Host–Tourist Relationship Quality in Evaluating B&B: The Impacts of Personality Traits and Emotional Labor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe English language of this paper, as well as its written style, is abysmal.
I am surprised it passed the preliminary check.
A thorough revision of language and written style is needed and would be indispensable, possibly with the help of a native speaker, and that would be extremely beneficial to the text.
Look just at the Abstract - how many times is Taiwan (and 'derivatives') repeated in just two sentences? And plurals which should be singulars, singulars which should be plurals - the text needs to be re-written massively and extensively!
The topic is not that 'exciting', but let's say it tries to fill a presumably significant 'research gap', therefore the existence of this article can be justified by that.
The Introduction should explain better and more in detail the actual research goals of this work and the strategies implemented by the Authors to achieve them. Also, more stress needs to be applied to the description of the significance of this paper in the current panorama of studies.
There is a Literature Review, and that is a big 'plus'. A proper Literature Review is a 'must', for an academic paper, and, in current academia and academic writing, is becoming increasingly rarer and rarer. However, this section would need to be expanded, by adding even more general works, which would make the Literature Review in itself and the article in its entirety more informative and 'user-friendly', even to a non-specialized 'audience'.
The methodology is a bit 'primitive' or, at least, 'simplistic', but the 'survey strategy' rules, nowadays, so we have to accept it - possibly, the sample utilized is large enough to provide relatively indicative results.
The Results are well-presented (apart from the written style) and quite clear - despite this, the Tables (and Figures) must be double-checked by at least another Reviewer, for fairness and final validation.
Where is the Discussion?
The Results section is quite short - it is immediately followed by the Conclusions. And the Discussion? Being the 'meat' of a paper, the Discussion cannot be avoided and/or given for granted. Also, the 'analysis' found in the Results section and, partly, in the Conclusions cannot replace a proper Discussion, which must be developed in its own section and be solid, consistent, and 'long' (at least two pages?), with many 'analytical moments' and systematic comments. The addition of some 'personal observations' by the Authors would also be beneficial - rather than 'compromising' the scientificity of the paper, it would add important 'hints' for a potentially fruitful discussion / debate.
Actually, an academic paper without a proper Discussion is not a true academic paper.
In the Conclusions, the Authors should synthetically list the main findings of the research and, like in a 'mirror' with the Introduction, highlight (more) the importance (if any) of their paper in the field.
The Ethical Statements are a bit 'fuzzy'. Ethical clearance cannot be 'waived', as the Authors declare, and sensitive information is already in the Informed Consent Forms, therefore a proper Ethical Clearance and Institutional Board Statement / Protocol Number need to be released and declared before a paper like this can be cleared for publication. This is something that cannot be neglected, and I am surprised that the paper was sent our for Review without a proper Ethical Clearance.
All in all, a non-very-relevant and quite-problematic paper that needs a thorough and drastic revision before being considered for publication.
Thank you very much.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language of this paper, as well as its written style, is abysmal.
I am surprised it passed the preliminary check.
A thorough revision of language and written style is needed and would be indispensable, possibly with the help of a native speaker, and that would be extremely beneficial to the text.
Look just at the Abstract - how many times is Taiwan (and 'derivatives') repeated in just two sentences? And plurals which should be singulars, singulars which should be plurals - the text needs to be re-written massively and extensively!
Not a good start.
Author Response
Thanks for the reviewer corrections and valuable suggestions. In response to the reviewer valuable comments, we have made the following revisions and replies.
Comments 1: The English language of this paper, as well as its written style, is abysmal. A thorough revision of language and written style is needed and would be indispensable, possibly with the help of a native speaker, and that would be extremely beneficial to the text.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, after we correct the manuscript, we will immediately start English editing on MDPI.
Comments 2: Look just at the Abstract - how many times is Taiwan (and 'derivatives') repeated in just two sentences? And plurals which should be singulars, singulars which should be plurals - the text needs to be re-written massively and extensively!
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out, Therefore, We have completely revised the Abstract.
Comments 3: The topic is not that 'exciting', but let's say it tries to fill a presumably significant 'research gap', therefore the existence of this article can be justified by that.
Response 3: Thank you for your affirmation. After revising the manuscript, we emphasized the research gap in this study.
Comments 4: The Introduction should explain better and more in detail the actual research goals of this work and the strategies implemented by the Authors to achieve them. Also, more stress needs to be applied to the description of the significance of this paper in the current panorama of studies.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out, In the introduction, we emphasized the research purpose and strategy, and description of the significance of this paper in the current panorama of studies (The importance of the research gap in this study), and through literature review, this further highlights the significance of this study.
