The Impact of Digital Technology on Tourism Economic Growth: Empirical Analysis Based on Provincial Panel Data, 2010–2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study employs a robust empirical framework, utilizing panel data from 30 Chinese provinces over 13 years (2010–2022). The use of fixed-effects models and mediation analysis strengthens the validity of the findings. The paper addresses a timely and underexplored topic digital technology's role in tourism economic growth while introducing tourism industry efficiency as a mediating variable. This contributes to both theoretical and empirical literature. The conclusions offer actionable insights for policymakers, such as investing in digital infrastructure and optimizing tourism efficiency, which align with China’s "Belt and Road" and digital economy initiatives. The construction of composite indices (e.g., Digital Technology Index, Tourism Development Index) using the entropy method adds methodological rigor. The robustness checks further validate the results.

Recommendations:

Include instrumental variable (IV) analysis or Granger causality tests to strengthen causal claims.

The data cutoff (2022) misses recent advancements like generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) and the metaverse, which are reshaping tourism. Discuss these emerging technologies in the "Limitations" or "Future Research" sections.

The dependent variable is defined as tourism output/GDP, but alternative measures (e.g., tourism revenue per capita) could offer complementary insights. Justify the choice of variable more thoroughly or include alternative measures in robustness checks.

The paper makes a valuable contribution to the tourism economics literature but requires revisions to address endogeneity, update the technological context, and strengthen methodological rigor. Minor revisions are needed for causal inference and mediation analysis, while minor revisions would improve clarity and theoretical grounding. With these adjustments, the study would offer more robust and generalizable insights for academia and policy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Include instrumental variable (IV) analysis or Granger causality tests to strengthen causal claims.

        Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewers. To address potential endogeneity issues, I have added "Endogeneity Test" on page 24 of the paper. I adopted the Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) method and introduced two exogenous instrumental variables, namely the "Internet penetration rate" and "per capita telecommunications revenue" of each province, to conduct exogenous processing on the level of digital technology development (DT).

The data cutoff (2022) misses recent advancements like generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) and the metaverse, which are reshaping tourism. Discuss these emerging technologies in the "Limitations" or "Future Research" sections.

          Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have discussed the emerging technologies in the "Limitations" or "Future Research" section on page 26, and marked them with yellow background. Once again, I am grateful for your comments.

The dependent variable is defined as tourism output/GDP, but alternative measures (e.g., tourism revenue per capita) could offer complementary insights. Justify the choice of variable more thoroughly or include alternative measures in robustness checks.

         Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewers. In the 23rd page, I adopted DIL1 (Patent Applications and Authorizations for Invention) and DIL2 (Patent Applications and Authorizations for Utility Model) as alternative indicators for the Digital Technology Development Level (DT). In the regression analysis, they presented a significant and consistently positive effect, indicating that the promotion effect of digital technology on tourism economic growth is stable and extensive.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the authors have met all the criteria and corrected the manuscript in the best possible direction according to the reviewers' instructions. The title is adequate to the research topic. The abstract is well designed to have the structure of the manuscript from the goal to the significance of the research. The introductory part is well structured, I do not suggest any further changes. The list of similar research is fully adequate, with a critical approach and concerns specific research related to the topic. The methodology contains all the necessary structural segments, as well as the results that are presented in detail and clearly in the form of tables and figures. The discussion and concluding remarks are adequate and summarize all the obtained research results, including the segment of expanding the context in the right way of clarifying the problem. I suggest that the manuscript be published without further corrections

Author Response

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the authors have met all the criteria and corrected the manuscript in the best possible direction according to the reviewers' instructions. The title is adequate to the research topic. The abstract is well designed to have the structure of the manuscript from the goal to the significance of the research. The introductory part is well structured, I do not suggest any further changes. The list of similar research is fully adequate, with a critical approach and concerns specific research related to the topic. The methodology contains all the necessary structural segments, as well as the results that are presented in detail and clearly in the form of tables and figures. The discussion and concluding remarks are adequate and summarize all the obtained research results, including the segment of expanding the context in the right way of clarifying the problem. I suggest that the manuscript be published without further corrections

