Abstract

Purpose - Given Wikipedia's size and importance to the world's information infrastructure, it can be forgotten that there exists under the same Wikimedia Foundation umbrella, a number of other volunteer wikis producing information on a variety of topics and subjects. Little research has been conducted on these offshoots. In this article I examine one of the earliest of these efforts, Wikivoyage, a free wiki-based travel guidebook.Design/methodology/approach - I examine the content of Wikivoyage's articles on the temples of Angkor, Siem Reap (the tourist gateway to the temples), the introductory page for the country of Cambodia as a whole and a sample of regional Cambodian entries. Textual and discourse analysis is the foundation of this work.Findings - The findings suggest that although Wikivoyage is not currently an exemplar of alternative tourism discourses, it certainly has potential. But that potential can only be realized if those interested in contributing to the site alternative perspectives and discourses take up the task in a sensitive manner and in accordance with the developing editing culture.Originality/value - While conceding that Wikivoyage is currently unlikely to monopolize the guidebook market anytime soon, it is still important to study this social phenomenon both for its own intrinsic interest and to assess its potential for a more enlightened and transformative tourism.


Authors

Luyt, Brendan

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

Contributors on Publons
  • 2 reviewers
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/11/10

    10-Nov-2020

    Dear Brendan,

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-03-2020-0104.R3, entitled "A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Online Information Review, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie


    Tell us how we're doing! We’d love to hear your feedback on the submission and review process to help us to continue to support your needs on the publishing journey.

    Simply click this link https://eu.surveymonkey.com/r/F8GZ2XW to complete a short survey and as a thank you for taking part you have the option to be entered into a prize draw to win £100 in Amazon vouchers. To enter the prize draw you will need to provide your email address.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Author Response
    2020/11/10

    3a: The reviewer claims to want just 2-3 sentences. But I already have included such a brief account. First in the general history of the early Wikitravel site, then in describing how it differs from Wikivoyage since that time (Wikivoyage lacks advertising and so on, as well as the likely textual drift that is inevitable between the two, now separate, sites). So without going into much more depth as to what that drift consists of, I can’t think exactly what the reviewer wishes to see that can be en-capsulated into 2-3 sentences.

    Wikivoyage is a good place to look for alternative tourism discourses because being both community-controlled and a non-profit organization it has a certain degree of flexibility to experiment, given the greater freedom it has from financial pressure or managerial dictates.
    (Footnote 1) These characteristics differentiate it from the other wiki-based travel site, Wikitravel. It is for these reasons that I do not examine it in this article.
    (Footnote 2) At the time of the fork the content of Wikivoyage and Wikitravel was exactly the same. Since then textual “drift” has likely taken place as the editing of the two sites naturally diverges over time, given that they comprise two separate editing communities.

    7 Haggling and so on. The reviewer is not “satisfied” with just the Bikini Atoll example. The author is equally convinced that it is not feasible to do more without engaging in a new research project. Countless books and articles have been written on the subject of tourist-local interactions – where to start? And for what purpose? It is not my aim to make a contribution to this debate which needs to be done “on the ground”, interviewing tourists and locals.

    9 The reviewer is not satisfied with “flexibility” as a potential for Wikivoyage. The exact statement I added was “It appears that Wikivoyage’s approach to producing a travel guide has the flexibility to incorporate different perspective and views” (Pg 15, line 27). I am baffled by the reviewer’s refusal to accept this as a key potential. He writes: “I wanted to know potentials (lists of potentials) which can be exploited”. Well, the potential is flexibility. Wikivoyage can accommodate a different range of perspectives. That is to my mind a huge potential.

    12, #13 The reviewer wants a “short description containing the impediments … for improving Wikivoyage.” I repeat that have already done so, within the limits of the scope of the research. I previously added: “What these findings suggest is that although Wikivoyage is not currently an examplar of alternative tourism discourses, it certainly has potential. But that potential can only be realized if those interested in contributing to the site alternative perspectives and discourses take up the task in a sensitive manner and in accordance with the developing editing culture” (pg. 20, line 13).

    14 The reviewer wants “(a short description) that might imply their contribution in this work.” This is a reiteration from the previous round in which the reviewer wrote: “Research paper must imply research contribution.” I most emphatically do indicate my research contribution and have done so from the beginning of the reviewing process. Just to take the abstract, I write: “I demonstrate that although much of the content on the Wikivoyage pages conforms to more widely spread discourses regarding Cambodian history and the roles of local people in the tourism sector, there is enough that is different to suggest that Wikivoyage has potential to develop into a significant source of alternative tourism discourse.” Now, how is that not a description of a contribution?

    15 The reviewer is “not satisfied” with my response to summing up the impact of this research as “the exploitative and colonial discourses that critical tourism studies identifies with much current guidebook writing could be replaced by more diverse perspectives that seek to better contextualize both the histories and people of places such as Cambodia.” I don’t understand how this does not describe a clear and important impact.

    Minor comments

    1 Better service. The reviewer is again not happy with my response to his comment. But again I reiterate that it is not my intent to get into the issue of which provides “better service,” web portals or travel guidebooks – it is just not what I am interested in developing for this article. Furthermore, it is not possible to do justice to the complexity of the topic within the range of 2-3 sentences that the reviewer keeps suggesting I throw in whenever I point out that a topic is complex. Furthermore, if I did expand on it adequately, its length would be a distraction from the main points I’m trying to make. Reading is hard enough without such distractions thrown in.

    Author response by


    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 3)
    Decision Letter
    2020/11/05

    05-Nov-2020

    Dear Dr. Luyt,

    Manuscript ID OIR-03-2020-0104.R2 entitled "A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    One of the reviewers has recommended some further minor changes to your manuscript. I invite you to address as many of these as you can and resubmit a revised version of the article. I will then be happy to accept without sending it for another round of reviews. Please notify me as soon as you submit the final revised version.

    Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID;=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    Reviewer Report

    Manuscript number: OIR-03-2020-0104.R2

    Manuscript title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage
    and Cambodia

    1. Originality:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    2. Relationship to literature:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    3. Methodology:
      Not applicable.

    4. Results:
      Not applicable.

    5. Discussion/Argument:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    6. Implications
      The author did not exactly address to my concern but the explanation is satisfactory.

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    Review Report

    Journal: Online Information Review
    Manuscript ID: OIR-03-2020-0104.R2
    Title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia

    It is observed that the author(s) have addressed many of my prior concerns. I do still have some comments to improve the quality of the paper. My comments are given below.

    Comments on Authors’ Responses

    Major Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    1 The reviewer would like to know the elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Planet and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Planet Cambodia.

    I have added the following:

    In this article I provide an interpretative textual analysis of a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India (1997); namely in how that guide depicts local people; and Tegelberg’s critique of the perpetuation of colonial era discourses in Lonely Plant Cambodia (2010). Pg. 1 Line 6.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comment(s)

    Authors’ Responses

    2 Where are the links and screenshots of the described pages? I would like to see them in the body of the manuscript.

    I have put the links in the body of the text, rather than as footnotes. I have also add the date of the version examined for this study and the date I accessed the page. With this information it is very easy for a reader to locate the material since Wikivoyage keeps a record of each revision of its articles.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Though there are no screenshots of some pages of corresponding web sites but links of the corresponding pages are there. I am OK with that.

    Authors’ Responses

    3a: Differences between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. This issue has not been addressed properly. Again, the author(s) are requested to provide the clear difference between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel in terms of their content and structure.

    It is impossible to do justice to such a comparison given that the manuscript as it stands is very close to the word limit for the journal. But even if space was available, I don’t see how it would help improve or clarify the points I am trying to make in the work – rather it would confuse it with details not germane to my aim which is to look at an example of a wiki-based travel guide in terms of how that guide might or might not respond to some of the criticism levelled against traditional travel guidebooks. The text as it stands explains that: “Wikivoyage is a good place to look for alternative tourism discourses because being both community-controlled and a non-profit organization it has a certain degree of flexibility to experiment, given the greater freedom it has from financial pressure or managerial dictates.” To this I have added a footnote: “These characteristics differentiate it from another wiki-based travel site, Wikitravel. It is for these reasons that I do not examine it in this article.” pg. 2, line 45

    Reviewer’s Comments

    The difference between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel could be expressed within 2/3 sentences. I can’t understand why the authors did not do it.

    Authors’ Responses

    7 Haggling and so on. Still I am not convinced. I would like to see the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism?

    This would require a completely new research project. I would have to interview tourists and locals to see ascertain their attitudes and views towards each other. I don’t have the financial resources to do this. And it would certainly require another 10,000 words to adequately address the issue. What I can do is point out an example that demonstrates how the information (representations/images) created for tourists can have very deleterious effects. I have added the following:

    “At a surface level it may appear that the representation of local people and their histories is not particularly problematic – a kind of harmless theatre in fact. But that is a dangerous assumption. Consider, for example, the unfortunate case of the inhabitants of Bikini, an atoll in the Pacific Ocean now infamous as the site of the first tests of the hydrogen bomb. Bikini was chosen precisely because of the representation attached to it as a ‘deserted’ isle, a key tourist trope, which defined it as empty or at most inhabited by primitive people who could be at home anywhere else in the Pacific. Hence it became an easy matter for the territory of these people to be expropriated and destroyed in the name of a wider ‘good’” (Davis 2005). pg. 4, line 43.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I am not satisfied with the responses. I believe within the text limit of the paragraph what the author put in the manuscript, the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism can be accommodated.

    Authors’ Responses

    8 I raised the issue earlier and again asking “how does Indian tourism culture with Cambodian tourism culture conform? Are there any study on comparison or similarity between Indian tourism culture and Cambodian tourism culture? If so, author(s) should describe them with references.

    There are no such studies as far as I am aware.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    The authors have not responded properly but I am OK with this.

    Authors’ Responses

    9 I believe this issue has not been addressed properly. I wanted to know the potentials (lists of potentials) which can be exploited. This manuscript should include the potentials to be exploited.

    Flexibility is the potential. I have added: “It appears that Wikivoyage’s approach to producing a travel guide has the flexibility to incorporate different perspectives and views.” pg. 15, line 27

    Reviewer’s Comments

    There may be some potentials which could be exploited. Flexibility is a very general terms and it does not represent potentials or list of potentials.

    Authors’ Responses

    11 I believe the comparison between travel guidebook and its web counterpart such as Wikivoyage is crucial for this research. I like the author(s) to include this comparison.

    For reasons of space and clarity I cannot develop this comparison here. This is why I rely on other scholars to support my overall point that print guidebooks are limited. I have added to the literature I cite the following:

    “A number of scholars, other than Bhattacharyya and Tegelburg, provide good reasons for skepticism regarding the ability of traditional guidebooks to provide representational complexity in their portraits of local people and their histories. Rebecca Ogden writes of the Lonely Planet guide to Cuba that “far from presenting an alternative perspective of Havana concerned with authenticity, this narrative reworks hackneyed images of exotic sensuality, mysteriousness and a lack of logic which have long been associated with the Caribbean and Cuba (Ogden 2017, 161). Scott Laderman also demonstrates the perniciousness of a limited representational strategy within this case Lonely Planet Vietnam where the Hoa Lo (Hanoi Hilton) entry focuses mostly on its use by the North Vietnamese as a prison for American POWs, barely mentioning that it was also in continuous use in French colonial times where it was the site of numerous human rights abuses (Laderman 2009, 11). pg. 7, line 40

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comment(s)

    Authors’ Responses

    12, #13 What are the impediments (obstacles or barriers) for improving Wikivoyage? Author(s) need to include it.

    The biggest barrier to developing Wikivoyage as a site of broader tourism discourse is getting people to participate in a culturally sensitive (for Wikivoyage) way. The last paragraph of the manuscript is clear on this point: “What these findings suggest is that although Wikivoyage is not currently an exemplar of alternative tourism discourses, it certainly has potential. But that potential can only be realized if those interested in contributing to the site alternative perspectives and discourses take up the task in a sensitive manner and in accordance with the developing editing culture.” pg. 20, line 13

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Still I believe authors can add a short description containing the impediments (obstacles or barriers) for improving Wikivoyage.

    Authors’ Responses

    14 Research paper must imply the research contribution. As it is a research paper the author(s), however, need to include research contribution.

    I think the reviewer and I have different views on what constitutes research. The reviewer equates research with theory-building. But for me, that seems too restrictive. I view research as any kind of systematic analysis of a phenomenon. History, for example, certainly involves research, but it doesn’t necessarily (or even in most cases) involve building theory. Similarly, the work of literary scholars tends not to stress theory-building. Given that information science is a multi-disciplinary field – one of its strengths and attractions – I think it should be able to accommodate a broad conception of research.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I think the authors did not get my point properly. I did not point out that building theory is only research contribution. I wanted authors to put something (a short description) that might imply their contribution in this work.

    Authors’ Responses

    15 See #12, #13. I still stand by my original comment, “This article should clearly state the impact of this research upon society and research community.”

    I have added the following to the conclusion: “However, the payoffs for such work would be great. The exploitative and colonial discourses that critical tourism studies identifies with much current guidebook writing could be replaced by more diverse perspectives that seek to better contextualize both the histories and peoples of places such as Cambodia”. Pg 20, line 18

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I am not satisfied with author’s responses.

    Minor Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    1 Better service. The reviewer did not ask author to examine accommodation and booking cost. I would like to know whether guidebook or travel web portal provides better service. It needs to be addressed properly.

    Please note that accommodation and booking cost were the examples provided by the reviewer to illustrate the issue of providing better service. But regardless of the examples, service is not my concern here. And if I was to properly address the issue I would ideally have to conduct research on how people actually used Wikivoyage and other guidebooks to Cambodia. It’s an entirely different research project.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I am not agreed with the authors regarding this issue. The services provided by guidebook and web portals can be compared with 2 to 3 sentences. It does not require another research.

    Additional Questions:

    1. Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?:

    Research contribution is not so clear in the manuscript.

    1. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?:

    I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    1. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?:

    Please see my comments.

    1. Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately?:

    There is no specific result from this research.

    1. Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?:

    Please see my comments.

    1. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?:

    The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    1. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.:

    Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    1. Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
      Yes, I think so.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Research contribution is not so clear in the manuscript.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Please see my comments.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: There is no specific result from this research.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Please see my comments.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Yes, I think so.

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/10/28

    Review Report

    Journal: Online Information Review
    Manuscript ID: OIR-03-2020-0104.R2
    Title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia

    It is observed that the author(s) have addressed many of my prior concerns. I do still have some comments to improve the quality of the paper. My comments are given below.

    Comments on Authors’ Responses

    Major Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    1 The reviewer would like to know the elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Planet and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Planet Cambodia.

    I have added the following:

    In this article I provide an interpretative textual analysis of a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India (1997); namely in how that guide depicts local people; and Tegelberg’s critique of the perpetuation of colonial era discourses in Lonely Plant Cambodia (2010). Pg. 1 Line 6.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comment(s)

    Authors’ Responses

    2 Where are the links and screenshots of the described pages? I would like to see them in the body of the manuscript.

    I have put the links in the body of the text, rather than as footnotes. I have also add the date of the version examined for this study and the date I accessed the page. With this information it is very easy for a reader to locate the material since Wikivoyage keeps a record of each revision of its articles.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Though there are no screenshots of some pages of corresponding web sites but links of the corresponding pages are there. I am OK with that.

    Authors’ Responses

    3a: Differences between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. This issue has not been addressed properly. Again, the author(s) are requested to provide the clear difference between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel in terms of their content and structure.

    It is impossible to do justice to such a comparison given that the manuscript as it stands is very close to the word limit for the journal. But even if space was available, I don’t see how it would help improve or clarify the points I am trying to make in the work – rather it would confuse it with details not germane to my aim which is to look at an example of a wiki-based travel guide in terms of how that guide might or might not respond to some of the criticism levelled against traditional travel guidebooks. The text as it stands explains that: “Wikivoyage is a good place to look for alternative tourism discourses because being both community-controlled and a non-profit organization it has a certain degree of flexibility to experiment, given the greater freedom it has from financial pressure or managerial dictates.” To this I have added a footnote: “These characteristics differentiate it from another wiki-based travel site, Wikitravel. It is for these reasons that I do not examine it in this article.” pg. 2, line 45

    Reviewer’s Comments

    The difference between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel could be expressed within 2/3 sentences. I can’t understand why the authors did not do it.

    Authors’ Responses

    7 Haggling and so on. Still I am not convinced. I would like to see the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism?

    This would require a completely new research project. I would have to interview tourists and locals to see ascertain their attitudes and views towards each other. I don’t have the financial resources to do this. And it would certainly require another 10,000 words to adequately address the issue. What I can do is point out an example that demonstrates how the information (representations/images) created for tourists can have very deleterious effects. I have added the following:

    “At a surface level it may appear that the representation of local people and their histories is not particularly problematic – a kind of harmless theatre in fact. But that is a dangerous assumption. Consider, for example, the unfortunate case of the inhabitants of Bikini, an atoll in the Pacific Ocean now infamous as the site of the first tests of the hydrogen bomb. Bikini was chosen precisely because of the representation attached to it as a ‘deserted’ isle, a key tourist trope, which defined it as empty or at most inhabited by primitive people who could be at home anywhere else in the Pacific. Hence it became an easy matter for the territory of these people to be expropriated and destroyed in the name of a wider ‘good’” (Davis 2005). pg. 4, line 43.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I am not satisfied with the responses. I believe within the text limit of the paragraph what the author put in the manuscript, the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism can be accommodated.

    Authors’ Responses

    8 I raised the issue earlier and again asking “how does Indian tourism culture with Cambodian tourism culture conform? Are there any study on comparison or similarity between Indian tourism culture and Cambodian tourism culture? If so, author(s) should describe them with references.

    There are no such studies as far as I am aware.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    The authors have not responded properly but I am OK with this.

    Authors’ Responses

    9 I believe this issue has not been addressed properly. I wanted to know the potentials (lists of potentials) which can be exploited. This manuscript should include the potentials to be exploited.

    Flexibility is the potential. I have added: “It appears that Wikivoyage’s approach to producing a travel guide has the flexibility to incorporate different perspectives and views.” pg. 15, line 27

    Reviewer’s Comments

    There may be some potentials which could be exploited. Flexibility is a very general terms and it does not represent potentials or list of potentials.

    Authors’ Responses

    11 I believe the comparison between travel guidebook and its web counterpart such as Wikivoyage is crucial for this research. I like the author(s) to include this comparison.

    For reasons of space and clarity I cannot develop this comparison here. This is why I rely on other scholars to support my overall point that print guidebooks are limited. I have added to the literature I cite the following:

    “A number of scholars, other than Bhattacharyya and Tegelburg, provide good reasons for skepticism regarding the ability of traditional guidebooks to provide representational complexity in their portraits of local people and their histories. Rebecca Ogden writes of the Lonely Planet guide to Cuba that “far from presenting an alternative perspective of Havana concerned with authenticity, this narrative reworks hackneyed images of exotic sensuality, mysteriousness and a lack of logic which have long been associated with the Caribbean and Cuba (Ogden 2017, 161). Scott Laderman also demonstrates the perniciousness of a limited representational strategy within this case Lonely Planet Vietnam where the Hoa Lo (Hanoi Hilton) entry focuses mostly on its use by the North Vietnamese as a prison for American POWs, barely mentioning that it was also in continuous use in French colonial times where it was the site of numerous human rights abuses (Laderman 2009, 11). pg. 7, line 40

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comment(s)

    Authors’ Responses

    12, #13 What are the impediments (obstacles or barriers) for improving Wikivoyage? Author(s) need to include it.

    The biggest barrier to developing Wikivoyage as a site of broader tourism discourse is getting people to participate in a culturally sensitive (for Wikivoyage) way. The last paragraph of the manuscript is clear on this point: “What these findings suggest is that although Wikivoyage is not currently an exemplar of alternative tourism discourses, it certainly has potential. But that potential can only be realized if those interested in contributing to the site alternative perspectives and discourses take up the task in a sensitive manner and in accordance with the developing editing culture.” pg. 20, line 13

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Still I believe authors can add a short description containing the impediments (obstacles or barriers) for improving Wikivoyage.

    Authors’ Responses

    14 Research paper must imply the research contribution. As it is a research paper the author(s), however, need to include research contribution.

    I think the reviewer and I have different views on what constitutes research. The reviewer equates research with theory-building. But for me, that seems too restrictive. I view research as any kind of systematic analysis of a phenomenon. History, for example, certainly involves research, but it doesn’t necessarily (or even in most cases) involve building theory. Similarly, the work of literary scholars tends not to stress theory-building. Given that information science is a multi-disciplinary field – one of its strengths and attractions – I think it should be able to accommodate a broad conception of research.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I think the authors did not get my point properly. I did not point out that building theory is only research contribution. I wanted authors to put something (a short description) that might imply their contribution in this work.

    Authors’ Responses

    15 See #12, #13. I still stand by my original comment, “This article should clearly state the impact of this research upon society and research community.”

    I have added the following to the conclusion: “However, the payoffs for such work would be great. The exploitative and colonial discourses that critical tourism studies identifies with much current guidebook writing could be replaced by more diverse perspectives that seek to better contextualize both the histories and peoples of places such as Cambodia”. Pg 20, line 18

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I am not satisfied with author’s responses.

    Minor Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    1 Better service. The reviewer did not ask author to examine accommodation and booking cost. I would like to know whether guidebook or travel web portal provides better service. It needs to be addressed properly.

    Please note that accommodation and booking cost were the examples provided by the reviewer to illustrate the issue of providing better service. But regardless of the examples, service is not my concern here. And if I was to properly address the issue I would ideally have to conduct research on how people actually used Wikivoyage and other guidebooks to Cambodia. It’s an entirely different research project.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I am not agreed with the authors regarding this issue. The services provided by guidebook and web portals can be compared with 2 to 3 sentences. It does not require another research.

    Additional Questions:

    1. Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?:

    Research contribution is not so clear in the manuscript.

    1. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?:

    I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    1. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?:

    Please see my comments.

    1. Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately?:

    There is no specific result from this research.

    1. Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?:

    Please see my comments.

    1. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?:

    The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    1. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.:

    Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    1. Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
      Yes, I think so.

    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/09/25

    Reviewer Report

    Date: 25 September 2020

    Manuscript number: OIR-03-2020-0104.R2

    Manuscript title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage
    and Cambodia

    1. Originality:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    2. Relationship to literature:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    3. Methodology:
      Not applicable.

    4. Results:
      Not applicable.

    5. Discussion/Argument:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    6. Implications
      The author did not exactly address to my concern but the explanation is satisfactory.

    7. Quality of communication:
      Nil.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/09/14

    1 The reviewer would like to know the elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Planet and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Planet Cambodia.

    I have added the following:

    In this article I provide an interpretative textual analysis of a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India (1997); namely in how that guide depicts local people; and Tegelberg’s critique of the perpetuation of colonial era discourses in Lonely Plant Cambodia (2010). Pg. 1 Line 6.

    2 Where are the links and screenshots of the described pages? I would like to see them in the body of the manuscript.

    I have put the links in the body of the text, rather than as footnotes. I have also add the date of the version examined for this study and the date I accessed the page. With this information it is very easy for a reader to locate the material since Wikivoyage keeps a record of each revision of its articles.

    3a: Differences between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. This issue has not been addressed properly. Again, the author(s) are requested to provide the clear difference between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel in terms of their content and structure.

    It is impossible to do justice to such a comparison given that the manuscript as it stands is very close to the word limit for the journal. But even if space was available, I don’t see how it would help improve or clarify the points I am trying to make in the work – rather it would confuse it with details not germane to my aim which is to look at an example of a wiki-based travel guide in terms of how that guide might or might not respond to some of the criticism levelled against traditional travel guidebooks. The text as it stands explains that: “Wikivoyage is a good place to look for alternative tourism discourses because being both community-controlled and a non-profit organization it has a certain degree of flexibility to experiment, given the greater freedom it has from financial pressure or managerial dictates.” To this I have added a footnote: “These characteristics differentiate it from another wiki-based travel site, Wikitravel. It is for these reasons that I do not examine it in this article.” pg. 2, line 45

    7 Haggling and so on. Still I am not convinced. I would like to see the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism?

    This would require a completely new research project. I would have to interview tourists and locals to see ascertain their attitudes and views towards each other. I don’t have the financial resources to do this. And it would certainly require another 10,000 words to adequately address the issue. What I can do is point out an example that demonstrates how the information (representations/images) created for tourists can have very deleterious effects. I have added the following:

    “At a surface level it may appear that the representation of local people and their histories is not particularly problematic – a kind of harmless theatre in fact. But that is a dangerous assumption. Consider, for example, the unfortunate case of the inhabitants of Bikini, an atoll in the Pacific Ocean now infamous as the site of the first tests of the hydrogen bomb. Bikini was chosen precisely because of the representation attached to it as a ‘deserted’ isle, a key tourist trope, which defined it as empty or at most inhabited by primitive people who could be at home anywhere else in the Pacific. Hence it became an easy matter for the territory of these people to be expropriated and destroyed in the name of a wider ‘good’” (Davis 2005). pg. 4, line 43.

    8 I raised the issue earlier and again asking “how does Indian tourism culture with Cambodian tourism culture conform? Are there any study on comparison or similarity between Indian tourism culture and Cambodian tourism culture? If so, author(s) should describe them with references.

    There are no such studies as far as I am aware.

    9 I believe this issue has not been addressed properly. I wanted to know the potentials (lists of potentials) which can be exploited. This manuscript should include the potentials to be exploited.

    Flexibility is the potential. I have added: “It appears that Wikivoyage’s approach to producing a travel guide has the flexibility to incorporate different perspectives and views.” pg. 15, line 27

    11 I believe the comparison between travel guidebook and its web counterpart such as Wikivoyage is crucial for this research. I like the author(s) to include this comparison.

    For reasons of space and clarity I cannot develop this comparison here. This is why I rely on other scholars to support my overall point that print guidebooks are limited. I have added to the literature I cite the following:

    “A number of scholars, other than Bhattacharyya and Tegelburg, provide good reasons for skepticism regarding the ability of traditional guidebooks to provide representational complexity in their portraits of local people and their histories. Rebecca Ogden writes of the Lonely Planet guide to Cuba that “far from presenting an alternative perspective of Havana concerned with authenticity, this narrative reworks hackneyed images of exotic sensuality, mysteriousness and a lack of logic which have long been associated with the Caribbean and Cuba (Ogden 2017, 161). Scott Laderman also demonstrates the perniciousness of a limited representational strategy within this case Lonely Planet Vietnam where the Hoa Lo (Hanoi Hilton) entry focuses mostly on its use by the North Vietnamese as a prison for American POWs, barely mentioning that it was also in continuous use in French colonial times where it was the site of numerous human rights abuses (Laderman 2009, 11). pg. 7, line 40

    12, #13 What are the impediments (obstacles or barriers) for improving Wikivoyage? Author(s) need to include it.

    The biggest barrier to developing Wikivoyage as a site of broader tourism discourse is getting people to participate in a culturally sensitive (for Wikivoyage) way. The last paragraph of the manuscript is clear on this point: “What these findings suggest is that although Wikivoyage is not currently an exemplar of alternative tourism discourses, it certainly has potential. But that potential can only be realized if those interested in contributing to the site alternative perspectives and discourses take up the task in a sensitive manner and in accordance with the developing editing culture.” pg. 20, line 13

    14 Research paper must imply the research contribution. As it is a research paper the author(s), however, need to include research contribution.

