Infrastructure, Governance, and Price Stability as Binding Constraints on Inbound Tourism to India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important research question concerning the determinants of inbound tourism, combining a gravity-based framework and machine learning techniques. The paper makes a valuable methodological and empirical contribution to the tourism literature, particularly by addressing nonlinearities, threshold effects, and interactions among key drivers of tourism demand. 

One of the main strengths of the study lies in its innovative methodology. The use of interpretable machine learning is well motivated, carefully implemented, and clearly explained.  The dataset is comprehensive in terms of temporal coverage and source-country diversity, and the empirical analysis is generally robust.

several aspects could be improved to further strengthen the manuscript: 1) the interpretation of governance effects would benefit from additional clarification. The finding that governance indicators exhibit only weak or non-linear effects may appear counterintuitive relative to parts of the existing literature. 2) At line 126, there is a duplicated sentence (“India is also no exception”), which appears twice consecutively and should be removed. 3) At line 163, where the gravity-based tourism-demand theory is introduced, a specific bibliographic reference should be added 4) The dataset spans the period 2002–2024 and therefore includes the COVID-19 shock. Treating the pandemic implicitly as part of the general time dynamics may affect the estimated relationships. The authors may consider explicitly controlling for COVID-19 to ensure that the results are not driven by this exceptional event. 5)The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of a concise summary table reporting the input variables used in the analysis, including their definitions, data sources, units of measurement, and transformation 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

From a presentation perspective, minor improvements in English language clarity and style are recommended, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. 

Author Response

I have made the changes and point-by-point explanations are provided in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The current article version has serious problems with article clarity, methodology, and structure.

Article use gravity model, but theory frame is not developing to be confirmed. Why do you think that XGBoost is relevent for this article rathan than panel-model? How ML results conceptula in tourist economy? Gravity model is more retoric basis but not analytical matric. Please separate this terms completely. 

There is a misconception that "India reach saturation in hotel capacity"?

There is a mix of panel econometrics and ML without a clear difference? 

SHARP-based elasticities are the weakest part of the article.

SHARP is not just elasticity in the classical term. Intervals in Table 3 are not logical and contradict.

Endogeneity and simultaneity are not mentioned? Variables such as air transport, hotel capacity, and mega events are endogenous in contrast to tourist demand.  ML does not prove endogeneity.

A further issue is related to conclusions such as heritage is not important anymore, mega-events are inefficient, and quality has a negative effect. So there are problems in interpretation in the results section. 

There is  not consistency between results and conclusion 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Structure and language correction need to be made. Introduction and discussion have to many repeated arguments. Writing style and terminology, formulations and grammar mistakes. Please check all text.

Author Response

I have made the changes and provided explanations for all doubts in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is comprehensive but should clearly present the novelty/originality of the manuscript and highlight its key findings.

Authors can separate the introduction section from literature. The introduction part should be focused on presenting the study issue (constraints of inbound tourism to India” and its importance. The literature should be more organized by constructs/themes (demand, supply, governance, methods).  

Please provide proper rationalization using CPI as proxy for price.

Also, be more cautious when interpreting SHAP and ALE outputs by limiting casual interpretation.

Please try to highlight the novel findings of your study from results that confirm prior literature.

Author Response

I have made the corrections and provide the detailed explanations in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Not much has been changed in order to improve your paper.

The literature review is missing. 

The conclusion is weak, and subheadings such as future study recommendation and study limitation are missing as well.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Structure and language correction need to be made. Introduction and discussion have to many repeated arguments. Writing style and terminology, formulations and grammar mistakes. Please check all text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can see that the authors have addressed all my concerns regarding the manuscript.