A Textual and Visual Analysis of the Intrinsic Value Dimensions of Romania: Towards a Sustainable Destination Brand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the article is very interesting regarding the approach followed by the authors of the document.
The document has many strengths:
- Adequate document structure.
- New methodological approach.
- Review of adequate literature.
- The methodological approach well exposed and explained.
- Conclusions based on data.
- Information provides very interesting.
- Relevant conclusions.
My recommendations and suggestions are:
- Review the authors guide. The template provided by the publisher was not used properly. See authors guide, the presentation of the document is very important.
- Abstract: incorporate the most relevant results. The built-in is very generic.
- In the introduction: incorporate a final paragraph with the sections into which the document is divided.
- See the tables, not always the information contained in them is seen properly. For example see table 2.
- See table 3: not understood correctly: "Number & percentage of videos´ descriptors per Holbrook's classificationTours 2 (25.5%) 18 (38.2%) 10 (21.2%) 7 (14.8%)". See.
- State the limitations of the study.

Finally, I congratulate the authors for their research and approach.

Author Response

Please see in the attachement.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed paper addresses a very interesting and highly-important topic, which is actively discussed in the modern tourism literature. Romania seems to be good example to discuss this. The authors offer in-depth analysis based on a solid conceptual ground. Their results and interpretations are promising. I tend to recommend this paper for acceptance after certain revisions (see recommendations below).

• Your refer extensively to the aesthetics – well, and I suggest to take into account the influential paper by Kirillova: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517713002185
• If aesthetics of Romania are linked to only natural resources (as I can understand from Abstract), this means that the potential aesthetic significance of this tourist destination is considered only partly.
• I encourage you to analyze which kinds of tourism (rural tourism, gastronomic tourism, etc.) are promoted by DMO.
• What are the Romanian DMOs? How many of them do you consider in this paper?
• Results MUST be separated from Discussion – these MUST become different sections. This is a standard requirement in all international scientific journals.
• Fig. 1: what software was used to prepare this drawing? Please, explain this in the methodological section.
• Discussion should put this study into the international research context. This means you need to compare your findings with those in the other published works. You also need to state limitations of your research.
• Please, discuss briefly the role of DMO's in the country promotion relatively to the other agents. There may be stakeholders interested in tourism development, but not touristic essentially. You refer (and cite) this example: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/3/68
• Why you do not cite more papers about the Romanian tourism? Some are very relevant to your study. For instance, see these ones: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296317304617 AND https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/mmcks/12/2/article-p222.xml
• The language and the phrasing needs polishing – please, do this yourself or ask any fluently-speaking colleague.
• Please, improve the technical accuracy of the manuscript, i.e., its strict formatting according to the journal's rules.

Good luck with revisions!

Author Response

Please see in the attachement.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good job! The paper is ready for acceptance, in my opinion.