Hainan Sport Tourism Development—A SWOT Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear Authors,
It can be seen that you took into account most of the considerations suggested in this second version of the article. However, it still presents some lack of attention to detail in terms of formatting and the it requires some spell check English language and style.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your review. Below is your review:
It can be seen that you took into account most of the considerations suggested in this second version of the article. However, it still presents some lack of attention to detail in terms of formatting and the it requires some spell check English language and style.
We actually asked MDPI's English service to review, reformat, and proofread the paper. We think everything is good to go.
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Authors made the recommended chenges.
Paper has been improved both in the introduction part and in the following ones. References has been modified as required by the editorial policy of the journal.
Conclusions are now more complete and exhaustive
It's belived that paper can fit
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your review. Below is your review:
Authors made the recommended changes.
Paper has been improved both in the introduction part and in the following ones. References has been modified as required by the editorial policy of the journal.
Conclusions are now more complete and exhaustive
It's belived that paper can fit
Again, thank you so much for your review. Although you did not ask us to add anything into the paper, I asked MDPI English Service to review, reformat, and proofread the paper.
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Thank you to the Authors for improving the article in line with my comments. The work looks much better, although there are still serious shortcomings. I propose to adapt the entire article to the journal's requirements.
I believe that the scope of the cited literature is still too limited and very old, especially in the scope of the cited publications, e.g. concerning Krakow. In this regard, I propose the latest research by prof. Z. Kruczek and. B. Walas, or M. Naramski, or M. Żemła.
Unfortunately, the authors unnecessarily try to convince the reader that what they presented in chapter 4 is also a Discussion. Unfortunately there is no discussion there. The discussion is based on a polemic with the views of other researchers, mainly those cited in the literature review. I propose to revise this chapter.
Please supplement the thesis with information on what the SWOT analysis brings to the teachings that the authors represent and to Sustainability. It's about scientific importance.
Meeting these requirements is a condition for my acceptance of the article.
Good luck!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your review. below is your review and we provide a point-by-point response to your comments:
I believe that the scope of the cited literature is still too limited and very old, especially in the scope of the cited publications, e.g. concerning Krakow. In this regard, I propose the latest research by prof. Z. Kruczek and. B. Walas, or M. Naramski, or M. Żemła.
From Authors: Thank you so much. We have added a couple of new references regarding Krakow.
Unfortunately, the authors unnecessarily try to convince the reader that what they presented in chapter 4 is also a Discussion. Unfortunately there is no discussion there. The discussion is based on a polemic with the views of other researchers, mainly those cited in the literature review. I propose to revise this chapter.
Thank you so much! This is an excellent pointing regarding chapter 4. We actually did not give Chapter 4 a title of “Results and Discussion”. Chapter 5 was tilted “Discussion and Conclusion”. However, in the first review round, one of reviewers said we should change the title to “Main findings and Conclusion” and asked us to change Chapter 4 from “Results” to “Results and Discussion”. So this is the reason why you see Chapter 4 has “discussion” although it is not about discussion. We agree with your comment and deleted “discussion” from chapter 4 and added it to chapter 5.
Please supplement the thesis with information on what the SWOT analysis brings to the teachings that the authors represent and to Sustainability. It's about scientific importance.
Again, this is an excellent pointing. We added the following sentences: “In addition, although the traditional SWOT analysis focused on identifying the current situation and existing issues regarding Hainan sport tourism, it can help us to determine a sustainable development strategy such as appropriate policy implementation, driving action, or collaboration regarding environmental challenges to motivate all stakeholders to work together to create long-term value [51,52]. In the SWOT analysis of this paper, market and policy were at the center of all dimensions, which forces us to consider these two variables as being decision-making factors for sport tourism development.”
Authors
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for analyzing an interesting topic in your manuscript.
Some comments and suggestions for improvement are presented below:
1. Your article should follow the Sustainability Template;
2. Introduction should be improved. More examples of sport tourism impacts should be provided.
3. In Introduction, it is mandatory to include a paragraph with an explanation of the structure of the article, with a brief description of each topic.
4. On literature review topic, only one subtitle should be provided. Please eliminate "Previous Research on Sport Tourism".
5. Reconsider agglutinate the other titles in one or two. The information is too dispersed.
6. Please describe your methodologic approach and change the title "Research sites", reformulating the paragraph: Among many sports-related tourism sites and agencies in Hainan, we chose NBA training center, Haikou Sea People Sailing Windsurfing Club, Sanya Beiwei Water Sports Center, and International Big Regatta Co. LTD based on type of sports, location, potentiality, and popularity (graph 1).
7. Graph 1 should be substitute by Figure 1, considering there is no graph, but a map. Please update the map (the source is from 2002!).
8. Synthesize in a table the different research sites characteristics.
9. Substitute the title "Result" with "Results and Discussion.
10. Substitute the title "Discussion and Conclusion" by "Main findings and conclusions".
11. Include two last paragraphs, mentioning the limitations of the study and presenting avenues for future research.
10. Substitute the title "Reference" with "References". As underlined in previous comments, references must be updated with recent publications because most of the citations refer to the 80’s and 90’s...
Best regards,
The Reviewer
Reviewer 2 Report
1. References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text, as per editorial standards. The reference should only consist of a number;
2. It would be interesting to do a paragraph with specific data on tourism in Hainan island (with statistical figures on sports tourism), ideally with a timespan of the last 10 years and possibly broken down by tourism type. Having precise and well-segmented data available is important in order to analyze the potential for growth of the tourism industry in an area. For example, when you said "Travelling for sports purpose is the top motivation for travelers who come to visit Hainan" (in the conclusion), no baseline data is given;
3. In the conclusion a distinction is made between “sport tourism” and “sports tourism”. It would be appropriate to include this distinction in the introduction, where the birth of sports tourism is mentioned and it would be appropriate to add some references;
4. Table 1 shows information about the subjects interviewed for the purpose of SWOT analysis. Overall, there were 7 subjects interviewed. Although these are qualified and experienced subjects, it seems to me that this is a rather limited number of subjects to carry out an analysis on the development strategies of an entire territory. I think it is necessary to increase the number of interviews to at least 30 interviews.
5. Conclusions could be expanded, in particular around the strategies to be put into practice.
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the article is neither properly prepared for publication nor for review. The lack of line numbering makes this process difficult. The method of citation and other elements of the article were also not adjusted.
In terms of content-related comments, it should be stated that:
- Authors should clearly state the purpose of their article. It is worth noting that 'analysis' is not a goal but a way to achieve research goals. I propose to formulate them in the introduction.
- The course of the argument is very correct but simplified. Some of the passages and terms given in Chinese (Results) are problematic.
- The article has no discussion or proper methodological description. The results are presented in the form of general analyzes with no scientific justification. The scope of the literature is too limited.
The reviewed work is not suitable for publication.
