Application of a Decision-Making Tool for Ranking Wellness Tourism Destinations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is an attempt to apply multicriterial methods in the evaluation of tourism destinations. The article is a case study of the use of existing analytical tools. No scientific hypotheses are formulated. In my opinion, the research does not expand the field of knowledge. They do not bring new information. The questionnaire research was very laconically and vaguely described. The methodology in this regard is inadequate. The presentation of the results is very poor quality they are print screens of generally available applications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Your paper needs some improvements in order to be published. The literature review section needs a deeper approach since the topic is wide, so the references must also be increased. The results and discussion section is missing a technical approach since the results are not discussed just exposed (eg: line 513which means that these two criteria need to be improved. please offer solutions and also compare to other researches
it is just an example but there are many other similar cases
A better description of the managerial implications and future perspectives,
good luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting article, the literature reviewed is contemporary and relevant. Perhaps the authors were insufficiently precise in describing the methodological implementation of the research. We do not learn anything about the experts who reviewed the criteria, how they came to their decisions, on what basis they later omitted specific criteria, etc. There is also a lack of data on the survey and respondents... Findings and conclusions are not discussed in depth and are not supported by reference literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Figures must be improved.
Author Response
We would like to thank again to the reviewer for the constructive and useful comments which help us to improve our manuscript. We have done our best to address them. Below, we respond to the reviewer report the changes made in the revised manuscript accordingly.
Dear Reviewer
Related to your last comment in this revised version, we tried to improve the figures. Thank you so much!
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I noticed that you improved you manuscript according to the suggestions but you said you did not find similar studies in Portugal. They shouldn t be neccessarly from Portugal but from other countries too
Author Response
We would like to thank again to the reviewer for the constructive and useful comments which help us to improve our manuscript. We have done our best to address them. Below, we respond to the reviewer and report the changes made in the revised manuscript accordingly.
Dear Reviewer
Related to your last comment in this revised version, we found a similar study and added this to the conclusion. Thank you so much!
