Next Article in Journal
Institutions Rule in Export Diversity
Next Article in Special Issue
Course of Values of Key Performance Indicators in City Hotels during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Poland Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Cognitive Accessibility in Rural Heritage: A New Proposal for the Archaeological Landscape of Castulo
Previous Article in Special Issue
Beyond Airbnb. Determinants of Customer Satisfaction in P2P Accommodation in Time of COVID-19
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Changes in DMO’s Orientation and Tools to Support Organizations in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11611; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811611
by Wojciech Fedyk 1, Mariusz Sołtysik 1, Justyna Bagińska 2,*, Mateusz Ziemba 3, Małgorzata Kołodziej 4 and Jacek Borzyszkowski 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11611; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811611
Submission received: 16 August 2022 / Revised: 10 September 2022 / Accepted: 13 September 2022 / Published: 15 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Trends in Tourism under COVID-19 and Future Implications)

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

 

Back to TopTop