**JCRINN Revise & Resubmit Cover Letter** > 30 May 2024 > > *Journal of Computing Research and Innovation* > > College of Computing, Informatics and Mathematics > > Universiti Teknologi MARA 02600 Arau, MALAYSIA > Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript, *Trends In Tourism Recommendation* *Systems: A Review.* Enclosed is our revised manuscript for review. I appreciate immensely the feedback and opportunity to revise and resubmit my manuscript. This letter details how I addressed the Editors and reviewers’ feedback. I created a table that includes a detailed response to each suggestion or comment the reviewers made. The table, specifically, details change I made to the manuscript. > I believe my revised manuscript addresses reviewer(s) comments and is overall a stronger paper. I hope these changes have met the reviewer(s) needs and concerns. > > I look forward to hearing from you soon regarding our revised manuscript. Thank you for your consideration of this revised manuscript. > > Sincerely, > > Aderline > > **Table 1: Revise and Resubmit Response Table**

	Reviewer’s Feedback	Author(s)’ Response/Action
Reviewer 1	Page 1: Abstract - Should be emphasized more clearly whether in the title or in the content of the related subtopic.	Page 1: The abstract has been revised to clearly emphasize the focus of the study on trends in tourism recommendation systems. Key findings and subtopics have been explicitly mentioned to provide a clearer overview.
Reviewer 2	Page 2: INTRODUCTION - Research questions not discussed and provided in this article.	Page 2: The introduction has been updated to include a clear statement of the research questions. These questions guide the study and are answered in the results and discussion section. The discussion in section 4.2 directly addresses this research question by analyzing the suitability of different TRS types for various traveler needs. Recommendations are provided for travelers to choose the most appropriate TRS based on their specific requirements and preferences.
Reviewer 3	Page 3: METHODOLOGY - This topic should be changed to Literature Review and discussing the related LR.	Page 2: The Methodology section has been renamed to Literature Review. Detailed discussions of related literature, including data collection, pre-processing, feature representation, and types of tourism recommendation systems, have been added.
Reviewer 4	Page 3: Data Collection and Pre-processing & Feature Representation and Selection - Are these steps/phases in the methodology?	Page 3: These sections are now part of the Literature Review, providing context and background on the data and features used in tourism recommendation systems.
Reviewer 5	Page 3: Types of Tourism Recommendation Systems - More suitable included in Literature Review.	Page 3: This section has been moved to the Literature Review, where it fits better contextually.
Reviewer 6	Page 3 & 4: SWOT Analysis of TRS table - This paragraph and table should be included in the Methodology section. The SWOT analysis must be discussed in detail regarding its process and suitability.	Page 6: The SWOT Analysis has been moved to the Methodology section. A detailed discussion on its process and suitability, supported by past research, has been included.
		Page 10: A detailed table has been included in section 4.1 Comparative Suitability of Tourism Recommendation System Based On SWOT Analysis. This table serves to clearly describe which TRS types are best suited for specific traveler needs, supported by data and SWOT analysis in the methodology.
		Page 13: Section 4.2 Discussion on Tourism Recommendation System Effectiveness has been thoroughly revised to discuss the effectiveness of each TRS type. It includes a detailed analysis of how each TRS type addresses specific travel scenarios, such as solo travel, family travel, or adventure travel.
Reviewer 7	Page 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - How did the analysis lead to these results?	Page 10 - 14: The Results and Discussion section has been expanded to include a detailed explanation of how the analysis was conducted and how it led to the presented results. This includes comparative analysis and discussion of the effectiveness of different TRS.
		Page 4: Evolution of Tourism Recommendation Systems section has been moved to the Literature Review. This section discusses comparative analysis of current TRS in the literature.
Reviewer 8	Page 6: Existing Tourism Recommendation Systems - This result not obtained from the SWOT analysis but comparative analysis. Are the authors using an integrated method?	Page 4: Clarified that this section has been moved to the Literature Review. It now includes a comparative analysis of existing tourism recommendation systems, integrating findings from various studies to provide a comprehensive overview.
Reviewer 9	Page 6: Recommendation Algorithms and Techniques - Key findings?	Page 5: This section has been moved to the Literature Review. Key findings from the analysis of various recommendation algorithms and techniques are now summarized, providing a clear understanding of their effectiveness and application in tourism recommendation systems.
Reviewer 10	Page 7: Future Directions and Research Opportunities - Are these the strategies recommended for future directions?	Page 14: This section has been moved to section 5.0. It clearly defines the recommended strategies for future research and development in tourism recommendation systems, based on the findings and identified gaps in the current literature.
Reviewer 11	Page 8: CONCLUSION - The conclusion must conclude the whole article, not only the results.	Page 15: The conclusion has been revised to section 6.0 which encapsulate the entire study, summarizing the introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and future directions.