Comments 5: There is a Literature Review, and that is a big 'plus'. A proper Literature Review is a 'must', for an academic paper, and, in current academia and academic writing, is becoming increasingly rarer and rarer. However, this section would need to be expanded, by adding even more general works, which would make the Literature Review in itself and the article in its entirety more informative and 'user-friendly', even to a non-specialized 'audience'.
Response 5: Thank you for your affirmation and encouragement. We have added important references and enhanced our Literature Review.
Comments 6: The methodology is a bit 'primitive' or, at least, 'simplistic', but the 'survey strategy' rules, nowadays, so we have to accept it - possibly, the sample utilized is large enough to provide relatively indicative results.
Response 6: Thank you for your affirmation and encouragement. In the research method, we further describe the sample size, on page 6 of the manuscript: A two-phase study was designed to explore the relationship quality between B&B hosts and tourists. This study selected the cities in Taiwan with the highest number of B&Bs, then identified famous tourist attractions within those cities. As shown in Figure 3, Miaoli (Nanzhuang), Nantou (Sun Moon Lake), Chiayi (Alishan), Pingtung (Kent-ing), Hualien (Qixingtan), and Yilan (Dongshan River) were selected. This study dis-tributed questionnaires based on the number of B&Bs in each city. A total of 500 ques-tionnaires were distributed, of which 422 were valid. In Miaoli, 60 questionnaires were distributed (41 valid); in Nantou, 90 questionnaires (78 valid); in Chiayi, 35 question-naires (30 valid); in Pingtung, 50 questionnaires (36 valid); in Hualien, 170 question-naires (151 valid); and, in Yilan, 95 questionnaires (86 valid).
Comments 7: The Results are well-presented (apart from the written style) and quite clear - despite this, the Tables (and Figures) must be double-checked by at least another Reviewer, for fairness and final validation.
Response 7: Thank you for your affirmation and encouragement
Comments 8: Where is the Discussion? The Results section is quite short - it is immediately followed by the Conclusions. And the Discussion? Being the 'meat' of a paper, the Discussion cannot be avoided and/or given for granted. Also, the 'analysis' found in the Results section and, partly, in the Conclusions cannot replace a proper Discussion, which must be developed in its own section and be solid, consistent, and 'long' (at least two pages?), with many 'analytical moments' and systematic comments. The addition of some 'personal observations' by the Authors would also be beneficial - rather than 'compromising' the scientificity of the paper, it would add important 'hints' for a potentially fruitful discussion / debate.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out, On pages 7 to 13 of this manuscript, we have strengthened the Discussion in the Results and then connected the Conclusions.
Comments 9: In the Conclusions, the Authors should synthetically list the main findings of the research and, like in a 'mirror' with the Introduction, highlight (more) the importance (if any) of their paper in the field.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out, In 5.2 Practical Implications of this study, we discuss the main findings of this study. After revising the manuscript, from the introduction, Literature Review to the Conclusions, we have further emphasized the importance of this study.
Comments 10: The Ethical Statements are a bit 'fuzzy'
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out, we have sent the Informed Consent Statement to the editor.
Sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments! Because of your valuable comments, we have made a thorough and drastic revision, let our manuscript be more perfect and complete. Thank you most sincerely!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report
The Quality of Relationship Between Hosts and Tourists in Evaluating Homestay: The Impact of Personality Traits and Emotional Labor
(tourismhosp-3515038-peer-review-v1)
The paper examines a significant concurrent issue of worldwide concerns as far as the relationship between hosts and tourists is worldwide as well.
It is a good attempt that the paper examines relationships between tourists and B&B hosts who play double roles - host and service worker.
Nevertheless, the manuscript requires minor amendments to add to its current value of readership.
- The introduction must include separate subtitles that address clear objectives and contribution of the manuscript.
- Usually, the introduction does not have to include references, rather an introduction to the topic of the manuscript
- In the description of the data, p.5, a redundancy is noticed, such as the “…. In the industrial development of today's Taiwanese society, the tourist homestay industry is an important industry in Taiwan, taking the 2008-2009 Tourism Taiwan Year as an important starting point for the plan …” The same phrasing in the introduction. Redundancy is traced in many other places. Please remove the redundancy.
- A clear description of the data is quite vital to showcase the contribution of the findings. For example, what is the definitions and metrics of “famous tourism sites”? There must be some metrics and measures to show the case. In addition, 2009 lags behind too far… No recent data at all !!! It is a surprise and a major concern.
- The description of sampling is incomplete. How were the respondents selected. It seems like a convenient sample, doesn’t it?