    I think the reviewer and I have different views on what constitutes research. The reviewer equates research with theory-building. But for me, that seems too restrictive. I view research as any kind of systematic analysis of a phenomenon. History, for example, certainly involves research, but it doesn’t necessarily (or even in most cases) involve building theory. Similarly, the work of literary scholars tends not to stress theory-building. Given that information science is a multi-disciplinary field – one of its strengths and attractions – I think it should be able to accommodate a broad conception of research.

    15 See #12, #13. I still stand by my original comment, “This article should clearly state the impact of this research upon society and research community.”

    I have added the following to the conclusion: “However, the payoffs for such work would be great. The exploitative and colonial discourses that critical tourism studies identifies with much current guidebook writing could be replaced by more diverse perspectives that seek to better contextualize both the histories and peoples of places such as Cambodia”. Pg 20, line 18
    Minor comments:

    1 Better service. The reviewer did not ask author to examine accommodation and booking cost. I would like to know whether guidebook or travel web portal provides better serce. It needs to be addressed properly.

    Please note that accommodation and booking cost were the examples provided by the reviewer to illustrate the issue of providing better service. But regardless of the examples, service is not my concern here. And if I was to properly address the issue I would ideally have to conduct research on how people actually used Wikivoyage and other guidebooks to Cambodia. It’s an entirely different research project.

    Author response by


    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2020/09/09

    09-Sep-2020

    Dear Dr. Luyt,

    Manuscript ID OIR-03-2020-0104.R1 entitled "A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID;=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    Reviewer Report

    Date: 26 July 2020

    Manuscript number: OIR-03-2020-0104.R1

    Manuscript title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage
    and Cambodia

    1. Originality:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    2. Relationship to literature:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    3. Methodology:
      Not applicable.

    4. Results:
      Not applicable.

    5. Discussion/Argument:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    6. Implications
      The author did not exactly address to my concern but the explanation is satisfactory.

    7. Quality of communication:
      Nil.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Please find my comments attached

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Please find my comments attached

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Please find my comments attached

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Please find my comments attached

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Please find my comments attached

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Please find my comments attached

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Please find my comments attached

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Please find my comments attached

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    Review Report

    Journal: Online Information Review
    Manuscript ID: OIR-03-2020-0104.R1
    Title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia

    It is observed that the author(s) made efforts to improve the quality of the paper. I remain convinced that it is an interesting paper on a topic that can attract readers. This round of revisions has addressed some of my prior concerns. I do still have more comments to help the authors to improve the quality of the paper. I believe that addressing these issues will help readers to more easily grasp the key findings from the paper.

    The authors are requested to record line numbers, paragraph numbers and page numbers of the manuscript where they make modifications and they must put these numbers in the response documents where applicable in future.

    Comments on Authors’ Responses

    Major Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    1 I have added to the abstract to address the issue of purpose and method. The findings and conclusion are already included.

    Added text:

    Like its larger counter-part, Wikipedia, Wikivoyage encourages a collaborative approach to the dissemination of knowledge and hence has the potential for a greater inclusivity of perspectives within its content. In this article I provide an interpretative textual analysis of a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India (1997) and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Plant Cambodia (2010). A small, but growing strand of tourism research (of which Bhattacharyya and Tegelburg are a part) argues that traditional conceptions of tourism, including tourist guidebooks, need to change in order to challenge persistent discourses surrounding tourist destinations rooted in older explotiative visions of the tourist world.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    The author(s) have raised new issue of elements in updating abstract. They mentioned “….. provide an interperative textual analysis of a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant (should be Planet) India (1997) and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Plant (should be Planet) Cambodia (2010).” The reviewer would like to know the elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Planet and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Planet Cambodia.

    Authors’ Responses

    2 I have added links to the actual pages.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Where are the links and screenshots of the described pages?

    I would like to see them in the body of the manuscript.

    Authors’ Responses

    3a: Differences between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. Before separation the content was the same. After separation editing histories on each would be different so that there would be a gradual textual “drift” over time. Although interesting, examining this drift would significantly detract from my aim in this paper. I have added a footnote to include this point: At the time of the fork the content of Wikivoyage and Wikitravel was exactly the same. Since then textual “drift” has likely taken place as the editing of the two sites naturally diverges over time, given that they comprise two separate editing communities.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    This issue has not been addressed properly. Again, the author(s) are requested to provide the clear difference between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel in terms of their content and structure.

    Authors’ Responses

    3b: LP India and Wikivoyage: I believe the reviewer misunderstood the reason for my use of Bhattacharyya’s seminal study. I am interested in this case study of LP India for the help it can provide in analyzing other guidebooks. In particular I rely on it for insight on how guides can produce an impoverished image of local people – as either exotic displays or service providers. Alternative guidebooks would overcome this limited portrayal by stressing other dimensions to local people. One could then examine guides (such as I do here) to see if they do this. I have added text to the abstract to try to clarify this point: “using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Plant Cambodia.”

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    4: Tripadvisor etc. The portals mentioned by the reviewer differ from Wikivoyage in two very important aspects. First, they are commercial, for-profit entities. And second, they are not controlled by the community that writes the content. Wikivoyage is community controlled, doesn’t rely on advertising and is not for-profit. Hence it is a logical place to look for alternative tourism discourse and the reason I focused on it. Adding all these other sites would of course be interesting, but I doubt I would find any better examples of alternative discourse there than in Wikivoyage. And they would significantly add to the length and complexity of the paper. I have added a sentence to explain my choice: Wikivoyage, being both community-controlled and a non-profit organization, is a good place to look for alternative tourism discourses as these characteristics give it the flexibility to experiment to a greater extent, given the greater freedom it has from financial pressure or managerial dictates. Its collaborative editing culture, which Wikivoyage shares with Wikipedia, also makes it a worthwhile place to look for these discourses. As a number of scholars have pointed out the collaborative editing culture of Wikipedia creaets a space that has the potential for greater levels of inclusivity (Tkatz 2007; Pfister 2011). In particular, Sean Hansen goes as far as to argue it creates an online version of Habermas’ public sphere, place where people can engage in communicative as opposed to instrumental action (Hansen 2009).

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    5: Law enforcement: I’m not sure I understand the reviewer’s point here. I don’t think that national security is enhanced by shouting at visitors and asking for bribes. And border officials are locals and the first locals travellers usually see. So they figure into the image tourists will have of the country’s people, like it or not. But this is beside the point I am trying to make. If Wikivoyage left its description at the level of bribes and shouting it would be reflecting a traditional guidebook discourse where locals are portrayed as one-dimensional people – bad service providers in this case. But Wikivoyage goes beyond this by gesturing to the wider context in which the border officials work – the authoritarian kleptocracy that is Cambodia today. This breaks the mold, so to speak, as we can therefore see these officials in a more sympathetic light. They become multi-dimensional human beings. I have added the following text:

    Bhattacharyya’s analysis of Lonely Planet India found that local people tended to be portrayed in limited ways – as either exotic displays or as service providers. In this section we will examine the portrayal of local Cambodians in the Wikivoyage pages and see if the text moves beyond such limited perspectives.

    However the guide transcends this view by telling us not to get angry at them, not just because it is futile, but because “they are collecting the money by order from above …”.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    6 Indian agriculture. Again, I think this point is raised because the reviewer has misunderstood my use of Bhattacharyya’s work. My point is that agriculture, wherever it is practiced, would, if included sensitively in a guidebook, help it break out of the traditional tendency as demonstrated by Bhattacharya to protray people as either exotic displays or service providers. I have added a citation to show something of the dependency of Cambodia on its agricultural sector – Slocomb 2010.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    7 Haggling and so on. The focus on these behaviours is to again illustrate Bhattacharyya’s point about the portrayal of loyal people. An alternative tourism discourse would go beyond limited portrayals. Wikivoyage in these cases does not achieve this.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Still I am not convinced. I would like to see the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism?

    Authors’ Responses

    8 Please see my response to #3b.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I raised the issue earlier and again asking “how does Indian tourism culture with Cambodian tourism culture conform? Are there any study on comparison or similarity between Indian tourism culture and Cambodian tourism culture? If so, author(s) should describe them with references.

    Authors’ Responses

    9 The conclusion contains just such a list, but I have added the following to the earlier text: “On the other hand, while the guide does include the usual roles of service provider and exotic display, it also, at quite a number of points in the text, offers a more multi-dimensional portrayal of local people, raising issues about the wider context which Cambodians need to navigate in order to survive or prosper (for example, the need for border officials to ask for money as part of a wider kleptocratic state system).”

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I believe this issue has not been addressed properly. I wanted to know the potentials (lists of potentials) which can be exploited. This manuscript should include the potentials to be exploited.

    Authors’ Responses

    10 This is an interesting project, but is outside the scope of the present article.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    11 My aim is different. Much literature has criticized guidebook protrayals of various destinations. I have cited a number of these studies: Buzinde, Callahen, McGregor, Nelson, Tegelburg, Bhattacharrya. My aim here is to focus on two of these critiques (Tegelburg and Bhattacharrya) and see whether Wikivoyage repeats the problems identified in these critiques or goes beyond it.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I believe the comparison between travel guidebook and its web counterpart such as Wikivoyage is crucial for this research. I like the author(s) to include this comparison.

    Authors’ Responses

    12, #13 Impediments. I am not sure what the reviewer has in mind here. My analysis suggests that there is scope for Wikivoyage to expand in the direction of providing more multi-dimensional portaits of local people as well as historical discourses. That can only be done if people interested in such matters participate in content creation. All I can do about that is demonstrate (as I have done) that the potential is there. And to caution that anyone getting involved with Wikivoyage will need to be aware of the cultural norms of the site. The examples I give are Kriplean’s powerplays and the four guiding principles and three core content policies of Wikivoyage.

    Reviewer’s Comments on #12

    What are the impediments (obstacles or barriers) for improving Wikivoyage? Author(s) need to include it.

    Reviewer’s Comments on #13

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    14 It is not my aim to advance any new theory, rather I make use of existing work to examine a part of the social media world that has not received any attention in the academic world. As far as I can tell, there have been no studies of Wikivoyage despite the massive attention paid in the academic world to other online phenomena. This is unfortunate.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Research paper must imply the research contribution. As it is a research paper the author(s), however, need to include research contribution.

    Authors’ Responses

    15 See #12, #13.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I still stand by my original comment, “This article should clearly state the impact of this research upon society and research community.”

    Minor Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    1 Better service. This is not my concern for this paper. I am concerned about the portrayal of destinations and their people. Examining accommodation cost and booking would add to the complexity of the study and take the focus away from my primary aim.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    The reviewer did not ask author to examine accommodation and booking cost. I would like to know whether guidebook or travel web portal provides better service. It needs to be addressed properly.

    Authors’ Responses

    2 Done.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    3 Done.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Additional Questions:

    1. Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?:

    Research contribution is not so clear in the manuscript.

    1. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?:

    I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    1. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?:

    Please see my comments.

    1. Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately?:

    There is no specific result from this research.

    1. Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?:

    Please see my comments.

    1. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?:

    The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    1. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.:

    Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    1. Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
      Yes, I think so.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Research contribution is not so clear in the manuscript.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Please see my comments.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: There is no specific result from this research.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Please see my comments.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Yes, I think so.

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/09/05

    Review Report

    Journal: Online Information Review
    Manuscript ID: OIR-03-2020-0104.R1
    Title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia

    It is observed that the author(s) made efforts to improve the quality of the paper. I remain convinced that it is an interesting paper on a topic that can attract readers. This round of revisions has addressed some of my prior concerns. I do still have more comments to help the authors to improve the quality of the paper. I believe that addressing these issues will help readers to more easily grasp the key findings from the paper.

    The authors are requested to record line numbers, paragraph numbers and page numbers of the manuscript where they make modifications and they must put these numbers in the response documents where applicable in future.

    Comments on Authors’ Responses

    Major Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    1 I have added to the abstract to address the issue of purpose and method. The findings and conclusion are already included.

    Added text:

    Like its larger counter-part, Wikipedia, Wikivoyage encourages a collaborative approach to the dissemination of knowledge and hence has the potential for a greater inclusivity of perspectives within its content. In this article I provide an interpretative textual analysis of a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India (1997) and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Plant Cambodia (2010). A small, but growing strand of tourism research (of which Bhattacharyya and Tegelburg are a part) argues that traditional conceptions of tourism, including tourist guidebooks, need to change in order to challenge persistent discourses surrounding tourist destinations rooted in older explotiative visions of the tourist world.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    The author(s) have raised new issue of elements in updating abstract. They mentioned “….. provide an interperative textual analysis of a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant (should be Planet) India (1997) and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Plant (should be Planet) Cambodia (2010).” The reviewer would like to know the elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Planet and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Planet Cambodia.

    Authors’ Responses

    2 I have added links to the actual pages.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Where are the links and screenshots of the described pages?

    I would like to see them in the body of the manuscript.

    Authors’ Responses

    3a: Differences between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. Before separation the content was the same. After separation editing histories on each would be different so that there would be a gradual textual “drift” over time. Although interesting, examining this drift would significantly detract from my aim in this paper. I have added a footnote to include this point: At the time of the fork the content of Wikivoyage and Wikitravel was exactly the same. Since then textual “drift” has likely taken place as the editing of the two sites naturally diverges over time, given that they comprise two separate editing communities.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    This issue has not been addressed properly. Again, the author(s) are requested to provide the clear difference between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel in terms of their content and structure.

    Authors’ Responses

    3b: LP India and Wikivoyage: I believe the reviewer misunderstood the reason for my use of Bhattacharyya’s seminal study. I am interested in this case study of LP India for the help it can provide in analyzing other guidebooks. In particular I rely on it for insight on how guides can produce an impoverished image of local people – as either exotic displays or service providers. Alternative guidebooks would overcome this limited portrayal by stressing other dimensions to local people. One could then examine guides (such as I do here) to see if they do this. I have added text to the abstract to try to clarify this point: “using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Plant Cambodia.”

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    4: Tripadvisor etc. The portals mentioned by the reviewer differ from Wikivoyage in two very important aspects. First, they are commercial, for-profit entities. And second, they are not controlled by the community that writes the content. Wikivoyage is community controlled, doesn’t rely on advertising and is not for-profit. Hence it is a logical place to look for alternative tourism discourse and the reason I focused on it. Adding all these other sites would of course be interesting, but I doubt I would find any better examples of alternative discourse there than in Wikivoyage. And they would significantly add to the length and complexity of the paper. I have added a sentence to explain my choice: Wikivoyage, being both community-controlled and a non-profit organization, is a good place to look for alternative tourism discourses as these characteristics give it the flexibility to experiment to a greater extent, given the greater freedom it has from financial pressure or managerial dictates. Its collaborative editing culture, which Wikivoyage shares with Wikipedia, also makes it a worthwhile place to look for these discourses. As a number of scholars have pointed out the collaborative editing culture of Wikipedia creaets a space that has the potential for greater levels of inclusivity (Tkatz 2007; Pfister 2011). In particular, Sean Hansen goes as far as to argue it creates an online version of Habermas’ public sphere, place where people can engage in communicative as opposed to instrumental action (Hansen 2009).

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    5: Law enforcement: I’m not sure I understand the reviewer’s point here. I don’t think that national security is enhanced by shouting at visitors and asking for bribes. And border officials are locals and the first locals travellers usually see. So they figure into the image tourists will have of the country’s people, like it or not. But this is beside the point I am trying to make. If Wikivoyage left its description at the level of bribes and shouting it would be reflecting a traditional guidebook discourse where locals are portrayed as one-dimensional people – bad service providers in this case. But Wikivoyage goes beyond this by gesturing to the wider context in which the border officials work – the authoritarian kleptocracy that is Cambodia today. This breaks the mold, so to speak, as we can therefore see these officials in a more sympathetic light. They become multi-dimensional human beings. I have added the following text:

    Bhattacharyya’s analysis of Lonely Planet India found that local people tended to be portrayed in limited ways – as either exotic displays or as service providers. In this section we will examine the portrayal of local Cambodians in the Wikivoyage pages and see if the text moves beyond such limited perspectives.

    However the guide transcends this view by telling us not to get angry at them, not just because it is futile, but because “they are collecting the money by order from above …”.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    6 Indian agriculture. Again, I think this point is raised because the reviewer has misunderstood my use of Bhattacharyya’s work. My point is that agriculture, wherever it is practiced, would, if included sensitively in a guidebook, help it break out of the traditional tendency as demonstrated by Bhattacharya to protray people as either exotic displays or service providers. I have added a citation to show something of the dependency of Cambodia on its agricultural sector – Slocomb 2010.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    7 Haggling and so on. The focus on these behaviours is to again illustrate Bhattacharyya’s point about the portrayal of loyal people. An alternative tourism discourse would go beyond limited portrayals. Wikivoyage in these cases does not achieve this.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Still I am not convinced. I would like to see the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism?

    Authors’ Responses

    8 Please see my response to #3b.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I raised the issue earlier and again asking “how does Indian tourism culture with Cambodian tourism culture conform? Are there any study on comparison or similarity between Indian tourism culture and Cambodian tourism culture? If so, author(s) should describe them with references.

    Authors’ Responses

    9 The conclusion contains just such a list, but I have added the following to the earlier text: “On the other hand, while the guide does include the usual roles of service provider and exotic display, it also, at quite a number of points in the text, offers a more multi-dimensional portrayal of local people, raising issues about the wider context which Cambodians need to navigate in order to survive or prosper (for example, the need for border officials to ask for money as part of a wider kleptocratic state system).”

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I believe this issue has not been addressed properly. I wanted to know the potentials (lists of potentials) which can be exploited. This manuscript should include the potentials to be exploited.

    Authors’ Responses

    10 This is an interesting project, but is outside the scope of the present article.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    11 My aim is different. Much literature has criticized guidebook protrayals of various destinations. I have cited a number of these studies: Buzinde, Callahen, McGregor, Nelson, Tegelburg, Bhattacharrya. My aim here is to focus on two of these critiques (Tegelburg and Bhattacharrya) and see whether Wikivoyage repeats the problems identified in these critiques or goes beyond it.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I believe the comparison between travel guidebook and its web counterpart such as Wikivoyage is crucial for this research. I like the author(s) to include this comparison.

