-->PONE-D-25-66483-->-->Investigating the Effects of Information Quality and Service Quality of Government Culture and Tourism Douyin accounts on Audience Travel Behavioral Intentions-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Sun,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 16 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hai-Tao Yu, ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study is funded by the "Anhui Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project". Project Approval Number: AHSKYQ2023D015.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows:

“All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [ Questionnaire survey data.sav] Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: This study applies the SOR model and emotion appraisal theory to examine how information quality and service quality of government culture and tourism Douyin accounts influence travel behavioral intention through positive emotions and destination image perception. The topic is timely, the structure is sound, and the methodological approach is generally appropriate. However, the manuscript requires major revisions to strengthen its theoretical contribution, literature engagement, methodological transparency, and depth of discussion.

1. The introduction does not sufficiently highlight the theoretical innovation of the study. While the introduction outlines the operational complexity of government accounts and mentions the dual attributes of policy advocacy and public service, it fails to clearly articulate how this research advances existing theoretical frameworks. For instance, it states that government accounts must "balance policy advocacy and public service responsibilities," but does not explicitly explain how integrating service quality into the SOR model—typically focused on information or system quality—creates a novel "dual-driver" framework for public sector communication. The concluding paragraph of the introduction should be revised to sharply contrast this study's integrated model (information + service quality) with prior SOR applications in commercial or UGC contexts, thereby underscoring its distinct theoretical contribution to understanding government social media effects.

2. The literature review lacks critical synthesis and reads more like a summary list, failing to establish a clear dialogue with existing research. The review categorizes short-video marketing into three paradigms but does not critically analyze their limitations when applied to government-operated accounts. For example, it notes that most studies focus on information quality while overlooking service quality but does not engage with relevant public administration or e-government literature discussing the service role of official social media (e.g., Zhang et al., 2017 on government WeChat service quality). To strengthen the argument, the review should explicitly position itself against prior work, explaining why the service dimension is especially salient and under-theorized for government tourism accounts, and how this study's combined focus addresses a defined gap.

3. The methods section is described too briefly, omitting key details necessary for replicability and assessment of validity. The adaptation process of measurement scales is only vaguely described as involving "translation and back-translation" and expert review. The manuscript should provide specific examples of how items were modified to fit the context of government Douyin accounts (e.g., original scale item vs. adapted item). Furthermore, the sampling procedure states that questionnaires were distributed "via WeChat and Douyin" but lacks details on the sampling frame, recruitment channels, or measures to prevent duplicate or inattentive responses (e.g., attention checks). Additionally, while Harman's single-factor test is mentioned, the result (38.93%) is not reported in the main text or tables. These omissions hinder the evaluation of the study's rigor.

4. The discussion of results is relatively superficial, primarily restating findings without deeply interpreting their theoretical significance or contextualizing them within the broader literature. For instance, the key finding that service quality exerts only an indirect effect (full mediation) while information quality has both direct and indirect effects is noted but not sufficiently explained. The discussion attributes this to "fragmented browsing" habits but does not connect it to theoretical mechanisms such as the heuristic processing of authoritative information versus the systematic evaluation required for service interactions. Moreover, the contrast with commercial tourism accounts—where service quality may have a direct impact—is hinted at but not substantiated with references to comparable studies. The discussion should explicitly link each major result back to the SOR and emotion appraisal frameworks, explore alternative explanations, and compare findings with related work to clarify the unique behavioral pathways in government social media contexts.

Reviewer #2: 1) Clarify theoretical contribution beyond “applying SOR in a new context”

The manuscript uses a well-established SOR structure (stimuli → organism → response). At present, the theoretical novelty is not sufficiently articulated. Please explicitly state what new theoretical insight emerges from studying government Douyin accounts rather than commercial/UGC contexts. Suggested actions:

Add a dedicated subsection (end of Introduction or start of Discussion) titled “Theoretical Contributions” with 2–3 specific points, e.g.:

how public-sector social media changes the role of service quality versus information quality.

why service quality effects are fully mediated in this context.

what this implies for extending SOR or public communication theory.

2) Improve conceptual distinctiveness: information quality vs service quality

On short-video platforms, boundaries between content features and interactive/service features can be blurred. Some service-quality items (e.g., “many interactive service features”) may overlap with perceptions of platform/content design. Please:

Provide a sharper conceptual rationale for treating information quality as content-based stimulus and service quality as interaction/response-based stimulus, and explain why these remain distinct in government TikTok  contexts.

Consider adding additional evidence of distinctiveness:

alternative discriminant validity checks (e.g., HTMT), or report cross-loadings / confirmatory factor comparisons.

3) Common method bias: Harman’s single-factor test is insufficient

The paper relies on Harman’s single-factor test, which is widely considered a weak diagnostic for CMB in self-reported cross-sectional designs. Please include at least one more rigorous approach, for example:

Common latent factor (CLF) technique in CFA/SEM and report whether substantive paths materially change, or Marker-variable approach, or Unmeasured latent method factor model.

Also clarify procedural remedies (e.g., anonymity, item order, instructions) beyond reporting statistics.

4) Robustness and alternative models

To strengthen confidence that the proposed mediation structure is not merely one plausible specification, please add at least one robustness/alternative-model test:

Compare the hypothesized model against reasonable alternative models, such as:

reversing organism variables (image → emotion vs emotion → image),

including a direct path from service quality to behavioral intentions but testing nested model comparisons, collapsing the two mediators into one (if justified) to show your model fits better.

Optional but valuable: multi-group SEM (e.g., Gen Z vs non-Gen Z, gender), given the demographic structure reported. Even if exploratory, it improves interpretability and external validity.

5) Causal language should be toned down

The dataset is cross-sectional and self-reported. Please avoid strong causal wording such as “influences/drive/enhances” unless you clearly frame them as associations. Suggested revisions:

Replace causal verbs with “is positively associated with / relates to / predicts (in the statistical sense)”.

Strengthen the limitations section explicitly: causal inference is limited and longitudinal/behavioral data are needed.

6) Language and style require professional editing

There are recurrent grammar issues, awkward phrasing, and some “Chinglish” expressions (e.g., “Government accounts have service attribute”). The manuscript would benefit from professional English editing. This is not cosmetic: readability affects reviewability and perceived rigor.

Minor Comments

Hypotheses numbering/logic: H1 and H3 appear overlapping (information quality → behavioral intentions). Please check redundancy and ensure each hypothesis is unique and consistent with the model narrative.

Measurement detail: provide the full item wording in a supplement (or an appendix) and specify how items were adapted (what modifications were made). This improves reproducibility.

Model fit reporting: consider reporting additional indices commonly requested (e.g., SRMR) and note thresholds with citations.

Summary

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and reports plausible findings, but it requires major revisions to strengthen theoretical contribution, ensure construct distinctiveness, and substantially polish English writing.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript explores the use of Douyin by government agencies for tourism promotion. The topic is timely and holds clear practical relevance. However, there are still several concerns that need to be addressed:

Introduction:

1. For publication in an international journal, the use of proper nouns must be precise. The authors should verify whether "Douyin" is the standard accepted English terminology in current academic literature, or if it requires clarification (e.g., explicitly defining it as the Chinese version of TikTok) to ensure clarity for an international readership.

2. The authors assert that “the operational logic of government culture and tourism accounts is more complex” due to the need to balance policy advocacy and public service with user engagement. While this distinction is intuitive and pivotal to the study, the statement is currently presented without sufficient theoretical grounding.

4. The authors postulate that government culture and tourism accounts face a complex dual mandate involving 'policy advocacy.' However, this claim must be aligned with empirical reality. Based on the examples provided in the manuscript, the content appears to function primarily as generic destination promotion, indistinguishable from standard user-generated content. The authors need to clarify whether policy advocacy is genuinely embedded in the analyzed videos. If these accounts merely replicate the promotional style of the general public, the authors must explicitly delineate what constitutes the unique difference between government and public accounts to justify the theoretical necessity of focusing specifically on this group.

