Review Reports - Cooperative Tourism Marketing in Accessible Tourism Development: The Case of the Cross-Border Area of Greece–Republic of Northern Macedonia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written. It addresses the importance of cross-border cooperation and accessibility in tourism and in a few lines presents a comparative analysis of the accessibility of tourism businesses in Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia. Furthermore, the paper examines the characteristics of tourism businesses, their level of accessibility, and the willingness of entrepreneurs to invest in accessibility and staff training.

I would suggest the following as the "perfect is the enemy of good":

Increase sample size: The study included a relatively small sample size of 50 tourism businesses from the Republic of North Macedonia and 134 from Greece. A larger sample size would have provided more robust and representative results.

Add qualitative data: The paper relied solely on quantitative data from the survey questionnaire. In such a politically sensitive region, Including qualitative data, such as interviews or focus groups, could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the accessibility issues and perspectives of tourism businesses.

More detailed questionnaire information: The specific details of the questionnaire are not provided in the available sources. This lack of information makes it difficult to assess the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

Finally, conclusions must be extended and also mention further research opportunities and also limitations of the paper.

Author Response

I would suggest the following as the "perfect is the enemy of good":

As added to the text, in total there are 13,768 tourism businesses in the study area. However, the survey was designed to be conducted online, so the population resulted in 9,352 tourism businesses, as the rest did not have a publicly accessible email address or the email address was incorrect. The sample size resulted in 184 companies that constituted the companies that completed the questionnaire, with a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of 6%. This is a limited number, but as added to the text the purpose of the present research is not to create a report with details about the accessibility of the businesses but to examine the similarities and differences between the two countries in order to create a first step towards a future common brand.

Add qualitative data: The paper relied solely on quantitative data from the survey questionnaire. In such a politically sensitive region, including qualitative data, such as interviews or focus groups, could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the accessibility issues and perspectives of tourism businesses.

Qualitative data could significantly enhance the results, which is a limitation of the research and a suggestion for future investigation.

Analytical details on the contents of the questionnaire were added, while the results of the reliability analysis from the Cronbach's alpha test were also added.

Finally, conclusions must be extended and also mention further research opportunities and also limitations of the paper.

The limitations are added and also some further research opportunities.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled"Cooperative Tourism Marketing in Accessible Tourism development. The case of the cross-border area of Greece-Republic of Northern Macedonia." This is an interesting topic. However, I don't think the paper has reached the level of publication. The content of the paper is relatively simple. The research methods are not scientific enough, and the conclusions lack significance.

1. The literature review is very routine. More theories should be introduced.

2.The method is poor. How to ensure it is scientific? The hypothesis is also simple. More work needs to be done.

3.what's the innovation of the paper? The paper is more like a report, not paper.

4. In my opinion, the authors should rewrite the paper.

it is ok

Author Response

The paper entitled "Cooperative Tourism Marketing in Accessible Tourism development. The case of the cross-border area of Greece-Republic of Northern Macedonia." This is an interesting topic. However, I don't think the paper has reached the level of publication. The content of the paper is relatively simple. The research methods are not scientific enough, and the conclusions lack significance.

The literature review is very routine. More theories should be introduced.

The concept of social tourism was introduced, which is an important challenge in the pursuit of sustainable tourism development, given the high potential of accessible tourism. In general, the main theories that frame the article are accessible tourism, sustainable tourism, social tourism, and how these three concepts can form the background for enhancing the competitiveness and diversification of the study area under consideration. Given the geographical location, the theoretical approach includes border regions and their particularities.

The method is poor. How to ensure it is scientific? The hypothesis is also simple. More work needs to be done.

Additional facts have been added to the text regarding the scientific approach to the research hypothesis, as well as the rationale of the research which came during the project 'ALTER TRIP: Alternative Touristic Experience'. Moreover, analytical details on the contents of the questionnaire were added, while the results of the reliability analysis from the Cronbach's alpha test were also added.

what's the innovation of the paper? The paper is more like a report, not paper.

