Challenges for Collecting Questionnaire-Based Onsite Survey Data in a Niche Tourism Market Context: The Case of Wine Tourism in Rural Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I had the opportunity to read the paper "Challenges for Collecting Questionnaire-based Onsite Survey Data in a Niche Tourist-market Context: the Case of Wine Tourism in Rural Areas" and I found it very interesting.

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their careful reading and comments. We realized that the main suggestions for improvement are related to the understanding of the article as a typical research article. However, we would like to emphasize that this article is not intended to be a standard research paper; it is rather a reflection on the advantages and disadvantages of using surveys in tourism contexts with relatively few visitors typically present on-site, such as rural wine tourism, with part of the debate inspired by case-study and questionnaire-based survey data collection within a specific wine tourism project.

Accordingly, the paper’s structure itself is not the one expected from a research paper, but one that may best respond to the purpose of the article - to identify and discuss the major challenges for the questionnaire-based on the site surveys and suggest best practice procedures, as noticed by the third reviewer and also highlighted in the abstract and introduction (This paper presents a theory and case-study inspired reflection on potential strategies to overcome these challenges and guarantee the largest possible number of visitors surveyed, in contexts where visitors are few).

The manuscript has been looked at and edited by an experienced tourism studies editor who is also a native speaker. Several corrections/ reformulations of sentences were made, marked throughout the article. New bibliographical references were also introduced. We hope that we thereby improve the overall quality of the article.

Thank you!

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This topics very insteresting and romantic maybe. The project framework has wake up my interest, overall the concept of co creation in improve the experiences realet to the wine. I think this topic have a lot of points of view ti explore and start with "surveys problems" could be a good recommendation to any scholar before starting a plan of survey. Therefore, the difficulties has been exposed clearly, so much I feel represented in many situations. You have the geniality to write a real experience researching to trhree points of view. However, in co-creation world my humble opinion is more than surveys. Will be interesting to discuss the other tools useful, but maybe in other papers.

Congrats for the paper to the authors.

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their careful reading and comments. We realized that the main suggestions for improvement are related to the understanding of the article as a typical research article. However, we would like to emphasize that this article is not intended to be a standard research paper; it is rather a reflection on the advantages and disadvantages of using surveys in tourism contexts with relatively few visitors typically present on-site, such as rural wine tourism, with part of the debate inspired by case-study and questionnaire-based survey data collection within a specific wine tourism project.

Accordingly, the paper’s structure itself is not the one expected from a research paper, but one that may best respond to the purpose of the article - to identify and discuss the major challenges for the questionnaire-based on the site surveys and suggest best practice procedures, as noticed by the third reviewer and also highlighted in the abstract and introduction (This paper presents a theory and case-study inspired reflection on potential strategies to overcome these challenges and guarantee the largest possible number of visitors surveyed, in contexts where visitors are few).

The manuscript has been looked at and edited by an experienced tourism studies editor who is also a native speaker. Several corrections/ reformulations of sentences were made, marked throughout the article. New bibliographical references were also introduced. We hope that we thereby improve the overall quality of the article.

Thank you!

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article does not meet the requirements as to the structure, in some chapters there is information that should be in another chapter or separated into a separate section.

The abstract is badly written. It should include the purpose of the research, the methods used during the analysis of the research. Sample size. Main results and possibly main conclusions - if the character limit for the abstract is not used. 

 The review literature does not introduce the reader to the topic, but only mixes the elements of agritourism wine and the preparation of the questionnaire. The methodology does not contain all the elements. The authors combined the results with the discussion - which makes the article difficult to read. Anyway, own results should be systematized and not mixed with the results of other researchers. I would propose to present the results in a tabular version in order to separate them from the maze of my own reflections. There is no dedicated Limitations section. But the most important thing in the methodology has neither goal, hypotheses nor research questions. The authors tried to present instructions for the procedure rather than a scientific article. 

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their careful reading and comments. We realized that the main suggestions for improvement are related to the understanding of the article as a typical research article. However, we would like to emphasize that this article is not intended to be a standard research paper; it is rather a reflection on the advantages and disadvantages of using surveys in tourism contexts with relatively few visitors typically present on-site, such as rural wine tourism, with part of the debate inspired by case-study and questionnaire-based survey data collection within a specific wine tourism project.

Accordingly, the paper’s structure itself is not the one expected from a research paper, but one that may best respond to the purpose of the article - to identify and discuss the major challenges for the questionnaire-based on the site surveys and suggest best practice procedures, as noticed by the third reviewer and also highlighted in the abstract and introduction (This paper presents a theory and case-study inspired reflection on potential strategies to overcome these challenges and guarantee the largest possible number of visitors surveyed, in contexts where visitors are few).

The manuscript has been looked at and edited by an experienced tourism studies editor who is also a native speaker. Several corrections/ reformulations of sentences were made, marked throughout the article. New bibliographical references were also introduced. We hope that we thereby improve the overall quality of the article.

Thank you!

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx