Co-Creation of Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality Experiences: Education and Organizations in Search of New Business Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I hope this letter finds you well. I have carefully reviewed your research paper titled “Co-creation sustainable tourism and hospitality experiences: education and organizations in search of new business models “, that was submitted to Sustainability journal. I appreciate the effort and time you invested in conducting this study and preparing the manuscript for publication.

 

However, after a thorough evaluation, I regret to inform you that I can not accept your research paper for publication in its current form. I understand that this decision may be disappointing, but please consider my feedback and suggestions for future revisions and potential resubmission to other journals or conferences.

 

My assessment of your research paper identified the following areas of concern:

 

·         Research Gap and Contribution: The paper did not sufficiently address a clear research gap or provide a significant contribution to the field. It is essential to clearly establish the novelty and significance of your study in relation to the existing body of literature.

 

·         The literature review part missing the academic writing style and looks like writing a book chapter .

 

·         Methodology: you employed a qualitative approach with a specific case study that prevents the generalization ability of the study results.

 

·         Practical and theoretical contributions are missing.

 

·         Please note that these comments and recommendations are intended to assist you in improving your research paper. I encourage you to carefully consider this feedback and address the mentioned concerns in your future revisions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you very much for your contribution and suggestions to improve our article, which are very relevant and appropriate. We have tried to consider each of your suggestions along with those of the other reviewers. The changes are highlighted in yellow. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewers’ comments:

Topic of the manuscript (Co-creation sustainable tourism and hospitality experiences: education and organizations in search of new business models) seems quite interesting. However, some points need to be clarified and the writing needs to be improved further. Here are some of my concerns.

1. In the Introduction, author should introduce why this research of Co-creation sustainable tourism and hospitality experience is so important. I believe that author need further emphasize the research value and significance of the article.

2. The authors provide a detailed description of the concept of co-creation, but have not been able to analyze the concept in the context of tourism and hospitality.

3. In the Conclusion, there is a lack of the suggestions regarding how to promote the development of tourism and hospitality.

4. Grammatical errors need to be corrected in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you very much for your contribution and suggestions to improve our article, which are very relevant and appropriate. We have tried to consider each of your suggestions along with those of the other reviewers. The changes are highlighted in yellow. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting case study and I positively value the detailed process of co-creation. The methodology and process are clearly indicated.

The observations are the following:

- Chapter 2 Co-creation: industry and academia, and 3 Challenges of sustainable tourism and hospitality experiences, are a literature review about the focus of the manuscript. In my opinion, it could be grouped in the same chapter “literature review” and then you can keep two sections as sub-chapters.

   In Chapter 5 Case Study, could you attach a map where the Aqua Village Health Resort & Spa is located? It would help to see its location within Portugal and/or the region.

-      Chapter 6 is well developed. In the point 6.6 Towards a sustainable proposal: The Aquafire - Underwater Food Experience is the proposal (Results). As a suggestion, and to give more relevance to this part of the study, it can be identified as a separate chapter.

-      Chapter 7 conclusions, incorporate the dialogue-discussion with the literature review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you very much for your contribution and suggestions to improve our article, which are very relevant and appropriate. We have tried to consider each of your suggestions along with those of the other reviewers. The changes are highlighted in yellow. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explored the co-creation process of the Bring Us Closer to Sustainability challenge. Overall, although this paper discuss thoroughly the entire progression of the co-creation process, there existed some serious issues. My comments are as follows.

First, in the introduction part of this paper, this paper lacks the scientific problem of this paper, and in view of this scientific problem, what is the significance of this research? These problems need to be explained clearly in this part.

Second, this paper lacks the analysis of relevant literature review, especially the shortcomings of existing research, and what improvements or supplements this paper has made on the basis of the existing shortcomings. None of this is clear.

Finally, in general, this paper is more like a research report or survey report than an academic paper. In particular, in the conclusion section, what new findings the author obtains through relevant research is not given.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you very much for your contribution and suggestions to improve our article, which are very relevant and appropriate. We have tried to consider each of your suggestions along with those of the other reviewers. The changes are highlighted in yellow. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors failed to address or response to my previous concerns 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors need to provide a point-to-point review to let reviewers know where the authors have made changes in the paper. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

can accept it in its current form 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript  in accordance with the comments of the reviewers, so it is recommended to be accepted.