Theoretical Nexus of Knowledge Management and Tourism Business Enterprise Competitiveness: An Integrated Overview

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the opportunity to read your paper. However, the paper seems as it is unfinished, it has no scientific or applicative value in its current form. Moreover:

 -      the title and the abstract do not properly address the content of the paper. Please revise this. Your abstract should clearly present in a coherent matter: the problem and subject of the paper, the methodology, main findings and contribution of the paper.  

-        -Also, reconsider your keywords, for instance tourism enterprise is a major variable in your study but not represented as a keyword

-      -  Introduction does not give and present purpose and aim of the paper, nor it provides the main impetus for a paper. Introduction is not clear, it does not establish a niche, identifies a gap, and occupies the gap and has no relation to previous literature. It is not clear why it is important to study the problem defined. The authors should more clearly emphasize and analyze what they consider as a main contribution of their paper. In the introduction authors should provide (1) what we currently know; (2) What we do not know and (3) paper objectives and how does this paper contribute to filling out his gap. The introduction misses a clear reasoning for the paper based on existing studies (research gap). Currently, it is not clear, from the introduction, what are the goals, objectives and originality of the paper. Explain clearly the choice of your variables

-      -  why orienting exactly on culture of quality – why this specific type

-     -   the rationale for studying 4 theoretical frameworks is missing

-        - the paper has no applicative or scientific value.

-       - it is theoretical in nature, which is acceptable, but the contributions are weak. The paper is quite general and only tackling superficially the problem

-      -  The paper should be more deeply studied, additional literate should be incorporated

-        Paper should be more coherent, logical, and totally rewritten

Author Response

Reply to the first Reviewer.

 1. The title and the abstract do not properly address the content of the paper. Please revise this. Your abstract should clearly present in a coherent matter: the problem and subject of the paper, the methodology, main findings and contribution of the paper. 

Reply- The title and the abstract has been re-written.  

2. Also, reconsider your keywords, for instance tourism enterprise is a major variable in your study but not represented as a keyword.

Reply- This has been addressed.

3. Introduction does not give and present purpose and aim of the paper, nor it provides the main impetus for a paper. Introduction is not clear, it does not establish a niche, identifies a gap, and occupies the gap and has no relation to previous literature. It is not clear why it is important to study the problem defined. The authors should more clearly emphasize and analyze what they consider as a main contribution of their paper. In the introduction authors should provide (1) what we currently know; (2) What we do not know and (3) paper objectives and how does this paper contribute to filling out his gap. The introduction misses a clear reasoning for the paper based on existing studies (research gap). Currently, it is not clear, from the introduction, what are the goals, objectives and originality of the paper. Explain clearly the choice of your variables

Reply- Introduction has been re-written. 

4. Why orienting exactly on culture of quality – why this specific type

Reply- When doing a comprehensive root cause study of a failing tourist business enterprise (TBE), organizational and service quality cultural issues are typically found to be at the center of the problem. The business's ethos of quality, or its culture of quality, is essential to its survival and growth, especially in the tourism business.

5. The rationale for studying 4 theoretical frameworks is missing

Reply- 

Importance of resource-based theory

The resource-based theory or resource-based approach helps to identify the resources that are accessible within the organization and, in a quiet way, evaluates them with its capabilities, thus taking into account the gain and the value aspect associated with the company.

Importance of knowledge-based theory

The main determinants of sustained competitive advantage and superior corporate performance are knowledge-based resources, typically challenging to imitate, and socially complex, varied knowledge bases and capacities among enterprises.

Importance of Institutional theory and Enterprise Competitiveness

The seminal publications that addressed how corporate formation and evolution were controlled through instrumental purposes and more by symbolic actions and external pressures than the concept at the age presumed are where organizational behavior started.

The Institutional theory and Enterprise Competitiveness

which states that human and ecological elements play a crucial role in establishing an isomorphic impact, influencing the adoption of specific management techniques such as equal management systems. When external factors drive a business, it will only comply on a superficial level, and its quality policy and subsequent quality management will see less advancement.

Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Enterprise Competitiveness

Which is "the tourism sector's ability to consolidate, establish, and adapt to change to grasp the phenomenon." As opposed to operational skills, which focus on the present, a company's dynamic capabilities may help it adapt to new situations. But if completely incorporated as a component of a more comprehensive strategy, it can support transaction cost/governance issues and broaden the spectrum of occurrences that can be described.

6. the paper has no applicative or scientific value.

Reply- It has been rewritten.

7. it is theoretical in nature, which is acceptable, but the contributions are weak. The paper is quite general and only tackling superficially the problem.

Reply- It has been rewritten.

7. The paper should be more deeply studied, additional literate should be incorporated

Reply- Literature has been added.

8. Paper should be more coherent, logical, and totally rewritten

Reply- Paper has been rewritten.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

First of all, I have found it difficult to manage through the text and give comments as it is not a template that numbers the lines of text. I don't know if the form has changed, but it is more convenient to indicate suggestions if you can tell which particular line of text you are on.

Here are some comments I would like to share:

-On page 2, second paragraph, there is some typo. A sentence begins in parentheses and it should not be like that. Also, the parenthesis does not close : "(From a special issue of Organization Science published in February, (1991) As a result".

In general, I understand that it is an Opinion text, and that in that case the length is different from a Paper. However, it seems to me that, since it is a theoretical proposal, more bibliographical references could be indicated; previous works on the subject. In addition, proposals for the future, prospective proposals could be included, indicating fields of action where progress has not yet been made in this area with concrete examples that help to understand the proposal.

Best regards

Author Response

Here are some comments I would like to share:

1. On page 2, second paragraph, there is some typo. A sentence begins in parentheses and it should not be like that. Also, the parenthesis does not close : "(From a special issue of Organization Science published in February, (1991) As a result".

Reply- The entire manuscript has been rewritten.

2. In general, I understand that it is an Opinion text, and that in that case the length is different from a Paper. However, it seems to me that, since it is a theoretical proposal, more bibliographical references could be indicated; previous works on the subject. In addition, proposals for the future, prospective proposals could be included, indicating fields of action where progress has not yet been made in this area with concrete examples that help to understand the proposal

Reply- The entire manuscript has been rewritten.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors provide an integrated overview of the theoretical relationship between knowledge management and tourism. The choice of topics seems very promising. However, it is regrettable that the specificities specific to tourism are not well represented in the work. The authors often formulate generalities that have already been discussed in several previous studies. In any case, as the title suggests, the focus should be on the specificities of the combined dimension of tourism and knowledge management, supported by examples, so that the authors can grasp very general truths. I suggest a major revision of the work.

Author Response

Reviewer 3.

The authors provide an integrated overview of the theoretical relationship between knowledge management and tourism. The choice of topics seems very promising. However, it is regrettable that the specificities specific to tourism are not well represented in the work. The authors often formulate generalities that have already been discussed in several previous studies. In any case, as the title suggests, the focus should be on the specificities of the combined dimension of tourism and knowledge management, supported by examples, so that the authors can grasp very general truths. I suggest a major revision of the work

Reply- The entire article has been rewritten.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for adressing reviewers's comments. In this form the paper seems good for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

 I accept it in present form.