    Authors’ Responses

    12, #13 Impediments. I am not sure what the reviewer has in mind here. My analysis suggests that there is scope for Wikivoyage to expand in the direction of providing more multi-dimensional portaits of local people as well as historical discourses. That can only be done if people interested in such matters participate in content creation. All I can do about that is demonstrate (as I have done) that the potential is there. And to caution that anyone getting involved with Wikivoyage will need to be aware of the cultural norms of the site. The examples I give are Kriplean’s powerplays and the four guiding principles and three core content policies of Wikivoyage.

    Reviewer’s Comments on #12

    What are the impediments (obstacles or barriers) for improving Wikivoyage? Author(s) need to include it.

    Reviewer’s Comments on #13

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    14 It is not my aim to advance any new theory, rather I make use of existing work to examine a part of the social media world that has not received any attention in the academic world. As far as I can tell, there have been no studies of Wikivoyage despite the massive attention paid in the academic world to other online phenomena. This is unfortunate.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    Research paper must imply the research contribution. As it is a research paper the author(s), however, need to include research contribution.

    Authors’ Responses

    15 See #12, #13.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    I still stand by my original comment, “This article should clearly state the impact of this research upon society and research community.”

    Minor Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    1 Better service. This is not my concern for this paper. I am concerned about the portrayal of destinations and their people. Examining accommodation cost and booking would add to the complexity of the study and take the focus away from my primary aim.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    The reviewer did not ask author to examine accommodation and booking cost. I would like to know whether guidebook or travel web portal provides better service. It needs to be addressed properly.

    Authors’ Responses

    2 Done.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Authors’ Responses

    3 Done.

    Reviewer’s Comments

    No Comments

    Additional Questions:

    1. Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?:

    Research contribution is not so clear in the manuscript.

    1. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?:

    I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    1. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?:

    Please see my comments.

    1. Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately?:

    There is no specific result from this research.

    1. Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?:

    Please see my comments.

    1. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?:

    The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    1. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.:

    Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    1. Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
      Yes, I think so.

    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/07/27

    Reviewer Report

    Date: 26 July 2020

    Manuscript number: OIR-03-2020-0104.R1

    Manuscript title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage
    and Cambodia

    1. Originality:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    2. Relationship to literature:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    3. Methodology:
      Not applicable.

    4. Results:
      Not applicable.

    5. Discussion/Argument:
      Yes, the author has made the necessary changes as requested.

    6. Implications
      The author did not exactly address to my concern but the explanation is satisfactory.

    7. Quality of communication:
      Nil.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/07/22

    Reviewer #1

    1 I have added to the abstract to address the issue of purpose and method. The findings and conclusion are already included.

    Added text:

    Like its larger counter-part, Wikipedia, Wikivoyage encourages a collaborative approach to the dissemination of knowledge and hence has the potential for a greater inclusivity of perspectives within its content. In this article I provide an interpretative textual analysis of a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India (1997) and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Plant Cambodia (2010). A small, but growing strand of tourism research (of which Bhattacharyya and Tegelburg are a part) argues that traditional conceptions of tourism, including tourist guidebooks, need to change in order to challenge persistent discourses surrounding tourist destinations rooted in older explotiative visions of the tourist world.

    2 I have added links to the actual pages.

    3a: Differences between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. Before separation the content was the same. After separation editing histories on each would be different so that there would be a gradual textual “drift” over time. Although interesting, examining this drift would significantly detract from my aim in this paper. I have added a footnote to include this point: At the time of the fork the content of Wikivoyage and Wikitravel was exactly the same. Since then textual “drift” has likely taken place as the editing of the two sites naturally diverges over time, given that they comprise two separate editing communities.

    3b: LP India and Wikivoyage: I believe the reviewer misunderstood the reason for my use of Bhattacharyya’s seminal study. I am interested in this case study of LP India for the help it can provide in analyzing other guidebooks. In particular I rely on it for insight on how guides can produce an impoverished image of local people – as either exotic displays or service providers. Alternative guidebooks would overcome this limited portrayal by stressing other dimensions to local people. One could then examine guides (such as I do here) to see if they do this. I have added text to the abstract to try to clarify this point: “using elements of Bhattacharyya’s critique of Lonely Plant India and Tegelberg’s critique of Lonely Plant Cambodia.”

    #4: Tripadvisor etc. The portals mentioned by the reviewer differ from Wikivoyage in two very important aspects. First, they are commercial, for-profit entities. And second, they are not controlled by the community that writes the content. Wikivoyage is community controlled, doesn’t rely on advertising and is not for-profit. Hence it is a logical place to look for alternative tourism discourse and the reason I focused on it. Adding all these other sites would of course be interesting, but I doubt I would find any better examples of alternative discourse there than in Wikivoyage. And they would significantly add to the length and complexity of the paper. I have added a sentence to explain my choice: Wikivoyage, being both community-controlled and a non-profit organization, is a good place to look for alternative tourism discourses as these characteristics give it the flexibility to experiment to a greater extent, given the greater freedom it has from financial pressure or managerial dictates. Its collaborative editing culture, which Wikivoyage shares with Wikipedia, also makes it a worthwhile place to look for these discourses. As a number of scholars have pointed out the collaborative editing culture of Wikipedia creaets a space that has the potential for greater levels of inclusivity (Tkatz 2007; Pfister 2011). In particular, Sean Hansen goes as far as to argue it creates an online version of Habermas’ public sphere, place where people can engage in communicative as opposed to instrumental action (Hansen 2009).

    5: Law enforcement: I’m not sure I understand the reviewer’s point here. I don’t think that national security is enhanced by shouting at visitors and asking for bribes. And border officials are locals and the first locals travellers usually see. So they figure into the image tourists will have of the country’s people, like it or not. But this is beside the point I am trying to make. If Wikivoyage left its description at the level of bribes and shouting it would be reflecting a traditional guidebook discourse where locals are portrayed as one-dimensional people – bad service providers in this case. But Wikivoyage goes beyond this by gesturing to the wider context in which the border officials work – the authoritarian kleptocracy that is Cambodia today. This breaks the mold, so to speak, as we can therefore see these officials in a more sympathetic light. They become multi-dimensional human beings. I have added the following text:

    Bhattacharyya’s analysis of Lonely Planet India found that local people tended to be portrayed in limited ways – as either exotic displays or as service providers. In this section we will examine the portrayal of local Cambodians in the Wikivoyage pages and see if the text moves beyond such limited perspectives.

    However the guide transcends this view by telling us not to get angry at them, not just because it is futile, but because “they are collecting the money by order from above …”.

    6 Indian agriculture. Again, I think this point is raised because the reviewer has misunderstood my use of Bhattacharyya’s work. My point is that agriculture, wherever it is practiced, would, if included sensitively in a guidebook, help it break out of the traditional tendency as demonstrated by Bhattacharya to protray people as either exotic displays or service providers. I have added a citation to show something of the dependency of Cambodia on its agricultural sector – Slocomb 2010.

    7 Haggling and so on. The focus on these behaviours is to again illustrate Bhattacharyya’s point about the portrayal of loyal people. An alternative tourism discourse would go beyond limited portrayals. Wikivoyage in these cases does not achieve this.

    8 Please see my response to #3b.

    9 The conclusion contains just such a list, but I have added the following to the earlier text: “On the other hand, while the guide does include the usual roles of service provider and exotic display, it also, at quite a number of points in the text, offers a more multi-dimensional portrayal of local people, raising issues about the wider context which Cambodians need to navigate in order to survive or prosper (for example, the need for border officials to ask for money as part of a wider kleptocratic state system).”

    10 This is an interesting project, but is outside the scope of the present article.

    11 My aim is different. Much literature has criticized guidebook protrayals of various destinations. I have cited a number of these studies: Buzinde, Callahen, McGregor, Nelson, Tegelburg, Bhattacharrya. My aim here is to focus on two of these critiques (Tegelburg and Bhattacharrya) and see whether Wikivoyage repeats the problems identified in these critiques or goes beyond it.

    12, #13 Impediments. I am not sure what the reviewer has in mind here. My analysis suggests that there is scope for Wikivoyage to expand in the direction of providing more multi-dimensional portaits of local people as well as historical discourses. That can only be done if people interested in such matters participate in content creation. All I can do about that is demonstrate (as I have done) that the potential is there. And to caution that anyone getting involved with Wikivoyage will need to be aware of the cultural norms of the site. The examples I give are Kriplean’s powerplays and the four guiding principles and three core content policies of Wikivoyage.

    14 It is not my aim to advance any new theory, rather I make use of existing work to examine a part of the social media world that has not received any attention in the academic world. As far as I can tell, there have been no studies of Wikivoyage despite the massive attention paid in the academic world to other online phenomena. This is unfortunate.

    15 See #12, #13.

    Minor comments

    1 Better service. This is not my concern for this paper. I am concerned about the portrayal of destinations and their people. Examining accommodation cost and booking would add to the complexity of the study and take the focus away from my primary aim.

