Understanding the Complexity of Rural Tourism Business: Scholarly Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read an interesting article on identifying and analysing the four core driving forces that shaped the complex picture of rural tourist businesses.

The issue under discussion is fundamental in considering the viability of rural tourist businesses.

The proposed approach based on bibliometric analysis certainly organises the existing knowledge, so its results are worth publishing.

I suggest extending the conclusions, as the material collected allows for a broader discussion concerning, for example, the identification and justification of potential research gaps.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read an interesting article on identifying and analysing the four core driving forces that shaped the complex picture of rural tourist businesses.

The issue under discussion is fundamental in considering the viability of rural tourist businesses.

The proposed approach based on bibliometric analysis certainly organises the existing knowledge, so its results are worth publishing.

I suggest extending the conclusions, as the material collected allows for a broader discussion concerning, for example, the identification and justification of potential research gaps.

Response: We very much appreciate the time and effort that the Reviewer dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We have incorporated the suggestions made by the Reviewer. We have added the potential research gaps, extending the conclusions and discussion as well. The changes are marked within yellow highlight.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall comment: the theme and methodology are interesting. Although the paper is not well developed and structured, the conceptual development framework can be improved, and the discussion and conclusion part can be elaborate more. 

In the introduction, the authors mainly described the definition and characteristics of rural tourism without providing the research's urgency, factual and theoretical issues. Too many descriptive and unnecessary parts should be reconsidered to put in the article, like the paragraph of rows 58 - 65.

The structure and flow of the article are not well organized and choppy from part 1 to part 2. Also, the study aim was stated later after the literature review. I'm well aware that you are doing a review study, but I believe it's still important to structure your paper systematically. Please look at the other highly reputable published articles and restructure your introduction and literature review part as they should. 

More explanation should be added regarding the "rural tourism business" before moving to its establishment process. 

Row 106 – 107, you stated, "By analyzing the various literature that discussed the businesses creation lifecycle in 106 different fields related to rural tourism such as agritourism/agrotourism, farm tourism…" please clearly state who are these various authors you refer to and elaborate further regarding the process of developing this conceptual framework ( for instance, a summary table of each component in your framework along with the references). 

Rows 122 - 138 are not cited yet and better be divided into two paragraphs. 

The figure of the conceptual framework and its description is not well related.  In the description, you stated that the process begins stage by stage, starting with resources, then the local community, then moving to the RT business, and the last one is management. However, in the figure, it is as if each stage influences one another (see the arrows). Please clarify this. 

Why was the database used for the research only Scopus and not others? This means that the authors have referred to and, by implication, targeted particular audiences. In that sense, the paper stays within this realm, reducing its potential impact and audience despite the paper's own finding that collaboration between different groups and audiences is beneficial. 

I would have expected a discussion and a conclusion that would best distil the research's significance and originality, the possibilities of its transferability and the possible developments of the research in a little bit more generous way. Thus, please elaborate on the discussion and conclusion part by also comparing (or contrasting) the study finding with previous studies. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall comment: the theme and methodology are interesting. Although the paper is not well developed and structured, the conceptual development framework can be improved, and the discussion and conclusion part can be elaborate more. 

In the introduction, the authors mainly described the definition and characteristics of rural tourism without providing the research's urgency, factual and theoretical issues. Too many descriptive and unnecessary parts should be reconsidered to put in the article, like the paragraph of rows 58 - 65.

Response: After improving, broadening and restructuring our manuscript according to the Reviewers comments, we also removed previous rows 58-65 and corrected as the reviewer’s suggestion. We hope it will be acceptable this time. Thank you for the suggestion.

The structure and flow of the article are not well organized and choppy from part 1 to part 2. Also, the study aim was stated later after the literature review. I'm well aware that you are doing a review study, but I believe it's still important to structure your paper systematically. Please look at the other highly reputable published articles and restructure your introduction and literature review part as they should. 

More explanation should be added regarding the "rural tourism business" before moving to its establishment process. 

Row 106 – 107, you stated, "By analyzing the various literature that discussed the businesses creation lifecycle in 106 different fields related to rural tourism such as agritourism/agrotourism, farm tourism…" please clearly state who are these various authors you refer to and elaborate further regarding the process of developing this conceptual framework ( for instance, a summary table of each component in your framework along with the references). 

