Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the opportunity to read this manuscript, which presents a novel method and perspective for obtaining and analyzing tourism consumption data, as well as the research findings through the use of spatial analysis. The research's starting point is significant and valuable. However, as I read the manuscript, I developed the following concerns, which I believe should be raised and discussed with the authors:

 

1. Although the authors briefly discussed the data sources and benefits of OCR in the manuscript, as the source of the study's core data, it is recommended that the author explain the data structure of OCR in greater detail and conduct a more comprehensive and objective analysis of the data source's advantages and disadvantages. Only when the rationale for using OCR as the data source is made clear can readers appreciate the method's generality in future applications.

 

2. The authors note beneath the series of tables displayed in the manuscript that the data was calculated by the authors. I propose that the method and procedure for processing the data in the table be detailed. After all, the study's objective is to demonstrate a different data source and analysis method, which necessitates a detailed description of the process.

 

3. The authors mention in Section 3.1 of the manuscript that they use GIS to classify transit cities and refer to several classification indicators. However, as an expert assessment, the authors did not detail the preceding process and suggested that the fundamentals of expert assessment be included in the manuscript.

 

4. It is suggested that the authors expand on their explanation of visible tourism.

 

5. The conclusions in the manuscript's final paragraph on page 8 are not depicted clearly in Figure 3. The authors are advised to thoroughly check the figure's completeness and accuracy and to include any necessary text to explain it.

 

6. The OCR is obtained via an online connection between the national tax authority of Hungary and the cash register. Exist comparable data in other regions or countries? Is this method applicable in other regions? It is suggested that the authors make appropriate mentions of the aforementioned points.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed review. The requested and suggested modification were included in detail in the study. Changes are marked in red in the revised text.

According to points:

1.  „Although the authors briefly discussed the data sources and benefits of OCR in the manuscript, as the source of the study's core data, it is recommended that the author explain the data structure of OCR in greater detail and conduct a more comprehensive and objective analysis of the data source's advantages and disadvantages. Only when the rationale for using OCR as the data source is made clear can readers appreciate the method's generality in future applications.”

 A detailed description is provided in the 2.1 Online cash register’s data in Hungary section of this study.

2. „The authors note beneath the series of tables displayed in the manuscript that the data was calculated by the authors. I propose that the method and procedure for processing the data in the table be detailed. After all, the study's objective is to demonstrate a different data source and analysis method, which necessitates a detailed description of the process.”

 The data used in the table1,2,3 were derived from the settlement classification of role of tourism attraction and the settlement aggregation of the OCR data related to tourism as we integrated in the 3.1 section.

3. “The authors mention in Section 3.1 of the manuscript that they use GIS to classify transit cities and refer to several classification indicators. However, as an expert assessment, the authors did not detail the preceding process and suggested that the fundamentals of expert assessment be included in the manuscript.”

 

We supplemented in detail this topic in footnote 5 referring to the classification and built up a new subsection, namely 2.4. Delineation of the municipalities involved in transiting using GIS methods.

 

4. “It is suggested that the authors expand on their explanation of visible tourism.”

 

We have expanded the 2.3 Transiting as a crypto mobility activity section with the explanation of visible tourism.

 

5. “The conclusions in the manuscript's final paragraph on page 8 are not depicted clearly in Figure 3. The authors are advised to thoroughly check the figure's completeness and accuracy and to include any necessary text to explain it.”

 We modified the conclusion according to figure 3.

6. “The OCR is obtained via an online connection between the national tax authority of Hungary and the cash register. Exist comparable data in other regions or countries? Is this method applicable in other regions? It is suggested that the authors make appropriate mentions of the aforementioned points.”

 

We provided the requested information into the 2.1 Online cash register’s data in Hungary section of this study.

We really appreciate your review and thank you for your helpful suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW STATEMENT

Journal: sustainability

PAPER TITLE: (In)visible tourism according to online cash registers in Hungary, 2018-2020  

 

This is an important topic, which certainly has international validity. I felt the paper is somewhat interesting and about a unique case study, with a lot of potential but also needs some rework. These are discussed below for improvement

 

Abstract and Key words: the abstract is well crafted, it is butter to reorder the key words, Hungary comes at the end.

I recommend to replace the first paragraph (introduction section) to the end of the online cash register’s data in Hungary

What is HTO.

Thus the section of Materials and Methods needs more details such as time framework, duration of the collected data, how exactly data was collected, what are the procedures of data analysis.

 

Theoretical background: this section lacks the critical thinking approach and the identification of major trends, gaps in relation to the topic

 

Results:  the first two sections cannot be considered as results, I think they are more relevant to the adopted methods used for this study, thus, it is better to include them in the section of methods

The further sections are well and highly detailed

Tables and figures are fine

Summary statement: a very worthy subject. It needs to be reorganized, using the suggestions provided; I recommend the publication of this manuscript

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed review. The requested and suggested modification were included in detail in the study. Changes are marked in red in the revised text.

According to points:

1. “Abstract and Key words: the abstract is well crafted, it is butter to reorder the key words, Hungary comes at the end.”

We've modified the keywords accordingly.

 

2. “I recommend to replace the first paragraph (introduction section) to the end of the online cash register’s data in Hungary”

Considering the logical sequence of the subchapters, we tried to solve the requested modifications in the study by expanding the subchapters.

3. “What is HTO?”

HTO is the Hungarian Tax Authority. In the revised paper we use the official name of the Tax Authority: NTCA (National Tax and Customs Administration)

4. “Thus the section of Materials and Methods needs more details such as time framework, duration of the collected data, how exactly data was collected, what are the procedures of data analysis.

Theoretical background: this section lacks the critical thinking approach and the identification of major trends, gaps in relation to the topic”

 We expanded these two sections with the requested information.

5. “Results:  the first two sections cannot be considered as results, I think they are more relevant to the adopted methods used for this study, thus, it is better to include them in the section of methods”

We modified the results section to the “Outcomes, results” section. Because we feel, that the first two subsections are relevant outcomes of our study and strongly relate to the results.

We really appreciate your review and thank you for your helpful suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your manuscript.

The article presents an interesting topic. I found that, in the current global context, the topic addressed in the paper is certainly important.

The conclusions of the article are minimal, they could be developed.

What are the theoretical implications, the contribution of the article? What can other stakeholders learn from this?

Address the study's limitations and opportunities for future research. Of course the topic is of critical practical/managerial importance, however academic readers do appreciate that authors provide some guidelines as to what should follow from their research and findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed review. The requested and suggested modification were included in detail in the study. Changes are marked in red in the revised text.

According to points:

1. “The conclusions of the article are minimal, they could be developed.”
2. “What are the theoretical implications, the contribution of the article? What can other stakeholders learn from this?”
3. “Address the study's limitations and opportunities for future research. Of course the topic is of critical practical/managerial importance, however academic readers do appreciate that authors provide some guidelines as to what should follow from their research and findings.”

We fully agree with your review. We have expanded the Materials and Methods and the Conclusions section according to requests, comments and recommendations.

We really appreciate your review and thank you for your helpful suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the revision, I am satisfied with the current version.