           Thank you for your review comments. I will continue to strive to research the impact of digital technology on the tourism economy. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1 (significant!): As per the journal guidelines for a Data Descriptor, providing data only upon request is not sufficient. The dataset must be openly accessible in an appropriate repository to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and reusability of the research.
Comment 2: Although the hypotheses presented in the manuscript are clear, the theoretical reasoning supporting the relationships among variables needs further elaboration. It is recommended that the authors enhance the theoretical justification to clarify how and why each hypothesis was formulated.
Comment 3: While regional heterogeneity analysis is included, a more detailed interpretation explaining the underlying reasons for observed regional differences would strengthen the practical insights of the findings.
Comment 4: The Limitations section adequately identifies geographical coverage, data timeliness, and methodological concerns. However, it would be strengthened by explicitly addressing issues related to the generalizability of the results beyond the studied regions, potential biases introduced by the expert panel, and the implications of the selected time frame on the findings.
Comment 5: The Theoretical Implications section clearly identifies the study's contributions. Nevertheless, a deeper analysis of how the findings extend or challenge existing theoretical models is recommended. Specifically, more explicit discussion regarding the theoretical gaps addressed by this study and direct comparisons with prior theoretical frameworks would significantly improve this section.
Comment 6: The content currently presented under Conclusions primarily outlines practical implications and policy recommendations. This material would fit better in the Discussion section. The Conclusions section should succinctly summarize the main research findings instead. 

Author Response

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1 (significant!): As per the journal guidelines for a Data Descriptor, providing data only upon request is not sufficient. The dataset must be openly accessible in an appropriate repository to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and reusability of the research.

          Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewers. We will improve the data disclosure work in accordance with the requirements. The main data sources of this research are from the China Statistical Yearbook, the Tourism Statistical Yearbook, and the Wind database. We will detail the acquisition channels of each data source in the "Data Availability Declaration" section of the paper. For example, the China Statistical Yearbook and the Tourism Statistical Yearbook can be obtained from the official website of the National Bureau of Statistics of the corresponding years; the Wind database will state its official website and the approximate path for data query (such as filtering data by industry and time in the financial terminal, etc.). At the same time, detailed data tables will be made in the appendix of the paper, clearly listing the specific indicator names corresponding to the yearbooks or databases for each variable, the data year range (2010 - 2022), and the detailed selection conditions for complex data in the Wind database will also be explained to facilitate readers to precisely locate and obtain the data, thereby ensuring the transparency, replicability and reusability of the research.

Comment 2: Although the hypotheses presented in the manuscript are clear, the theoretical reasoning supporting the relationships among variables needs further elaboration. It is recommended that the authors enhance the theoretical justification to clarify how and why each hypothesis was formulated.

            Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewers. I have elaborated on the theoretical reasoning regarding the relationships among the variables in pages 6-7, "2.4. Hypothesis", and have clarified the way and reasons for each hypothesis' formulation.

Comment 3: While regional heterogeneity analysis is included, a more detailed interpretation explaining the underlying reasons for observed regional differences would strengthen the practical insights of the findings.

            Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewers. I have added a more detailed explanation of the fundamental reasons for regional differences at the end of the "4.5. Heterogeneity analysis" section on page 21 of the paper, making the research results more practical.

Comment 4: The Limitations section adequately identifies geographical coverage, data timeliness, and methodological concerns. However, it would be strengthened by explicitly addressing issues related to the generalizability of the results beyond the studied regions, potential biases introduced by the expert panel, and the implications of the selected time frame on the findings.

               Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewers. I have elaborated on the limitations of the research in the "Research Limitations" section on pages 26-27. I have explained the geographical coverage, the timeliness of the data, and the methodological issues. Additionally, I have pointed out related problems such as the generalizability of the research results beyond the studied region, the potential biases introduced by the expert group, and the impact of the selected time frame on the research results.

Comment 5: The Theoretical Implications section clearly identifies the study's contributions. Nevertheless, a deeper analysis of how the findings extend or challenge existing theoretical models is recommended. Specifically, more explicit discussion regarding the theoretical gaps addressed by this study and direct comparisons with prior theoretical frameworks would significantly improve this section.

              Thank you for the comments from the reviewers. I have added "Theoretical Impact" in the "Discussion" section on page 26 and conducted a more in-depth analysis on how the research results can be extended or challenge the existing theoretical models. I have also marked the modified content in yellow.

Comment 6: The content currently presented under Conclusions primarily outlines practical implications and policy recommendations. This material would fit better in the Discussion section. The Conclusions section should succinctly summarize the main research findings instead. 

              Thank you for the comments from the reviewers. I have summarized the research results concisely and to the point in the conclusion part on page 27. The revised contents have been marked with yellow background. Once again, I am grateful for your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Final Recommendations:

The manuscript is well-researched and makes a valuable contribution to the literature. The references are comprehensive and up-to-date, but the authors should ensure all citations are formatted consistently (e.g., some journal names are abbreviated while others are not). The "Future Research" section could be expanded with 1-2 sentences to include specific suggestions for studying emerging technologies (e.g., generative AI) and their potential impacts on tourism efficiency.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 Thank you for addressing the suggested revisions. The paper has significantly improved in clarity and structure.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research highlights the positive effects of digitalization on the efficiency of the tourism industry and provides policy recommendations for sustainable tourism development. This study provides valuable insights into the role of digital technology in enhancing tourism economic growth. 

The abstract contains repetitive statements. Rewriting for conciseness would improve readability. Revise abstract and introduction for clarity and conciseness.

The introduction lacks a strong problem statement. Explicitly define the research gap and emphasize why this study is necessary. The study relies on the entropy method for digital technology measurement. Justification for why this method is superior to alternatives (e.g., principal component analysis) should be provided. The choice of tourism economic growth as a dependent variable is reasonable, but additional robustness checks (GDP per capita) could reinforce findings. The choice of the entropy method for digital technology measurement should be better justified, and additional robustness tests should be included.

While regression models are well-structured, the interpretation of coefficients lacks depth. Discussing practical implications based on numerical results would add value. 

By addressing these issues, the manuscript will be significantly improved and I recommend to accept for publication.

Author Response

Comments 1: The abstract contains repetitive statements. Rewriting for conciseness would improve readability. Revise abstract and introduction for clarity and conciseness.

Response 1: I thank the reviewers for their comments, and I have revised the abstract and introduction of the paper, which are on pages 1-2, lines 10-18 and 22-80 in the text, and have marked them in red font.

Comments 2: The introduction lacks a strong problem statement. Explicitly define the research gap and emphasize why this study is necessary. The study relies on the entropy method for digital technology measurement. Justification for why this method is superior to alternatives (e.g., principal component analysis) should be provided. The choice of tourism economic growth as a dependent variable is reasonable, but additional robustness checks (GDP per capita) could reinforce findings. The choice of the entropy method for digital technology measurement should be better justified, and additional robustness tests should be included.

Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer, I have added a note in the entropy method section of the fifth bullet point, “Empirical Results and Analysis”, that the entropy method was used to construct the Digital Technology Index instead of principal component analysis. It is on page 13, lines 558-578, and has been marked in red.

Comments 3: While regression models are well-structured, the interpretation of coefficients lacks depth. Discussing practical implications based on numerical results would add value. 

Response 3: Thanks to the review, I have re-interpreted the coefficients and discussed the practical significance based on the numerical results in the “5.4. Empirical regression and results” section in the fifth main point “Empirical results and analysis”. I have re-interpreted the coefficients and discussed the practical implications based on the numerical results in the section “

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides significant insights into the current topic that is the topic of everyday research, and does not provide specifics in this regard. The title is quite clear, the abstract contains all the structural elements that are needed. The introductory part is also a summary of the literature with similar issues. The opinions themselves are structural and technical chapters are respected. The methodology is completely written clearly and understandably. No changes are needed. Special praise for the way the methodological approach and clarity are presented. The results are presented in the correct order, very clearly, in this context I do not suggest any changes. The manuscript generally does not have any major corrections, except that the references must be expanded. At least 70 current references not older than 10 years.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript provides significant insights into the current topic that is the topic of everyday research, and does not provide specifics in this regard. The title is quite clear, the abstract contains all the structural elements that are needed. The introductory part is also a summary of the literature with similar issues. The opinions themselves are structural and technical chapters are respected. The methodology is completely written clearly and understandably. No changes are needed. Special praise for the way the methodological approach and clarity are presented. The results are presented in the correct order, very clearly, in this context I do not suggest any changes. The manuscript generally does not have any major corrections, except that the references must be expanded. At least 70 current references not older than 10 years.