    2 Done.

    3 Done.

    Reviewer #2

    1: Purpose of the manuscript. I have added text to the introduction to clarify my purpose:

    I demonstrate that it has potential as a platform for alternative tourism discourses, giving it an importance beyond its size and intrinsic interest. The need for such alternatives has been for some time a part of a wider critique of tourism and it has generated among other works, a movement in scholarship, broadly labelled as “hopeful tourism”, “a values-led, humanist perspective that strives for the transformation of our way of being, doing and relating in tourism worlds and for the creation of a less unequal, more sustainable planet through action-oriented, participant-driven learnings and acts” (Pritchard et al. 2012).
    Wikivoyage is a good place to look for alternative tourism discourses because being both community-controlled and a non-profit organization it has a certain degree of flexibility to experiment, given the greater freedom it has from financial pressure or managerial dictates. Its collaborative editing culture, which Wikivoyage shares with Wikipedia, also makes it a worthwhile place to look for these discourses. As a number of scholars have pointed out the collaborative editing culture of Wikipedia creates a space that has the potential for greater levels of inclusivity (Tkatz 2007; Pfister 2011). In particular, Sean Hansen goes as far as to argue it creates an online version of Habermas’ public sphere, a place where people can engage in communicative as opposed to instrumental action (Hansen 2009).

    In what ways have the past literature mentioned in the introduction failed to provide valuable information? This is addressed in the section just after the introduction, entitled “The social construction of tourist destinations by guidebooks”.

    2 Relationship to literature. It is not my aim to advance new theory, rather I make use of existing work to examine a part of the social media world that has not received any attention in the academic world. As far as I can tell, there have been no studies of Wikivoyage despite the massive attention paid in the academic world to other online phenomena. This is unfortunate.

    5 Consistency with other findings. There have been, as far as I can tell, no studies of Wikivoyage. Furthermore, in terms of study of Cambodian guidebooks, Tegelburg is the key text and I rely on it heavily in this text.

    6 Implications: I am not sure what the reviewer is looking for here. My main finding, which is outlined in the conclusion, is that Wikivoyage has potential as a vehicle for the creation of new and informative tourist discourses.

    Author response by


    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/07/02

    &PHPSESSID02-Jul-2020;

    Dear Dr. Luyt,

    Manuscript ID OIR-03-2020-0104 entitled "A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage and Cambodia" which you submitted to Online Information Review has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewers have recommended that you make major revisions to your manuscript prior to it being considered for publication.

    Please read their suggestions and if you choose to prepare a revised manuscript ensure that any changes that you make to your manuscript are highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.

    Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions" click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review. I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    It was an interesting and useful idea to investigate the potential of developing significance source of alternative tourism discourse like Wikivoyage which can capture attention, maintain interest, create desire and finally get action. For fulfilling these functions, several steps are needed to be taken to cope with consumer behavior. Cultures, history, life styles, different events, activities of local people of a place are the essential elements to attract tourists. This paper combines the tradition, culture and history with the tourism of Cambodia and the aspect of both traditional tourism guidebooks and the tourism web portals. This manuscript tried to explore how this information should be highlighted properly in tourism guidebooks and modern web portals. The article also focused on the content and information availability of traditional guidebook and tourism web portals. The author(s) put more historical information on some touristic items.

    This research article analyzed and examined, a free wiki-based travel guidebook, Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia. Specifically the author(s) examined the content of Wikivoyage’s articles on the temples of Angkor, Siem Reap (the tourist gateway to the temples), the introductory page for the country of Cambodia as a whole and a sample of regional Cambodian entries. It is concluded that Wikivoyage is still important to study the social phenomenon both for its own intrinsic interest and to assess its potential for a more enlightened and transformative tourism. However, I am in confusion that how the author(s) analyzed and examined Wikivoyage and its contents. The article looks potential but it needs a detailed description of analysis and examination methods.

    I enjoyed the paper and the topic is much relevant. However, there are some concerns and suggestions for the revision of this manuscript. In order to publish this paper, I suggest revising it as per following comments.

    Major Comments
    1. Abstract is not well-written. It should clearly state introduction (problem), methods applied, analysis techniques, key findings and conclusion (including research impact) with 1-2 sentences each. I am not asking to separate them in different paragraphs but they should be in the single paragraph as its current form.

    1. In the abstract and in other places in the manuscript, the authors stated that “I analyze a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia” (Page 1 Lines 10, 29-30, 37). Which pages of Wikivoyage are analyzed? The description of those pages with clear screenshots should be included in the manuscript to provide concise understanding. Which of the techniques are used for the analysis?

    2. What are the differences between WikiTravel and Wikivoyage in terms of content? The author(s) put references from Lonely Planet India several times in the manuscript. What are the differences between Wikivoyage and Lonely Planet India in terms of content? It is better to present these differences in table(s).

    3. This manuscript examined the content of Wikivoyage’s articles on the temples of Angkor, Siem Reap (the tourist gateway to the temples), the introductory page for the country of Cambodia as a whole and a sample of regional Cambodian entries. What is the information the current well-known travel portals LonelyPlanet, Tripadvisor.com, Booking.com, Expedia.com, etc contain about the temples of Angkor, Siem Reap (the tourist gateway to the temples), and Cambodian culture and history?

    4. The law enforcement officers or concern people on the border of any country are different from general people and sometime they need to be tough for the sake of country’s security and no country discloses this issue in the public place like website about their toughness on the border or taking bribe (according to the author(s) (Page 9 Lines 57-59, Page 10 Lines 3-4, 19-23). I can’t understand why the author(s) mix this approach with the tourism or the behavior of local people. It needs clarification.

    5. The article stated that
      “Agriculture offers another example of a different approach to tourist-local relations. Bhattacharyya specifically notes that the Lonely Planet India guide she studied failed to discuss any of the complexities of Indian agriculture, even though it provides the livelihood of a huge number of people in the country’s rural communities. For Cambodia, the role of agriculture is also of over-riding importance to many people. …….……… agricultural conditions in Cambodia and its role in the lives of the rural communities that it supports” (Page 13 Lines 10-26).
      I would like to know how Indian agriculture and Cambodian agriculture are comparable. Are the life styles or livelihood of two countries same? How agriculture influences tourist-local relations in the context of Cambodian tourism? Authors(s) need to explain these issues with proper references.

    6. For describing tourist-local people relations in Wikivoyage in Cambodia, the author(s) mentioned bribing (Page 10 Lines 3-5), haggling (Page 10 Lines 27-30) and mugging (Page 10 Line 42). These factors carry negative impression. How these factors influence in developing tourist-local people relations in Cambodia? In addition, I would like to see the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism?

    7. In the manuscript, the author(s) depicted Bhattacharyya’s study of Lonely Planet India to compare (or to see the similarity) of Indian tourism culture with Cambodian tourism culture in several occasion. I raised the issue earlier and again asking “how the two different tourism cultures conform? Are there any study on comparison or similarity between Indian tourism culture and Cambodian tourism culture? If so, author(s) should describe them with references.

    8. It is mentioned in the article that “It seems, in this collection of articles at least, that while the potential exists for new tourist discourses it is a potential that is not fully exploited” (Page 14 Lines 18-22). You need to provide a brief description about the potential to be exploited.

    9. What are the impressions of users or tourists about Wikivoyage and its contents? Are there any reasons why Wikivoyage is not so popular?

    10. In the manuscript, the author(s) invested more time and spaces for describing travel guidebook and Wikivoyage. In this context I would like to see the specific comparison between travel guidebook and its web counterpart such as Wikivoyage.

    11. I would like you to mention the impediments for improving Wikivoyage?

    12. Authors should provide specific guidelines for improving Wikivoyage.

    13. Theoretical contribution of this study should be included in the manuscript.

    14. This article should clearly state the impact of this research upon society and research community.

    Minor Comments
    1. Which one of travel guidebook and travel web portal can provide better services (for instance, accommodation cost and booking) to the tourists?

    1. “ However, this social enterprise now appears appears in most guidebooks, so by itself it does not set Wikivoyage significantly apart from other examples of the genre” (Page 12 Lines 18-20). In this sentence, the word “appears” becomes twice. One should be removed.

    2. Citation should be according to the author’s guidelines. In many places in the manuscript you mentioned only the authors’ name while citing any article. You should follow the proper citation rules.

    Additional Questions:

    1. Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?:

    Theoretical contribution is not so clear in the current manuscript.

    1. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?:

    Citation should be according to the authors' guidelines. I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    1. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?:

    It lacks the methodology; already I explained in my comments.

    1. Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately?:

    There is no specific result from this research.

    1. Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?:

    See my major comments

    1. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?:

    The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    1. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.:

    Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    1. Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
      Yes, I think so.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Theoretical contribution is not so clear in the current manuscript.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Citation should be according to the author’s guidelines. I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: It lacks the methodology; already I explained in my comments.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: There is no specific result from this research.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: See my major comments.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Yes, I think so.

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Comments:
    Reviewer Report

    1. Originality:
      The purpose of the manuscript was not clearly established; especially the linkage between the manuscript objectives and why the research was necessary. The author provided a brief explanation on Wikivoyage. However, the underlying aspect of why this research is needed has not been sufficiently highlighted. In what ways(s) have the past literature mentioned in the introduction failed to provide valuable information? The author needs to go beyond implying arguments to making them explicitly and argue why it is important to address these limitations in prior research. As such, the gap remains unclear on the level of the research object. Apart from strengthening your introduction to address these concerns, the reviewer would also like the authors to strengthen the articulation of the contributions of the paper later in the paper. They are missing at the moment.

    2. Relationship to literature:
      There are several problems that minimize its overall contribution to the literature. What is your ‘theory’? How has this paper contributed to the existing theory? How has this paper advanced our understanding of the previous work? This is missing from your literature section. On your literature review (e.g., "Cambodian history on Wikivoyage", etc.), honestly, they are boring, dull and resembles a book rather than a journal paper. The findings set makes for a fresh perspective, but you did not explain in your review section. As I read through, there wasn't one that I found to be exciting or novel.

    3. Methodology:
      Not applicable.

    4. Results:
      Not applicable.

    5. Discussion/Argument:
      Please 'elaborate' if the current study is also consistent with findings from past studies in other country settings. The discussion should include further discussion on the previous findings in relation to the existing ones. E.g., the differences and your contributions.

    6. Implications
      The reviewer would like to see the discussion about whether the results produced from the research has any implication for literature and practice. They are missing at the moment.

    7. Quality of communication:
      The reviewer spotted some grammatical errors in the paper; please do thorough grammatical checking to the manuscript to improve the readability of this study.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/06/04

    Reviewer Report

    Date: 3 June 2020

    Manuscript number: OIR-03-2020-0104

    Manuscript title: A new kind of travel guide or more of the same? Wikivoyage
    and Cambodia

    1. Originality:
      The purpose of the manuscript was not clearly established; especially the linkage between the manuscript objectives and why the research was necessary. The author provided a brief explanation on Wikivoyage. However, the underlying aspect of why this research is needed has not been sufficiently highlighted. In what ways(s) have the past literature mentioned in the introduction failed to provide valuable information? The author needs to go beyond implying arguments to making them explicitly and argue why it is important to address these limitations in prior research. As such, the gap remains unclear on the level of the research object. Apart from strengthening your introduction to address these concerns, the reviewer would also like the authors to strengthen the articulation of the contributions of the paper later in the paper. They are missing at the moment.

    2. Relationship to literature:
      There are several problems that minimize its overall contribution to the literature. What is your ‘theory’? How has this paper contributed to the existing theory? How has this paper advanced our understanding of the previous work? This is missing from your literature section. On your literature review (e.g., "Cambodian history on Wikivoyage", etc.), honestly, they are boring, dull and resembles a book rather than a journal paper. The findings set makes for a fresh perspective, but you did not explain in your review section. As I read through, there wasn't one that I found to be exciting or novel.

    3. Methodology:
      Not applicable.

    4. Results:
      Not applicable.

    5. Discussion/Argument:
      Please 'elaborate' if the current study is also consistent with findings from past studies in other country settings. The discussion should include further discussion on the previous findings in relation to the existing ones. E.g., the differences and your contributions.

    6. Implications
      The reviewer would like to see the discussion about whether the results produced from the research has any implication for literature and practice. They are missing at the moment.

    7. Quality of communication:
      The reviewer spotted some grammatical errors in the paper; please do thorough grammatical checking to the manuscript to improve the readability of this study.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/05/23

    It was an interesting and useful idea to investigate the potential of developing significance source of alternative tourism discourse like Wikivoyage which can capture attention, maintain interest, create desire and finally get action. For fulfilling these functions, several steps are needed to be taken to cope with consumer behavior. Cultures, history, life styles, different events, activities of local people of a place are the essential elements to attract tourists. This paper combines the tradition, culture and history with the tourism of Cambodia and the aspect of both traditional tourism guidebooks and the tourism web portals. This manuscript tried to explore how this information should be highlighted properly in tourism guidebooks and modern web portals. The article also focused on the content and information availability of traditional guidebook and tourism web portals. The author(s) put more historical information on some touristic items.

    This research article analyzed and examined, a free wiki-based travel guidebook, Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia. Specifically the author(s) examined the content of Wikivoyage’s articles on the temples of Angkor, Siem Reap (the tourist gateway to the temples), the introductory page for the country of Cambodia as a whole and a sample of regional Cambodian entries. It is concluded that Wikivoyage is still important to study the social phenomenon both for its own intrinsic interest and to assess its potential for a more enlightened and transformative tourism. However, I am in confusion that how the author(s) analyzed and examined Wikivoyage and its contents. The article looks potential but it needs a detailed description of analysis and examination methods.

    I enjoyed the paper and the topic is much relevant. However, there are some concerns and suggestions for the revision of this manuscript. In order to publish this paper, I suggest revising it as per following comments.

    Major Comments
    1. Abstract is not well-written. It should clearly state introduction (problem), methods applied, analysis techniques, key findings and conclusion (including research impact) with 1-2 sentences each. I am not asking to separate them in different paragraphs but they should be in the single paragraph as its current form.

    1. In the abstract and in other places in the manuscript, the authors stated that “I analyze a sample of Wikivoyage pages dealing with Cambodia” (Page 1 Lines 10, 29-30, 37). Which pages of Wikivoyage are analyzed? The description of those pages with clear screenshots should be included in the manuscript to provide concise understanding. Which of the techniques are used for the analysis?

    2. What are the differences between WikiTravel and Wikivoyage in terms of content? The author(s) put references from Lonely Planet India several times in the manuscript. What are the differences between Wikivoyage and Lonely Planet India in terms of content? It is better to present these differences in table(s).

    3. This manuscript examined the content of Wikivoyage’s articles on the temples of Angkor, Siem Reap (the tourist gateway to the temples), the introductory page for the country of Cambodia as a whole and a sample of regional Cambodian entries. What is the information the current well-known travel portals LonelyPlanet, Tripadvisor.com, Booking.com, Expedia.com, etc contain about the temples of Angkor, Siem Reap (the tourist gateway to the temples), and Cambodian culture and history?

    4. The law enforcement officers or concern people on the border of any country are different from general people and sometime they need to be tough for the sake of country’s security and no country discloses this issue in the public place like website about their toughness on the border or taking bribe (according to the author(s) (Page 9 Lines 57-59, Page 10 Lines 3-4, 19-23). I can’t understand why the author(s) mix this approach with the tourism or the behavior of local people. It needs clarification.

    5. The article stated that
      “Agriculture offers another example of a different approach to tourist-local relations. Bhattacharyya specifically notes that the Lonely Planet India guide she studied failed to discuss any of the complexities of Indian agriculture, even though it provides the livelihood of a huge number of people in the country’s rural communities. For Cambodia, the role of agriculture is also of over-riding importance to many people. …….……… agricultural conditions in Cambodia and its role in the lives of the rural communities that it supports” (Page 13 Lines 10-26).
      I would like to know how Indian agriculture and Cambodian agriculture are comparable. Are the life styles or livelihood of two countries same? How agriculture influences tourist-local relations in the context of Cambodian tourism? Authors(s) need to explain these issues with proper references.

    6. For describing tourist-local people relations in Wikivoyage in Cambodia, the author(s) mentioned bribing (Page 10 Lines 3-5), haggling (Page 10 Lines 27-30) and mugging (Page 10 Line 42). These factors carry negative impression. How these factors influence in developing tourist-local people relations in Cambodia? In addition, I would like to see the description on how tourism influences local people and how local people influences tourism?

    7. In the manuscript, the author(s) depicted Bhattacharyya’s study of Lonely Planet India to compare (or to see the similarity) of Indian tourism culture with Cambodian tourism culture in several occasion. I raised the issue earlier and again asking “how the two different tourism cultures conform? Are there any study on comparison or similarity between Indian tourism culture and Cambodian tourism culture? If so, author(s) should describe them with references.

    8. It is mentioned in the article that “It seems, in this collection of articles at least, that while the potential exists for new tourist discourses it is a potential that is not fully exploited” (Page 14 Lines 18-22). You need to provide a brief description about the potential to be exploited.

    9. What are the impressions of users or tourists about Wikivoyage and its contents? Are there any reasons why Wikivoyage is not so popular?

    10. In the manuscript, the author(s) invested more time and spaces for describing travel guidebook and Wikivoyage. In this context I would like to see the specific comparison between travel guidebook and its web counterpart such as Wikivoyage.

    11. I would like you to mention the impediments for improving Wikivoyage?

    12. Authors should provide specific guidelines for improving Wikivoyage.

    13. Theoretical contribution of this study should be included in the manuscript.

    14. This article should clearly state the impact of this research upon society and research community.

    Minor Comments
    1. Which one of travel guidebook and travel web portal can provide better services (for instance, accommodation cost and booking) to the tourists?

    1. “ However, this social enterprise now appears appears in most guidebooks, so by itself it does not set Wikivoyage significantly apart from other examples of the genre” (Page 12 Lines 18-20). In this sentence, the word “appears” becomes twice. One should be removed.

    2. Citation should be according to the author’s guidelines. In many places in the manuscript you mentioned only the authors’ name while citing any article. You should follow the proper citation rules.

    Additional Questions:

    1. Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?:

    Theoretical contribution is not so clear in the current manuscript.

    1. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?:

    Citation should be according to the author’s guidelines. I found no article cited from Online Information Review.

    1. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?:

    It lacks the methodology; already I explained in my comments.

    1. Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analyzed appropriately?:

    There is no specific result from this research.

    1. Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?:

    See my major comments

    1. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?:

    The study should provide some theoretical and practical implications.

    1. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.:

    Yes, the authors presented the study well and appropriate to the audiences of this journal.

    1. Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:
      Yes, I think so.

    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.