Next Article in Journal
Teacher Perceptions on Virtual Reality Escape Rooms for STEM Education
Next Article in Special Issue
Online Customer Reviews and Satisfaction with an Upscale Hotel: A Case Study of Atlantis, The Palm in Dubai
Previous Article in Journal
The Dynamics of Minority versus Majority Behaviors: A Case Study of the Mafia Game
Previous Article in Special Issue
Text Mining with Network Analysis of Online Reviews and Consumers’ Satisfaction: A Case Study in Busan Wine Bars
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

An Exploratory Study of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Focused on Casino Hotels in Las Vegas and Macao

Information 2022, 13(3), 135; https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030135
by Mengying Tang 1,2 and Hak-Seon Kim 3,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Information 2022, 13(3), 135; https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030135
Submission received: 6 February 2022 / Revised: 24 February 2022 / Accepted: 4 March 2022 / Published: 5 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Data Analytics and Consumer Behavior)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Figure 2. Research Process must be corrected.

  1. Follow the rules for visual presentation of the process.
    SCTM 3.0 is not the result of an online review, but a tool used to conduct an online review.
  2. The same mistakes are repeated in others.
  3. Linear Regression Analysis from the results of Semantic Network Analysis and factor analysis.
    As now drawn it looks completely independent.
    It is necessary to draw it one level lowe

 

Author Response

  • We do appreciate your instrumental and meaningful comments on the improvement of this manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the structural relationships of Figure 2. It is indeed to be clearly shown.

Reviewer 2 Report

The intro section was well presented including the overall importance and the purpose of the research. The topic of the research is interesting and would be meaningful in the hospitality and tourism literature.

The lit review demonstrated a proper review of the previous studies on the subjects.

The method section described the step-by-step process of the analysis. But, in the intro section, the data collection period was Oct 2017 - Oct 2021, but here in this section Oct 2017 - Sep 2021. The authors need to check which one is correct.

The results section is well presented with tables, figures, and texts. But, one concern is the negative b coefficients in the regression analysis. The authors briefly mentioned the results in the results and discussion sections, but how would the authors specifically interpret the "negative" coefficients (especially significant ones)? For example, In Las Vegas, PE has a significantly negative impact on CS. What does it mean? 

Overall, the manuscript is well organized and presented. 

Line 570: CONCOR?

Author Response

Thank you for your comment on our paper. We do appreciate your instrumental and meaningful comments on the improvement of this manuscript. Thank you so much.

1. The collection period that has to be checked was Oct 2017 - Sep 2021 and we have corrected in the manuscript at line 63.

2. Based on your suggestions, we have added the interpretation of negatively correlated and combined with the content of customer online review to reflect in each case hotel.

3. We are truly sorry if there are any grammar or spelling mistakes. Thank you for your kind reminder, the manuscript has been proofread by the authors.

 

Back to TopTop