Response 1: Thanks to the reviewer's comments, I have added dozens of references from the last 10 years to the literature review section, and the number of references at the end of the text has increased. The literature review is on pages 2-5, lines 82-218 in the text and has been labeled in red.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the impact of digital technology on tourism economic growth in China, using panel data from 30 provinces between 2010 and 2022. It focuses on the mediating role of tourism industry efficiency. The topic aligns well with the scope of Tourism and Hospitality by MDPI, as it addresses sustainable tourism development, industry efficiency, and digital transformation in tourism.
Comment 1: The hypotheses are clearly presented and align with the theoretical background. However, there is insufficient justification for each hypothesis, as the theoretical connections and supporting arguments for the relationships between variables are limited.
Comment 2: The questions are generally well-justified in relation to the theoretical background and research objectives. However, the section would benefit from a clearer explanation of how each question specifically relates to the stated hypotheses to strengthen the overall research rationale.
Comment 3: While the research design is generally well-presented, there is insufficient information regarding the selection process of the expert panel, including participation criteria, sample size, and representativeness. These aspects are critical for assessing the validity of the findings, especially in studies relying on expert opinions.
Comment 4a: The limitations of the study, along with the theoretical and practical implications, are presented in the Conclusion section. However, these points would be more appropriately placed in a separate Discussion section, where they could be analyzed in greater depth and linked more clearly to the findings.
Comment 4b: The Limitations section addresses some key points but could be expanded to include issues such as the generalizability of the findings, potential biases from the expert panel, and the impact of the data's time frame. 
Comment 4c: The Theoretical Implications section outlines the study's contribution but lacks a deeper analysis of how the findings extend or challenge existing theories. A clearer comparison with previous theoretical models and a more explicit discussion of the specific theoretical gaps addressed would strengthen this section.

Comment 5: It is strongly recommended that the authors remove the first paragraph, as it appears to follow the journal's template and does not contribute meaningfully to the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1: The hypotheses are clearly presented and align with the theoretical background. However, there is insufficient justification for each hypothesis, as the theoretical connections and supporting arguments for the relationships between variables are limited.

Response 1: Thanks to the reviewer's comments, I have revised the third major point, “Assumptions”, on page 5 of the text, lines 220-239, and have highlighted it in red.

Comment 2: The questions are generally well-justified in relation to the theoretical background and research objectives. However, the section would benefit from a clearer explanation of how each question specifically relates to the stated hypotheses to strengthen the overall research rationale.

Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer, I have added “4.4 Statement of the relationship between the research questions and hypotheses” to the “Research Design” section of the paper, on page 9, lines 420-450, and have highlighted it in red.

Comment 3: While the research design is generally well-presented, there is insufficient information regarding the selection process of the expert panel, including participation criteria, sample size, and representativeness. These aspects are critical for assessing the validity of the findings, especially in studies relying on expert opinions.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments, I have added “4.3. Expert panel selection process” to the “Study design” section of the paper, on page 9, lines 396-419, and have marked it in red.

Comment 4a: The limitations of the study, along with the theoretical and practical implications, are presented in the Conclusion section. However, these points would be more appropriately placed in a separate Discussion section, where they could be analyzed in greater depth and linked more clearly to the findings.

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. I have restructured the paper according to the suggested changes, and added a separate section “6. Discussion” for in-depth analysis of the findings, theoretical contributions, practical implications, and limitations of the study on pages 23-26, lines 911-1037, which has been marked in red.

Comment 4b: The Limitations section addresses some key points but could be expanded to include issues such as the generalizability of the findings, potential biases from the expert panel, and the impact of the data's time frame. 

Response 5: Thanks to the reviewers, I have expanded the “Limitations” section of the paper in response to the reviewers' comments to allow for a fuller discussion of the generalizability of the findings, the potential bias of the expert panel, and the impact of the time frame of the data, as indicated in the text in the section “6.4. limitations” section on page 25, lines 993-1024, and has been highlighted in red.

Comment 4c: The Theoretical Implications section outlines the study's contribution but lacks a deeper analysis of how the findings extend or challenge existing theories. A clearer comparison with previous theoretical models and a more explicit discussion of the specific theoretical gaps addressed would strengthen this section.

Response 6: Thanks to the reviewer's comments, I have revised the “Theoretical implications” section and expanded on the existing theories to explicitly discuss the specific theoretical gaps involved, in the “6.2. Theoretical implications” section on page 21, lines 940-977, and has been marked in red.

Comment 5: It is strongly recommended that the authors remove the first paragraph, as it appears to follow the journal's template and does not contribute meaningfully to the manuscript.

Response 7: Thank you very much for the review comments, I have removed the first paragraph journal template.