24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者高芽芽的 20 个金币

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

高芽芽

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 567.8
散金: 135
帖子: 276
在线: 18.7小时
虫号: 21342112
注册: 2020-03-03
专业: 旅游经济学

[交流] 翻译和回复审稿人意见

外审意见回来了，但是审稿人提的意见，我没太理解他的意思。I thoroughly enjoyed reading the manuscript and really appreciate the detailed literature review to build and support the hypotheses and excellent theoretical and analytical approaches and the discussion of the results. While I have no doubt about the merit of the research and its methodological rigor, as a reader from outside PR China, I would have liked to know bit more about study site through location map and general variation in local tourist numbers in different months before and after COVID. Similarly the spread of respondents on a map would help to understand geographical location of respondents and distance from the study site. Similar some more description about the 'Questionnaire Star' and/or a weblink for the readers to know its recommendation process etc. Regarding demographic and related variables, I would like to mention that family composition and age of dependent kids or other family members could have provided useful information - though part of issue might have been addressed in social risks SOC2. The respondents have not been asked about frequency of their travel in before corona period as that could have explained how an otherwise frequent traveler responds. Similarly those have already visited the study site might have a different perception about intent to travel and destination image etc. Similarly it has not been captured that those form nearby areas who have been frequently visiting the have more or less urge than distant respondents and a variation in their responses.
另外一个审稿人的两点意见我也没懂，1. In methodology, what is reliability of data? 2. How biasness was addressed and set?
请大神帮忙指点下，不胜感激！

发自小木虫Android客户端

回复此楼