Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented article focuses on an important and significant aspect of current debates in the scientific literature: the concept of nostalgia applied to tourism. It intertwines issues associated with personal experiences, perceptions, and memories, bringing us closer to notions such as memory tourism. The concepts handled are well-defined and grounded in appropriate scientific literature, which is quite up-to-date. However, some of the titles might need to be reviewed due to their age, as there are more recent studies available. Nevertheless, this is a minor issue. The materials and methodology are well-developed, as are the criteria for selecting documents for the bibliometric study, supported by the Scopus and Science Direct databases and conducted using the R Core Team 2022-Bibliometrix software, complemented by VOSviewer software. Therefore, this is a review study of the current state of the literature and, as the authors state, it can make a valuable contribution to the academic debate. The relationship established in section 3.18 between nostalgia tourism and historical sites is particularly interesting, as is its contribution to the preservation of monuments and emotional processes linked to memory. In my view, this is the weakest part of the article and should be improved. It is recommended to use the extensive bibliography provided by UNESCO, which is dedicated to heritage management and other related issues. This is important for correctly using the terminology specific to cultural heritage: for example, heritage place instead of historical sites, and monuments or heritage ensembles instead of architectures. This terminology should be supported by the relevant academic literature.

At times, this seems to be due to a literal translation from Spanish to English, or from another Romance language. The distinction between heritage ensembles and places, and historical sites is important to define. A historical site refers to a place where a historical event occurred, such as a battle, but it may not always preserve tangible heritage elements. In contrast, heritage sites encompass a broader complexity of cases. To improve the analysis, section 4, which pertains to the discussion, should be expanded and not remain merely descriptive. In this sense, the study's relationships to sustainability—central to this journal from an academic perspective—should be included, and the issues arising from the analysis in the previous section should be problematized and discussed. Additionally, the conclusions must also be supported by scientific literature or comparative cases and should be completely reworked. As currently presented, they are more of a review or summary of the results rather than conclusions of interest. Therefore, sections 4 and 5 need significant improvement and should address substantial scientific issues rather than remaining merely analytical and descriptive.

Author Response

A final paragraph was added to the results in the determinants

Nostalgia tourism and visits to historic sites play a fundamental role in the preservation of monuments and in strengthening emotional processes linked to collective memory. According to UNESCO, “cultural heritage sites are fundamental to the identity and sense of belonging of communities” [63]. It is important to distinguish between heritage ensembles and places and historic sites. A heritage ensemble includes multiple tangible elements, such as buildings, landscapes and objects that possess significant cultural value, while a historic site refers specifically to a place where a historic event occurred, such as a battle, but does not always retain tangible heritage elements. Through nostalgia tourism, visitors not only explore history, but also actively participate in the preservation of these places through their financial support and their interest in keeping local traditions and narratives alive. Moreover, this type of tourism allows individuals to reconnect with their roots and experience a deep emotional reflection on the past, thus contributing to a greater understanding and appreciation of the historical events that shaped their communities. UNESCO stresses that “the preservation of cultural heritage not only protects the past, but also promotes social cohesion and sustainable development” [63], underlining the importance of these sites as catalysts of cultural memory and identity.

A paragraph was added to the discussion in view of the analysis of the relationship between nostalgia tourism and heritage sites.

The distinction between heritage sites and historic sites highlights the complexity and richness of nostalgia tourism. The results show that while heritage ensembles contain multiple tangible and culturally significant elements, historic sites can be equally important from an emotional and educational point of view, although they do not always preserve physical structures. This nuance is crucial to understanding how different types of sites contribute to the preservation of collective memory and cultural identity. Nostalgia tourism, by involving both heritage ensembles and historic sites, allows visitors to actively participate in the preservation of these spaces, providing economic support and helping to keep local traditions alive. In addition, the emotional reflection experienced in these places fosters a deep connection to the past and a greater appreciation of the historical events that have shaped today's communities. UNESCO underlines the importance of these sites not only for their historical value, but also for their capacity to promote social cohesion and sustainable development (UNESCO, 2021). In this sense, the preservation and promotion of both types of sites are fundamental to keeping cultural memory alive and fostering a sense of belonging in future generations.

A paragraph was added to the conclusions indicating the analysis of nostalgia tourism and its interaction with heritage sites and historic sites.