Response: We added a summary table as and more explanation about “business” as the reviewer’s suggestion. We also made a summary table as seen on Table 3.

Rows 122 - 138 are not cited yet and better be divided into two paragraphs. 

Response: We added a citation and break the paragraph as the reviewer’s suggestion

The figure of the conceptual framework and its description is not well related.  In the description, you stated that the process begins stage by stage, starting with resources, then the local community, then moving to the RT business, and the last one is management. However, in the figure, it is as if each stage influences one another (see the arrows). Please clarify this. 

Response: we corrected the figure (especially the arrows)

Why was the database used for the research only Scopus and not others? This means that the authors have referred to and, by implication, targeted particular audiences. In that sense, the paper stays within this realm, reducing its potential impact and audience despite the paper's own finding that collaboration between different groups and audiences is beneficial. 

 Response: We use Scopus because it provides access to important, top-notch research being undertaken and published in developing countries due to its greater coverage of emerging markets. This helps many scholars all over the world especially emerging world to have a more comprehensive grasp of fair access to information.

I would have expected a discussion and a conclusion that would best distil the research's significance and originality, the possibilities of its transferability and the possible developments of the research in a little bit more generous way. Thus, please elaborate on the discussion and conclusion part by also comparing (or contrasting) the study finding with previous studies. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article analyses a topic that has generated a significant output of research articles in recent years. In this sense, the article provides descriptive knowledge about the bibliographical production on rural tourism, linking it to four driving forces. This is undoubtedly the most original aspect.

In relation to the article there are a number of comments that the authors should take into account:

They should replace the key word agrotourism with rural tourism, as it is much more inclusive.

When the authors talk about different definitions and activities related to rural tourism, they should link these nuances to the geographical areas they come from. 

One cannot generalise with the statement included in the article that reads. 

"Despite these negative impacts that may result from various rural tourism activities, the positives have still outweighed the negatives, increasing the importance of this type of tourism pattern and bringing it to the attention of the different tourism industry actors globally". There are examples where poor management has led to the failure of rural tourism initiatives.

Please use data to support this statement to make it more rigorous: Rural tourism businesses are considered a fast-growing tourism sector in many countries, especially in EU territory, such as Hungary, France, Poland, Italy and the Czech Republic.

Introduce a discussion section in which you interpret the results, indicate whether they are consistent with other similar research and reflect on the results.

Author Response

The article analyses a topic that has generated a significant output of research articles in recent years. In this sense, the article provides descriptive knowledge about the bibliographical production of rural tourism, linking it to four driving forces. This is undoubtedly the most original aspect.

In relation to the article there are a number of comments that the authors should take into account:

They should replace the keyword agrotourism with rural tourism, as it is much more inclusive.

Response: we agreed and changed it as per the reviewer’s suggestion

When the authors talk about different definitions and activities related to rural tourism, they should link these nuances to the geographical areas they come from. 

One cannot generalise with the statement included in the article that reads. 

"Despite these negative impacts that may result from various rural tourism activities, the positives have still outweighed the negatives, increasing the importance of this type of tourism pattern and bringing it to the attention of the different tourism industry actors globally". There are examples where poor management has led to the failure of rural tourism initiatives.

Response: we agreed and added some explanation to make a clearer statement.

Please use data to support this statement to make it more rigorous: Rural tourism businesses are considered a fast-growing tourism sector in many countries, especially in EU territories, such as Hungary, France, Poland, Italy and the Czech Republic.

Response: thank you for your suggestion. We found and added more data about the EU’s support for rural tourism as seen in Table 2.

Introduce a discussion section in which you interpret the results, indicate whether they are consistent with other similar research and reflect on the results.

Response: We added other similar research in the discussion section as suggested by the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revision. The manuscript is now much better structured and readable. I appreciate that the authors have revised the manuscript accordingly to my previous feedback. However, there is still some space for improvement.

First, I wonder why the literature review part is deleted. For this kind of paper, some premises would be necessary, mainly to introduce how the authors came up with the four driving factors as your proposed search queries. To put it simply, I have been wondering why you first chose marketability, participatory, crisis mitigation, and sustainability as the keywords for your analysis. This is an important part and yet still missing in the paper. Thus, I highly encourage you to add a preliminary discussion on the rural tourism business and the four driving factors that shape it. You can put this section after the introduction and before the methodology. 

Second, I'm unsure about your analysis and argument in section 3.1. For instance, I doubt the relevancy of your additional sentences on Row 177 - 180 and Table 2 could support your findings on the "rural tourism settings" cluster. What is the relationship between EU rural tourism development financing policies and your result? The result only refers to two European countries, Spain and Italy, yet you generalize it in the broader context of Europe. I suggest you narrow down your argument to the Spain and Italy context. Also, on Rows 197 - 199, you mentioned that there is an opportunity for future research on coastal tourism and avitourism. Please elaborate more on why your result on the second cluster will be relevant to these two types of tourism. Also, on the third cluster, you stated that the existence of some keywords is driven by the dynamic progress of the rural tourism industry in China. Is this merely your assumption, or is there any scientific data that supports this statement? 

Please put previous studies that support all your findings in section 3.1, so that the readers will not speculate that your statements are based on your assumptions only. 

Lastly, I have mentioned in my previous feedback that I suggest the authors elaborate more on the discussion and conclusion by comparing or contrasting the study findings with previous studies. Please add this to your next revised manuscript.   

Author Response

Thank you for the revision. The manuscript is now much better structured and readable. I appreciate that the authors have revised the manuscript accordingly to my previous feedback. However, there is still some space for improvement.

First, I wonder why the literature review part is deleted. For this kind of paper, some premises would be necessary, mainly to introduce how the authors came up with the four driving factors as your proposed search queries. To put it simply, I have been wondering why you first chose marketability, participatory, crisis mitigation, and sustainability as the keywords for your analysis. This is an important part and yet still missing in the paper. Thus, I highly encourage you to add a preliminary discussion on the rural tourism business and the four driving factors that shape it. You can put this section after the introduction and before the methodology. 

Response: We very much appreciate the time and effort that the Reviewer dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We have put the Literature Review segment of our manuscript based on the suggestion of the Reviewer, thus a preliminary discussion on the rural tourism business and the four driving factors are presented.

Second, I'm unsure about your analysis and argument in section 3.1. For instance, I doubt the relevancy of your additional sentences on Row 177 - 180 and Table 2 could support your findings on the "rural tourism settings" cluster. What is the relationship between EU rural tourism development financing policies and your result? The result only refers to two European countries, Spain and Italy, yet you generalize it in the broader context of Europe. I suggest you narrow down your argument to the Spain and Italy context.

Response: Thank you for the comment an explanation was inserted in the text and the table about EU financing has been eliminated since it doesn’t correlate with the bibliometric analysis employed.

Also, on Rows 197 - 199, you mentioned that there is an opportunity for future research on coastal tourism and avitourism. Please elaborate more on why your result on the second cluster will be relevant to these two types of tourism. Also, on the third cluster, you stated that the existence of some keywords is driven by the dynamic progress of the rural tourism industry in China. Is this merely your assumption, or is there any scientific data that supports this statement? Please put previous studies that support all your findings in section 3.1, so that the readers will not speculate that your statements are based on your assumptions only. 

Response: Thank you for the comment an explanation was inserted in the text linked with the VosViewer result.

Lastly, I have mentioned in my previous feedback that I suggest the authors elaborate more on the discussion and conclusion by comparing or contrasting the study findings with previous studies. Please add this to your next revised manuscript.  

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! An elaboration of the comparison or contrast with previous studies has been added in every sub-topic of the discussion chapter.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article can be accepted after the modifications made

Author Response

Response: We very much appreciate the time and effort that the Reviewer dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We have put the Literature Review segment of our manuscript based on the suggestion of the Reviewer, thus a preliminary discussion on the rural tourism business and the four driving factors are presented. An elaboration of the comparison or contrast with previous studies has been added in every sub-topic of the discussion chapter.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your revision. Now it's way better than the other two previous versions.