5. There is a noticeable lack of logical cohesion between the second and third paragraphs of the Introduction.

6. The study adopts the S-O-R framework and Appraisal Theory of Emotion as its theoretical foundation. However, the rationale for selecting these specific lenses remains unclear. The authors have not sufficiently explained why these theories are the most appropriate tools for this specific research context, nor have they articulated their unique value in explaining the observed phenomena.

7. The Introduction currently lacks a deep exploration of the study's theoretical and practical implications. The authors should elaborate on these aspects to clearly demonstrate how the research advances existing theoretical boundaries and provides substantive, actionable insights for destination management, rather than relying on broad generalizations.

Literature Review and Research Hypotheses:

1. The Literature Review section is currently too descriptive and lacks critical depth. Rather than merely cataloging previous studies, the authors should engage in a more analytical synthesis of the existing body of knowledge.

2. The exposition of emotional appraisal theory is currently inadequate. The manuscript fails to provide a clear, authoritative definition of the theory and lacks a comprehensive review of its recent research progress or evolutionary trajectory within the domain. To strengthen the theoretical framework, the authors should explicitly define the core tenets of the theory and synthesize relevant contemporary studies to demonstrate its current standing and applicability to this research.

3. The integration of the S-O-R framework and emotional appraisal theory within the hypothesis development section remains ambiguous. Specifically, it is unclear how these theoretical lenses are operationalized to deduce the proposed relationships.

Research Design

1. It is crucial to understand how the concept of 'government culture and tourism Douyin accounts' was introduced to the study participants. The manuscript should explicitly detail the instructions, definitions, or visual examples provided to respondents to ensure they correctly identified the specific type of account under investigation. The authors need to clarify this procedure in the methodology section to rule out potential confusion with general travel influencers or commercial accounts.

2. The reporting of sample characteristics regarding usage duration is currently incomplete. While it is noted that 66% of respondents spend 30 minutes to 2 hours daily, the distribution of the remaining 34% is not disclosed. Given the study's focus on Douyin, were specific screening criteria applied to ensure all respondents are active users? The authors must clarify the usage patterns of the remaining participants and justify whether the entire sample possesses sufficient platform experience to provide valid responses.

Conclusions and Implications

1. The Discussion section currently functions more as a summary of the results rather than a platform for theoretical synthesis. The authors predominantly reiterate their findings without explicitly articulating the study's theoretical contributions. Crucially, there is a lack of critical dialogue with the existing literature; the authors need to discuss how their findings either corroborate, contradict, or extend previous studies to clearly delineate the study's unique value to the field.

Limitations and Future Research

1. Several of the acknowledged limitations are remediable within the current research scope.

Reviewer #4: Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS One. I have had the opportunity to revise your paper, “Investigating the Effects of Information Quality and Service Quality of Government Culture and Tourism Douyin accounts on Audience Travel Behavioral Intentions.” This manuscript represents a methodologically sound and theoretically grounded contribution to the literature on government social media, tourism communication, and short-video platforms. I find it generally well written and potentially interesting to readers.

The manuscript is generally clear, well-structured, and intelligible, and the argument progresses logically from theory to hypotheses, methods, results, and implications. The literature review is comprehensive, and the discussion appropriately links findings back to theory and practice. The manuscript would further benefit from language polishing and copyediting (e.g., occasional redundancy and overly long sentences, particularly in the Introduction and Conclusions; grammatical errors and phrasing; inconsistent use of terminology such as “image perceived” vs. “image perception”; minor formatting and spacing issues in tables and hypothesis labeling). These issues do not undermine the scientific content but should be addressed to improve clarity and readability.

Overall, the manuscript presents a technically sound empirical study grounded in well-established theoretical frameworks (SOR model and emotion appraisal theory). The research questions are clearly articulated, the conceptual model is logically derived from literature, and the hypothesized relationships are theoretically justified. The study relies on survey data from 406 respondents, which is an adequate sample size for SEM. Measurement scales are adapted from prior validated studies, and the authors follow appropriate procedures for scale adaptation, including translation/back-translation and expert review. Reliability and validity assessments meet commonly accepted thresholds, supporting the adequacy of the measurement model. The SEM results are coherent and largely consistent with the proposed hypotheses. The distinction between the effects of information quality (direct and indirect) and service quality (fully mediated) is empirically supported and interpreted in a theoretically meaningful way. The conclusions regarding the “content-first” logic of government Douyin accounts are reasonable given the data. The outcome variable is behavioral intention rather than actual behavior, a limitation the authors appropriately note. The only theoretical issue worth improving is, in my opinion, a potential redundancy and overlap between information quality, destination image perception and positive emotions. For example, high-quality tourism videos by definition shape destination image, while emotional responses are tightly embedded in image formation. While discriminant validity statistics pass, this does not fully resolve conceptual overlap (information quality predicts image, which predicts intention, but image is partly constructed through information quality). Perhaps you could clarify temporal or cognitive ordering? (e.g., cognition --> affect --> image --> intention). Overall, the conclusions are appropriately drawn from the data and do not overreach excessively the empirical evidence, but the findings should be interpreted within the acknowledged methodological constraints (i.e., non-probability sampling, cross-sectional design, self-reported measures). That said, I would like to call the attention tosomewhat overconfident causal interpretation and suggest reframing conclusions using associational language (using e.g., expressions such as "is associated with”, “predicts”, or “is linked to”) and acknowledging causal limitations more explicitly.

Statistical analysis is generally rigorous and appropriate for the research objectives. However, I believe the manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of how higher-order constructs (e.g., information quality and service quality) were modeled, that is, whether as second-order factors or aggregated dimensions. Also, some hypotheses (e.g., H3) appear conceptually redundant or mislabeled, which may reflect minor inconsistencies in hypothesis numbering rather than analytical flaws. Despite these minor issues, the analytical strategy is sound, competently executed, and aligned with current standards in tourism and social media research

The authors state that all relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files. This is formally compliant with the PLOS Data Policy. However, based on the manuscript text alone, it is not entirely clear whether item-level response data (i.e., the data underlying means, variances, and SEM analyses) are fully accessible. If privacy or ethical constraints apply, these should be stated explicitly. Clarifying this point would strengthen compliance with PLOS ONE’s open data requirements.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yuan Li

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Nina Szczygiel

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: recommendation.doc

-->PONE-D-25-66483R1-->-->Understanding travel intention formation in government culture and tourism TikTok accounts: An integration of the SOR model and emotion appraisal theory-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Wen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hai-Tao Yu, ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: This manuscript addresses a timely and meaningful topic by examining how government culture and tourism TikTok accounts shape audience travel intentions. The study is well positioned at the intersection of tourism marketing, government social media communication, and short-video platform research, and it offers a clear attempt to extend the SOR framework through the integration of emotion appraisal theory. The paper is generally well organized, the theoretical framing is more focused than in many platform-based behavioral studies, and the empirical analysis is sufficiently solid to support the main claims. In particular, the distinction between information quality and service quality, as well as the identification of destination image perception and positive emotions as both parallel and sequential mediators, gives the paper a meaningful analytical structure. Overall, I find the manuscript publishable in its current form and recommend acceptance.

1. The topic selection is meaningful and has both theoretical and practical relevance. Rather than examining generic tourism short-video content or commercial accounts, the manuscript focuses specifically on government-operated culture and tourism TikTok accounts, which gives the study a clearer institutional context and a stronger public communication dimension. This is important because such accounts differ from ordinary commercial or user-generated content in that they combine destination promotion with public communication and online responsiveness. The paper therefore engages with a research object that is not only contemporary and policy-relevant, but also theoretically capable of generating new insights beyond mainstream tourism social media studies.

2. The language of the manuscript is generally fluent and appropriate for an international academic journal. The revised version reads much more professionally than a typical platform-behavior paper, and most sections are expressed in clear academic English with a relatively stable tone. Key constructs are defined in a readable way, the transitions between theory, hypotheses, methods, and results are mostly smooth, and the discussion section in particular shows improved precision in wording by avoiding overly strong causal claims in a cross-sectional design. This makes the manuscript easier to follow and improves its overall scholarly presentation.

3. The innovation and argumentation are clearly articulated. The paper does more than simply “apply SOR in a new setting.” Its main contribution lies in showing that information quality and service quality operate through different relational pathways in the context of government tourism social media. The finding that information quality has both direct and indirect associations with travel intention, whereas service quality operates through full mediation, is theoretically interesting and is explained in a reasonably convincing way through the added heuristic–systematic processing perspective. In addition, the manuscript refines the organism component by distinguishing cognitive appraisal from emotional response and by empirically supporting a cognition-to-emotion progression. This gives the theoretical model a stronger internal logic and helps the paper stand out from many studies that treat mediators in a more generic or interchangeable manner.

4. The article provides sufficiently developed discussion and does not stop at merely reporting statistical significance. The revised discussion links the main findings back to the SOR framework and emotion appraisal theory, and it also attempts to explain why service quality functions differently in a government communication context than it might in a commercial setting. I also appreciate that the authors compare their findings with prior studies, discuss the ordering between destination image perception and positive emotions, and derive managerial implications that are aligned with the empirical results rather than being overly generic. The move from cognitive construction to emotional reinforcement is especially well connected to the reported mediation structure.

5. The manuscript is methodologically and formally规范 in ways that support confidence in the findings. The authors provide details on questionnaire adaptation, sampling procedures, recruitment channels, duplicate-response controls, and response-time screening. They report reliability and validity indicators, compare competing CFA models, add SRMR, and supplement Harman’s single-factor test with an unmeasured latent method factor approach. The reporting of sample characteristics, measurement items, ethics statement, conflict-of-interest statement, funding information, and data availability is also relatively complete. These features give the paper a level of formal rigor and transparency that is appropriate for publication.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript investigates the formation of audience travel intentions in the context of government culture and tourism TikTok accounts (GCTTAs) by integrating the Stimulus–Organism–Response (SOR) model with emotion appraisal theory. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly given the increasing role of government social media in destination marketing and public communication.

Overall, the manuscript is well-structured, and the research design is generally sound. The integration of information quality and service quality within a unified analytical framework, along with the examination of destination image perception and positive emotions as mediators, provides a meaningful contribution to understanding behavioral mechanisms in this context. The empirical analysis is clearly presented, and the results are coherent and interpretable.

However, several issues should be addressed to further strengthen the manuscript:

First, the theoretical contribution could be further sharpened. While the manuscript highlights its contributions more clearly than before, part of the contribution still appears to be framed as applying existing theories to a new context. The authors are encouraged to more explicitly articulate how the findings—particularly the fully mediated role of service quality—extend or refine existing theoretical perspectives, especially in relation to service quality and public-sector communication.

Second, although the manuscript distinguishes between information quality and service quality conceptually, some measurement items related to service quality may overlap with content or platform characteristics. Additional clarification would help strengthen the conceptual distinctiveness between these constructs and improve construct validity.

Third, the discussion of the non-significant direct effect of service quality on travel intentions could be further deepened. This finding is potentially important, and the authors may consider elaborating on alternative explanations, such as the role of trust-building, differences between immediate and long-term effects, or characteristics of short-video consumption environments.

Fourth, while the manuscript includes robustness checks such as competing model comparisons and common method bias tests, additional robustness analyses (e.g., alternative model specifications or subgroup analysis) would further enhance confidence in the findings.

Fifth, regarding data availability, the manuscript states that all relevant data are provided within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files, which is consistent with the journal’s policy. The authors are encouraged to ensure that the dataset is clearly documented (e.g., variable definitions and coding schemes) to facilitate reproducibility.

Finally, the manuscript is generally understandable, but minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing remain. A final round of professional English editing is recommended to improve clarity and readability.

In summary, the manuscript has good potential for publication. With the above revisions, it would be suitable for acceptance.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yuan Li

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Minor Revision.docx

Understanding travel intention formation in government culture and tourism TikTok accounts: An integration of the SOR model and emotion appraisal theory

PONE-D-25-66483R2

Dear Dr. Wen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hai-Tao Yu, ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: