Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The research explores an interesting and timely topic.   The text is generally well-structured. However, the research assumptions, objectives, hypotheses, and research questions, are not clearly presented.   The theoretical section appears sparse, despite the extensive bibliography. The authors provide a very concise reference to the theoretical foundations of the presented problem.   The research hypotheses on page 8 are very general and imprecise, not directly addressing the scope and location of the research. Some statements do not even indicate that the relationships studied concern tourism/tourist destinations/tourists. However, it is important to indicate the spatial scope (location) of the research.   In the table on page 14, the "monthly salary" category should be supplemented with a measure (USD) – as described later in the text.   The Discussion and Conclusion sections should be separated into two separate sections.   The Discussion should provide more extensive references to other studies and results that covered a similar scope of research.   The Conclusion section should provide a more detailed summary of the specific research results achieved.   The Theoretical Implications and Recommendations sections, given their titles, seem inconsistent. They should be separated.   Theoretical implications should emphasize the contribution to science, while recommendations should emphasize recommendations for economic practice and the functioning of public institutions.   Information on the limitations of inference is lacking

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, the authors would like to thank you for your dedication and valuable time. We appreciate all the suggestions you have provided. To improve the quality of the current manuscript, we have made professional revisions. All corrections in the manuscript are marked in red (attached). We have also submitted a response form addressing your comments. We are happy to receive any further instructions you may have regarding points that require improvement.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study contributes to scholarship on the use of immersive technology (VR and AR) to achieve sustainable tourism. However, it needs some few editing. For example in the abstract "The findings reveal five main findings". This may read The study reveal five main findings.

Also, some sentences are too long and the authors should work on them. 

 

Literature Review

The theoretical framework is appropriate but the authors failed link how the use of immersive technology (VR and AR) promotes sustainability-achieving economic goal, improvement in local livelihoods and environmental conservation. 

 

Methodology

The authors indicated that observation was done. There was no explanation on why the use of observation. It must be noted that for quantitative research which seeks objectivity, observation is not appropriate as it may introduce biases. Authors should check this.

Also, the authors did not explain how simple random sampling was used to select respondents for the study. A sentence to explain this will improve the methodology. Finally, how did the authors meet and administer questionnaires to tourists? How do we know they were tourists? Explanation will improve the methodology. 

 

Results, discussions and conclusions are well written.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English Language is good except that some sentences are too long. Authors should work on this to improve the flow of the language.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, the authors would like to thank you for your dedication and valuable time. We appreciate all the suggestions you have provided. To improve the quality of the current manuscript, we have made professional revisions. All corrections in the manuscript are marked in red (attached). We have also submitted a response form addressing your comments. We are happy to receive any further instructions you may have regarding points that require improvement.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the Authors for their response to the review and for the changes made to the article.

I still have concerns about the formulated hypotheses. This also affects the subsequent course of the argument.

Text excerpt:

"Based on both theoretical and empirical foundations, this study proposes the following ten hypotheses: - H1a: Content marketing (CM) positively influences digital data analytics (DDA)."

This formulation has a general/universal meaning.

For example, further:

"H2b: Immersive technology (IT) positively influences tourist engagement."

This, however, concerns issues related to the research area, i.e., tourism, but does not refer to the research setting.

Hypotheses should be specified. This can be achieved by precisely wording the introductory sentence.

Furthermore, I believe that the Authors have made very little progress in their literature studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Authors thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and for acknowledging the revisions made.  All corrections have been made using the ‘red track changes’ mode. You can find them in the latest version of the paper file (pdf). Additionally, here are our responses to your comments.

Comments 1: I would like to thank the authors for their response to the review and for the changes made to the article. I still have concerns about the formulated hypotheses. This also affects the subsequent course of the argument.

Text excerpt:

"Based on both theoretical and empirical foundations, this study proposes the following ten hypotheses: - H1a: Content marketing (CM) positively influences digital data analytics (DDA)."

This formulation has a general/universal meaning. For example, further: "H2b: Immersive technology (IT) positively influences tourist engagement."

This, however, concerns issues related to the research area, i.e., tourism, but does not refer to the research setting. Hypotheses should be specified. This can be achieved by precisely wording the introductory sentence. Furthermore, I believe that the authors have made very little progress in their literature studies.

Response 1: Authors thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and for acknowledging the revisions made. We agree that the initial formulation of the hypotheses could be interpreted as overly general. To address this concern, we have revised the introductory sentence of the hypotheses section to explicitly specify the empirical research context (Areia Branca Beach, Timor-Leste). This revision ensures that all hypotheses are clearly framed within the specific tourism setting under investigation rather than implying a universal application. In addition, we have strengthened the literature review by incorporating recent and context-relevant studies to better support the theoretical development of the hypotheses and the overall research argument.

New information concerning the development of literature on the interrelationships among the variables has been added in a new paragraph within the sub-section on the Conceptual Framework. Please refer to pp. 9–10. In addition to clarifying and strengthening the literature, the research design, particularly regarding the proposed hypotheses, has also been refined in relation to the context under discussion.

Also, in the Abstract, the authors further develop and expand the Introduction chapter by emphasising both academic and practical gaps in understanding how digital innovation and collaborative governance can effectively enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of tourist destinations, as demonstrated in the current study (see p. 1 and p. 4, paragraph 10).

Comments 2: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 2: Once again, thank you for your feedback.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not have further comments for authors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English Language is good.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Authors thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and for acknowledging the revisions made.  All corrections have been made using the ‘red track changes’ mode. You can find them in the latest version of the paper file (pdf). Additionally, here are our responses to your comments.

Comments 1: I do not have further comments for authors. The quality of English Language is good.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, once again, the authors would like to express their gratitude for your positive response and comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality of the current manuscript.

Comments 2: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 2: We revised the manuscript to improve language clarity and flow by shortening overly long sentences, separating multiple ideas into clearer units, and simplifying complex sentence structures, particularly in the Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, and Methodology sections.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the Authors for their response to the review. I accept the scope of the changes.