- There also must be an equation to determine the sample size before the sampling processes are carried out. How is the sample size determined, especially that figure 3 shows “N” … does it refer to the size of the population or the size of the sample, especially that no sample size determination is mentioned?
- The data analysis is standard. No major comments.
- Figure 5 requires a more enhanced image.
- There must be separate discussion of the results from the conclusion. Please move the discussion of the results to the appropriate places under each table. The conclusion is usually a summary of the results without mentioning references.
I hope that my recommendations add value to the manuscript. Indeed, it is a very good attempt.
Author Response
Thanks for the reviewer corrections and valuable suggestions. In response to the reviewer valuable comments, we have made the following revisions and replies.
Comments 1: The introduction must include separate subtitles that address clear objectives and contribution of the manuscript.
Response 1: Thank you, we agree with this comment. Therefore, in the manuscript, The Introduction has added separate subtitles and included the purpose and contributions.
Comments 2: Usually, the introduction does not have to include references, rather an introduction to the topic of the manuscript
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, In the Introduction, we have removed a large number of references and retained only a few important ones to support the introduction of this study.
Comments 3: In the description of the data, p.5, a redundancy is noticed, such as the “…. In the industrial development of today's Taiwanese society, the tourist homestay industry is an important industry in Taiwan, taking the 2008-2009 Tourism Taiwan Year as an important starting point for the plan …” The same phrasing in the introduction. Redundancy is traced in many other places. Please remove the redundancy.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have thoroughly checked the entire manuscript and removed the redundancy.
Comments 4: A clear description of the data is quite vital to showcase the contribution of the findings. For example, what is the definitions and metrics of “famous tourism sites”? There must be some metrics and measures to show the case. In addition, 2009 lags behind too far… No recent data at all !!! It is a surprise and a major concern.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We definitions and metrics of “famous tourism sites” is selected the cities in Taiwan with the highest number of B&Bs, then identified famous tourist attractions within those cities for analysis. We analyze data from 2008-2009 because the Executive Yuan, Tourism Administration, Ministry of Transportation and Communications of Taiwan released the Tour Taiwan Years 2008-2009 Plan in 2008-2009, so 2008-2009 is the most important development period for Taiwan tourism.
Comments 5: The description of sampling is incomplete. How were the respondents selected. It seems like a convenient sample, doesn’t it?
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We use the convenience sampling method, which is supplemented on page 6 of the manuscript: A two-phase study was designed to explore the relationship quality between B&B hosts and tourists. This study selected the cities in Taiwan with the highest number of B&Bs, then identified famous tourist attractions within those cities. As shown in Figure 3, Miaoli (Nanzhuang), Nantou (Sun Moon Lake), Chiayi (Alishan), Pingtung (Kent-ing), Hualien (Qixingtan), and Yilan (Dongshan River) were selected. This study dis-tributed questionnaires based on the number of B&Bs in each city. A total of 500 ques-tionnaires were distributed, of which 422 were valid. In Miaoli, 60 questionnaires were distributed (41 valid); in Nantou, 90 questionnaires (78 valid); in Chiayi, 35 question-naires (30 valid); in Pingtung, 50 questionnaires (36 valid); in Hualien, 170 question-naires (151 valid); and, in Yilan, 95 questionnaires (86 valid).
Comments 6: There also must be an equation to determine the sample size before the sampling processes are carried out. How is the sample size determined, especially that figure 3 shows “N” … does it refer to the size of the population or the size of the sample, especially that no sample size determination is mentioned?
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The sample size is usually between 250 and 500. To ensure the rigor of the research, we distributed a sample size of 500 questionnaires and obtained 422 valid samples. In Figure 3, N refers to the valid sample.
Comments 7: The data analysis is standard. No major comments.
Response 7: Thank you for your affirmation and encouragement.
Comments 8: Figure 5 requires a more enhanced image.
Response 8: Thank you, we agree with this comment. Therefore, The image of Figure 5 has been enhanced.
Comments 9: There must be separate discussion of the results from the conclusion. Please move the discussion of the results to the appropriate places under each table. The conclusion is usually a summary of the results without mentioning references.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with this comment. Therefore, We have separated the discussion of results and conclusions in the manuscript, and references have been removed from the conclusion.
After we correct the manuscript, we will immediately start English editing on MDPI.
Sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments! Because of your valuable comments, we have made a thorough and drastic revision, let our manuscript be more perfect and complete. Thank you most sincerely!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article was significantly improved.
It is ready, now, to be considered for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe amendments have been carried out satisfactorily. wish the authors all the best with more of quality research.
