 7: We agree with that. We deleted that.
We also identified studies that illustrate the need to increase the competitiveness of the tourism sector in Romania. We explained more precisely the low degree of predictability that pandemic period brings in this area, when -along with comfort- security and safety must be ensured at highest level.
Comment 8: To sum up, I assess the paper positively however authors should correct the methodology and discussion about results and recommendations.
Response to comment 8: Thank you!
All the authors thank you for your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made a significant effort and the second version of the article is much more clear and consistent than the first one.
I still have doubts about the study representative and discussion. The limitation of the study should properly be highlighted in the conclusive paragraph as the article suffers from significant limits regarding both the chosen method and the generalizability of the results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have taken note of your comments and we have endeavored to make improvements to the article, as you will see in the attached document.
In the hope that we have clarified and pointed out the limits of the research much more clearly, our team thanks you for all the effort and time for analyzing the paper. We are also open to any other changes that may improve the paper and bring it to the stage of publication.
All the best,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
