Exploring the Influence of Social Media on Tourist Decision-Making: Insights from Cape Verde

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a relevant and insightful study on the influence of social media on tourist decision-making, focusing on Cape Verde as an emerging tourism destination. The research aligns well with the scope of the Tourism and Hospitality journal, contributing to digital tourism marketing, destination branding, and consumer behavior studies.

The study is well-structured, methodologically sound, and offers practical implications for destination marketing organizations (DMOs), policymakers, and tourism businesses. However, some areas require minor revisions, particularly in methodological clarity, discussion depth, and referencing consistency. The practical implications should also be expanded to provide clearer, more actionable recommendations for industry stakeholders.  Attached are recommendations for improving the manuscript.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: [The paper states that a non-probability convenience sampling method was used, which is common in tourism research. However, please justify this choice and discuss potential limitations and biases (e.g., representativeness of the sample, generalizability). Provide more context on why Microsoft Forms was chosen for data collection. Did this impact respondent demographics or introduce selection bias?]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we clarified this by including the text: [Convenience sampling is commonly used in tourism research due to its practicality and cost-effectiveness, especially when targeting specific groups, such as potential tourists (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). However, this method has limitations, including potential sample representativeness and generalizability biases. For instance, the sample may overrepresent individuals who are more active on social media or have a higher interest in travel, which could skew the results. To mitigate these biases, the survey was distributed across various online platforms and social media channels to reach a broader audience.

Microsoft Forms was chosen for data collection based on its user-friendly interface, ease of distribution, and ability to collect real-time responses. Microsoft Forms also allows for anonymous responses, which can encourage more honest and candid feedback from participants. However, using an online platform may introduce selection bias, as it tends to attract respondents who are more comfortable with digital tools and have access to the internet. This could exclude older individuals or those with limited digital literacy. To address this, the survey was designed to be simple and accessible, with clear instructions and minimal technical requirements.]

 

Comments 2: [The discussion should better contextualize findings within the broader tourism marketing literature.

The preference for Facebook among older users and Instagram/TikTok among younger

users is well-documented. However, expand on psychological and behavioral factors that drive platform preferences (e.g., trust, visual engagement, peer influence)]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment; the discussion was significantly updated to accommodate the reviewers' pertinent comments.

 

Comment 3: [Ensure APA formatting is applied consistently.

Cross-check all references to ensure they are accurate and properly formatted.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. All references have been checked.

 

Comment 4: [Some sentences are overly complex and could be simplified for clarity].

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. In this article version, we have tried to clarify the text better.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an important issue about the Influence of social media on tourist decision- making. The work meets the standards of a scientific article. However, there are a few issues that need to be improved.

• The introduction lacks research questions corresponding to hypothetical answers H1 and H2. The research questions further specify the purpose of the article, which is currently written in too general a manner.
• I believe that the results and the discussion of the results should be divided into two separate chapters. Each of these chapters should be better developed. Research results are poorly visualized. Contingency tables are the simplest way to visualize. I suggest using mosaic plots, which are better suited for visualizing the results of independence tests chi squared. Furthermore, the authors do not use the APA standard for presenting the results of this test. I ask the authors to correct this and apply the APA standard. The discussion of the results should not only include a comparison of the research results with the results of other works but also comment on the research results in the socio-economic context of Cape Verde (authors should write what are the socio-economic phenomena that explain the results obtained).
• The conclusion should not repeat the research results, which is what the actors do by giving percentages in brackets. In conclusion, the authors should write whether they have answered the research questions and briefly summarize this answer. Next, they should outline the practical implications of their research. In my opinion, sections 5.1 and 5.2 should be merged, as section 5.1 is too short. This chapter should end with a limitations and future research section, which the authors do correctly. I suggest that in future research the authors conduct factor analysis (exploratory and confirmatory) to check whether the statements included in the questionnaire allow for the creation of reliable and valid scales.

Author Response

Comments 1: [The introduction lacks research questions corresponding to hypothetical answers H1 and H2. The research questions further specify the purpose of the article, which is currently written in too general a manner.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we clarified this by including the text: [To guide this study, the following research questions are proposed:

RQ1: Is there a significant association between the age group of tourists intending to visit Cape Verde and the choice of social media platform used to research the destination?

RQ2: Is there a significant association between the education level of tourists visiting Cape Verde and their choice of information source for researching the destination?

These research questions aim to explore the demographic factors influencing the use of social media and information sources in the context of Cape Verde, providing a more focused direction for the study.]

 

Comments 2: [I believe that the results and the discussion of the results should be divided into two separate chapters. Each of these chapters should be better developed. Research results are poorly visualized.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the results and discussion are now separated.

 

Comments 3: Contingency tables are the simplest way to visualize. I suggest using mosaic plots, which are [better suited for visualizing the results of independence tests chi-squared.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. So, we created the mosaic plots.

 

Comments 4: The conclusion should not repeat the research results, which is what the actors do by giving percentages in brackets.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. The conclusions have therefore been edited to include the reviewers' valuable suggestions.

 

 

Comments 5: [In my opinion, sections 5.1 and 5.2 should be merged, as section 5.1 is too short. This chapter should end with a limitations and future research section, which the authors do correctly.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We merged these two sections. Now is section 6.1.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for updating the manuscript.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for implementing my comments into the text of the article. I accept all corrections.