The scientific contribution and innovation of the article lies in the fact that no comparative data on accessibility are available both for the study area and for other cross-border regions worldwide. The creation of a common brand requires the investigation of the existing status, not just as a report but as a comparative analysis, where the similarities and differences are identified and therefore, the points where the cooperation will be able to consolidate and end up being successful.

In my opinion, the authors should rewrite the paper.

Additions have been made both to the literature review and to the description and documentation of the methodology, which have enriched the text. Also, research limitations and possible future research directions were added.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, the topic of your article is very interesting and important. I believe that research aimed at studying the provision of tourist services to people with medical problems, or restrictions related to age, is very important. Sustainable tourism is equal opportunity tourism for everyone, regardless of age and health.

But we understand that in this case we are talking about social tourism. The article submitted for review indicates that the work is about social tourism, but this problem - the development of social tourism - in the article did not receive decent coverage.

The review of the Methodology is extremely limited and should be expanded. And most importantly: social tourism - involves financing at the expense of the state, sponsors, social funds, etc. In this work, the authors considered the technical side of the provision of social tourism services and the educational basis for employees of organizations providing these services, but the issue of financing was not considered.

And also should pay attention to the regulatory and legal support for the provision of services to this category of tourists: are all the requirements met? who oversees the security of services?

Probably, in this case, the study takes on a broader significance, but I believe that this will allow a more comprehensive analysis of this problem.

Perhaps it is necessary to add to the list of organizations providing services to people with medical problems - rest homes or sanatoriums, of which there are probably a lot in the study area. As well as issues of promoting services for this category of tourists using social networks or the Internet.

In general, I will recommend the material for publication, but after revising the article.

Author Response

But we understand that in this case we are talking about social tourism. The article submitted for review indicates that the work is about social tourism, but this problem - the development of social tourism - in the article did not receive decent coverage.

The concept of social tourism was added to the text, which is an important challenge in the pursuit of sustainable tourism development, given the high potential of accessible tourism.

The review of the Methodology is extremely limited and should be expanded.

Analytical details on the contents of the questionnaire were added, while the results of the reliability analysis from the Cronbach's alpha test were also added.

And most importantly: social tourism - involves financing at the expense of the state, sponsors, social funds, etc. In this work, the authors considered the technical side of the provision of social tourism services and the educational basis for employees of organizations providing these services, but the issue of financing was not considered.

The issue of funding was not studied here, apart from exploring the willingness of entrepreneurs to invest money in building accessibility and training their staff. The source of funding is perhaps the subject of further investigation in the future.

And also should pay attention to the regulatory and legal support for the provision of services to this category of tourists: are all the requirements met? who oversees the security of services? Probably, in this case, the study takes on a broader significance, but I believe that this will allow a more comprehensive analysis of this problem.

The requirements are obviously not met in 100% of the tourism businesses, according to the results of the research, and this is precisely the most important finding, combined with the great desire to correct this problem. The similarity between the levels of accessibility in the two countries could be a great opportunity for cooperation to ensure the desired 100%. But this is probably another step at the research level.

This specific research was carried out in the framework of the project 'ALTER TRIP: Alternative Touristic Experience' which specifically focuses on tourism businesses of general interest (hotels, restaurants, café-bars, sports facilities). It would be interesting to extend the research in the future to organizations providing services to people with medical problems. Likewise, we consider the issue of promotion to be another step at the research level.

In general, I will recommend the material for publication, but after revising the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised the paper Substantively. Hence, the paper can be accepted.

The paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, thank you for your attention to the comments I made. I read the revised text of the article. In my opinion, he has become more informative.

I understand that the purpose of your work was not to study the financial and financial support of the functioning of social tourism. Perhaps if you continue your research, you will be able to analyze this problem as well.

I note another point that the concept of social tourism (lines 96-105) is not entirely correct. Social tourism is not only tourism for the disabled, it is any type of tourism (from children's, youth, trade union to tourism for the elderly and disabled), which is partially or fully funded by the state or social funds. But I understand that the problem of the concept of "social tourism" was not the purpose of your research.

Perhaps in the course of further research you can move to a new level of immersion in the problem.

However, at the moment I recommend the work for publication