Changes in DMO’s Orientation and Tools to Support Organizations in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic
, Mariusz Sołtysik 1, Justyna Bagińska 2,*, Mateusz Ziemba 3, Małgorzata Kołodziej 4 and Jacek Borzyszkowski 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comment: Overall, this is an interesting study and the paper is generally well written and structured. I see some merit in the actual contents of the paper. I just will recommend some changes.
1. Describe acronym “DMOs” in the abstract
2. Review written style and paper formatting styles
3. Introduction: the research objectives and their importance should be highlighted. Paper motivations could be considerably strengthened by providing evidence, in practice and in theory, as to why is necessary to develop this proposal. Finally, there should be an overview of the rest of the research. This should be the last paragraph of the introduction.
4. Discussion: Authors should show better the consequences and implications for academics/practitioners of the results
5. In a research paper, a conclusion section is “mandatory”. Begin with a brief summary of paper motivations, objectives and findings. Finally, include your limitations and future research
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you very much for reviewing our paper.
We thank the Reviewers for noticing the positive aspects of our article, highlighting its validity and relevance, and confirming the value of the research idea. We also appreciate your accurate observations and comments indicated in the reviews. We agree with all your remarks.
Addressing your suggestions, we have applied appropriate corrections and amendments as follows:
Review #1
Reviewer’s comment
Describe acronym “DMOs” in the abstract
Reply
Appropriate correction was made by describing the acronym “DMO” and correcting a minor technical error in the text of the abstract.
Reviewer’s comment
Review written style and paper formatting styles
Reply
The text was reviewed and minor technical corrections have been applied; we are also counting on corrections of the journal’s technical editorial office at the final editing stage (after a positive final review).
Reviewer’s comment
Introduction: the research objectives and their importance should be highlighted. Paper motivations could be considerably strengthened by providing evidence, in practice and in theory, as to why is necessary to develop this proposal. Finally, there should be an overview of the rest of the research. This should be the last paragraph of the introduction.
Reply
The Introduction was supplemented with elements concerning the importance of the study against the purpose and motivation of the research in both the scientific and practical dimension. The directions of already conducted and missing research were indicated.
Reviewer’s comment
Discussion: Authors should show better the consequences and implications for academics/practitioners of the results
Reply
The issues of consequences and implications of the research results for scientists and practitioners were highlighted through additional provisions in the text.
Reviewer’s comment
In a research paper, a conclusion section is “mandatory”. Begin with a brief summary of paper motivations, objectives and findings. Finally, include your limitations and future research
Reply
The text was supplemented with the “Conclusion” section, and additionally, the areas of future research were referred to more precisely.
We would like to once again thank you for your positive review and ensure that we have verified all the shortcomings identified in our article. We hope that you will find our reply to the review complete and satisfactory.
With best regards,
the authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript, entitled Changes in DMO’s orientation and tools to support organizations in the era of the Covid-19 pandemic, is relevant to the journal's aims and scope. However, it still has some issues that need to be addressed. Below is my list of my suggestions for manuscript enhancement.
-The paper must be modified according to the journal's technical requirements. Different font sizes are used in the text and tables. The tables do not meet the journal's technical specifications.
-The presentation of the research methodology is inadequate. Is the questionnaire (included in the supplementary materials) constructed arbitrarily? The authors did not give the theoretical foundations or an overview of the prevalent perspectives in the literature upon which they chose the items of the questionnaire.
The research methodology is extremely descriptive and arbitrary.
The hypotheses are formulated in an overly generic and broad manner.
Additionally, additional information regarding the sampling process is required.
-The authors must compose a literature review that supports the ideas proposed. There is no connection between this research and other studies on the same subject.
-A graphical scheme of study design should be inserted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you very much for reviewing our paper.
We thank the Reviewers for noticing the positive aspects of our article, highlighting its validity and relevance, and confirming the value of the research idea. We also appreciate your accurate observations and comments indicated in the reviews. We agree with all your remarks.
Addressing your suggestions, we have applied appropriate corrections and amendments as follows:
Review #2
Reviewer’s comment
The paper must be modified according to the journal's technical requirements. Different font sizes are used in the text and tables. The tables do not meet the journal's technical specifications
Reply
The text was reviewed and minor technical corrections have been applied; we are also counting on corrections of the journal’s technical editorial office at the final editing stage (after a positive final review).
Reviewer’s comment
The presentation of the research methodology is inadequate. Is the questionnaire (included in the supplementary materials) constructed arbitrarily? The authors did not give the theoretical foundations or an overview of the prevalent perspectives in the literature upon which they chose the items of the questionnaire.
Reply
The description of the research methodology was developed, also recalling the scientific background for the adopted content of the questionnaire in the survey.
Reviewer’s comment
The research methodology is extremely descriptive and arbitrary. The hypotheses are formulated in an overly generic and broad manner. Additionally, additional information regarding the sampling process is required.
Reply
The description of the methodology was supplemented with the reference to additional scientific background, along with clarification of the method of sample selection for the study.
The three previously proposed hypotheses were corrected to make them more detailed.
Reviewer’s comment
The authors must compose a literature review that supports the ideas proposed. There is no connection between this research and other studies on the same subject.
Reply
The literature review was supplemented with content indicating the relationship between the authors' research and other scientific publications in related areas.
Reviewer’s comment
A graphical scheme of study design should be inserted.
Reply
An additional figure (no. 1) has been introduced (and the remaining ones have received new numbers) showing the scheme of the examination process.
We would like to once again thank you for your positive review and ensure that we have verified all the shortcomings identified in our article. We hope that you will find our reply to the review complete and satisfactory.
With best regards,
the authors