The analysis of nostalgia tourism and its interaction with heritage ensembles and places and historic sites reveals substantial scientific questions about the preservation of cultural memory and identity. Heritage ensembles, containing multiple significant tangible elements, and historic sites, although sometimes lacking physical structures, both play crucial roles in education and social cohesion. Future research should focus on quantifying the economic impact of nostalgia tourism on the preservation of these places and on assessing how visitors' emotional experiences contribute to the preservation of collective memory. Furthermore, it is essential to explore the most effective strategies to promote both heritage ensembles and historic sites in the context of sustainable development. Therefore, the integration of interdisciplinary approaches that include economic, socio-cultural and environmental aspects will be vital to strengthen the management and conservation of these sites, ensuring their relevance and sustainability for future generations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides a detailed bibliometric analysis of nostalgia tourism, addressing some of its characteristics and its importance in heritage preservation. One of the main strengths of this work is the originality and attractiveness of the subject. It is a typology that is less considered and the results of this work corroborate that there is still a wide field of research that can be addressed in relation to this topic. Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the clear and attractive visualisation of the data through very diverse and well-designed graphs, which facilitate comprehension and capture the reader's attention.  Furthermore, the choice of methodological analysis is also positively valued, although the need for further explanation is pointed out, as well as the need for further explanation of the results obtained. The study also identifies promising lines of research, such as the connection with sustainability or the emotional effects of this type of tourism, which could further enrich the field of study.

However, the following points should be reviewed:

 The abstract does not clearly state the results of the study or explain the importance of nostalgia tourism. It is recommended to include a summary of the main findings and why this type of tourism is significant. More keywords could also be added to provide a more complete overview of the article.

Hypotheses are not presented in the manuscript. It is necessary to write them explicitly to guide the reader in understanding the study.

Considering that this is a bibliometric study, it is essential not only to define nostalgia tourism, but also to make comparisons with other types of tourism. How does nostalgia tourism differ from other types of tourism, such as cultural tourism? It is important to note that nostalgia tourism also allows to learn about the history of a place and to preserve traditions, but it needs to be clearly differentiated. Is nostalgia tourism a type of cultural tourism? This is not clear. It is recommended that the conceptual approach to the term and its differentiation from other forms of tourism be further explored.

Point 3.1. is incorrectly named (line 65).

Although some concrete examples of nostalgia tourism are mentioned (lines 70-73), it would be beneficial to show more concrete examples of this type of tourism, alluding to the type of experiences, the context in which they can take place or the profile of the travellers who usually practise it. Above all, because, as you have analysed in this work, this is a subject that could be explored much further.

It is essential to stress the connection between nostalgia tourism and sustainability, especially considering the name of the journal in which it is to be published.

There is no mention of the contribution of nostalgia tourism to critical thinking, which is essential in this type of tourism due to its characteristics and its high reflexive component. This is relevant, considering the extensive bibliography on the development of this type of thinking.

Further references to tourism education or the educational value of tourism could be introduced, considering that this is one of the characteristics of this type of tourism.

Also, this topic gives rise to the introduction of the term controversial heritage, as this type of heritage refers to tragedies, catastrophes and sensitive issues, which are also directly related to nostalgia tourism.

To sum up, the theoretical framework is very generic and scarce for an in-depth understanding of the state of the art of nostalgia tourism. The term is hardly explored in depth, nor is it compared with other forms of tourism that may be similar. It is recommended that more reference be made to documents or programmes of international organisations such as the World Tourism Organisation that defend the importance of promoting this type of tourism and its importance for sustainability and heritage preservation.

 

Materials and methods

The terms used to search the databases are not specified, nor is the time period considered at the outset.

The PRISMA methodology is mentioned as having been used for the study, but what it consists of is not developed, which may make it difficult to understand for those readers less familiar with this type of analysis. This methodology could be explained in more detail, as it is essential in this type of documentary analysis. Also explain how the different graphs have been generated, providing details of the processes used.

 

There are some confusing aspects of the methodology, which could detract from its rigour. For example, it is specified that 410 documents are eliminated because they are not in English, which represents one third of the total 1577 that were examined. This could bias the results. It is therefore recommended to justify this elimination or at least integrate it into the limitations of the work. In lines 110-112, it is mentioned that 237 documents were not retrieved and that 498 studies are not related to the topic of nostalgia tourism. Explain why these studies are not related to the topic.

Furthermore, 351 studies are also not considered to be fully related to tourism, but no clear explanation is included as to why they are not related to nostalgia tourism, especially when in the graph above (Figure 1) it is mentioned that ‘publications developed in the tourism sector’ are included.

In lines 112-113, 61 full-text articles are excluded. Explain why these articles were excluded.

Out of a total of 2501 initial papers, only 20 papers have been considered in the end. This drastic result should be clearly justified.

The results section starts directly with a table without any previous commentary. It is recommended to include an introduction to the table to contextualise it. Likewise, none is included at the end.

Regarding table 1, it is still not clear why the studies belong specifically to nostalgia tourism and not to other categories such as experiential, educational, cultural or intangible heritage tourism. All these categories share common elements such as emotions, experiences, remembrance and education.

The section presents a long table that is difficult to read without comments linking the studies to each other. It would be useful to provide a more in-depth analysis of the resulting studies and the results found.

 

With regard to the classification of the results, it is not clear whether in the section on averages of citations we are talking about percentages (line 138) or absolute values (lines 135,136,141). This needs to be clearly specified.

The graphs are commented very briefly (see examples in figures 5 and 7). It would be useful to explain better how these graphs have been generated or, failing that, to give more detail on the methodology in the corresponding section. 

To say that the most relevant theme is nostalgia, rather than tourism (lines 147-149), is not enlightening when the study deals with nostalgia tourism. It is recommended that this statement be revised for clarity

More clarity should be shown in the selection of sources. In section 3.4, it is mentioned that some journals have 21 articles on nostalgia tourism or 17 in the case of the first two. However, only 20 papers have been considered in the analysis. It is not clear whether those that were excluded at the beginning have also been considered here. This needs to be clarified.

Section 3.5 could be joined with the section on years, together with 3.1, to maintain thematic coherence.

Talking about the most relevant authors in a field with only 4 articles may not be significant enough for an international journal (line 199). It is recommended that these findings be well justified in the discussion section, precisely, stressing that this is a research niche that still requires further work.

 

Although the analyses are well applied and the graphs are visually attractive and facilitate comprehension, the results are not adequately explained or interrelated. They appear disconnected from each other. There is a need to establish a narrative that connects the findings in a coherent way.

Figures 18 and 20 show that other non-English speaking countries are relevant to the topic, such as Spain, Italy or parts of Latin America. In Figure 18, the word ‘Spain’ is prominent among the ‘motor themes’. These findings need to be explained and contextualised within the text. Especially considering that non-English language works have been excluded from the literature review.

Regarding the discussion section, it is very brief and does not interconnect the different findings. It is important to discuss how the results relate to each other and to existing literature. There is no clear mention of authors working on heritage, despite it being a recurring term in the document. There is a lack of argumentation in this section, and it is recommended that the discussion be taken further, providing a more solid and well-founded argument.

For example, it could focus on how this type of tourism can be related and linked to other forms of tourism in order to gain momentum and contribute to the sustainable development of the places where it takes place. It could also discuss why nostalgia tourism is important and why its low visibility is a problem. Strategies could also be proposed to boost this line of research and highlight its importance from an educational point of view.

There is also no mention of hypotheses in this section.

Finally, the shortcomings and limitations of the study are not mentioned either. Moreover, although the proposed lines of future work are very appropriate, some of them could be addressed in this paper. For example, analysing the connection between nostalgia tourism and sustainability, as proposed. The proposal to analyse the psychological and emotional effects of this type of tourism on individuals is also interesting. All of this would enrich the present work, adding to its quality.

The topicality of the references is to be appreciated, but the style of some of them should be reviewed: 1, 34, 56 and 58.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The summary was adjusted, making it more specific in terms of results.

The findings underscore the significance of nostalgia tourism in addressing the growing demand among travelers for authentic and meaningful experiences. By invoking emotional memories, fostering connections to the past, and emphasizing the quest for authenticity, this form of tourism enables visitors to engage deeply with destinations and activities that transcend conventional tourism. Consequently, it enriches their journeys with a profound sense of discovery, belonging, and cultural identity

A new paragraph is added to the introduction, describing the research hypothesis.

It is hypothesized that nostalgia tourism has undergone significant evolution, characterized by increasing academic interest and diversification in research approaches and methodologies. Specifically, it is anticipated that recent studies have expanded the understanding of nostalgic travelers' motivations and experiences, incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives from psychology, sociology, and cultural studies. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that the literature will reveal a trend towards valuing authentic and personalized experiences, reflecting a growing demand by nostalgia tourists to connect emotionally with places and events of the past. This hypothesis suggests that nostalgia tourism not only contributes to the preservation of cultural heritage but also plays a crucial role in the construction of identity and social cohesion in a globalized context.

A paragraph is added to the introduction answering the question: How does nostalgia tourism differ from other types of tourism?.

Nostalgia tourism differs from other types of tourism, such as cultural tourism, in its focus on visitors' personal emotions and memories. While cultural tourism focuses on the exploration and appreciation of a place's culture, including its art, architecture, customs and practices, nostalgia tourism is based on the visitor's emotional connection to the past. Nostalgic tourists seek to relive experiences, memories and feelings associated with earlier times in their lives or with specific historical periods. This type of tourism appeals to personal and collective memory, allowing visitors to reconnect with significant moments in their personal or family history.

We included this paragraph in conclution to highlight the connection between nostalgia tourism and sustainability.

Nostalgia tourism fosters sustainable practices by promoting the preservation and appreciation of historical sites and cultural heritage. By cultivating a deeper emotional connection to places and traditions, nostalgia tourism motivates travelers to support conservation efforts and engage in sustainable tourism practices. This approach not only aids in protecting cultural and historical assets but also ensures that future generations can experience and enjoy these significant sites. Consequently, nostalgia tourism aligns with sustainability goals by underscoring the importance of maintaining and valuing our shared heritage.

A paragraph is added in the introduction mentioning the contribution of nostalgia tourism to critical thinking.

Nostalgia tourism significantly enhances the development of critical thinking due to its inherently reflective and personal nature. By revisiting past experiences and confronting memories, nostalgia tourists immerse themselves not only in their own emotions and recollections but also in the historical and cultural contexts of those events. This process involves critically evaluating how circumstances and places have transformed over time, thereby fostering a deeper understanding of social, economic, and cultural changes. Additionally, by comparing the past with the present, nostalgic travelers can scrutinize and analyze historical narratives and heritage preservation policies, cultivating a heightened critical awareness of the importance of preserving both collective and personal memory. This critical introspection not only enriches the tourism experience but also facilitates intergenerational dialogue and understanding, underscoring the relevance of the past in shaping contemporary and future contexts.

A paragraph is added in the introduction explaining how nostalgia tourism differs from other types of tourism

Nostalgia tourism distinguishes itself from other forms of tourism, such as cultural tourism, through its emphasis on visitors' personal emotions and memories. While cultural tourism centers on the exploration and appreciation of a place's culture, including its art, architecture, customs, and practices, nostalgia tourism is rooted in the visitor's emotional connection to the past. Nostalgic tourists aim to relive experiences, memories, and feelings associated with earlier periods in their lives or specific historical eras. This form of tourism appeals to both personal and collective memory, enabling visitors to reconnect with significant moments in their personal or familial history.

Although nostalgia tourism also facilitates an understanding of a place's history and contributes to the preservation of its traditions, its primary distinction lies in the emotional motivation of the traveler. For instance, visits to childhood homes, old schools, or sites emblematic of significant personal events—such as weddings or family celebrations—are characteristic of nostalgia tourism. In contrast, cultural tourism typically involves visiting museums, historical monuments, festivals, and other cultural events without necessarily having a prior emotional attachment to the location. Thus, while both types of tourism may intersect in their interests in history and traditions, nostalgia tourism is distinguished by its profound emotional and personal component.

The methodology and research methods are adjusted, including an explanation of the PRISMA statement. In addition, the software used for the bibliometric analysis is detailed.

(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement is an essential tool designed to improve the quality of systematic review and meta-analysis reporting. This was carried out in R Core Team 2022-Bibliometrix software.

A paragraph has been added to section 2.1 ‘Selection document’, detailing the selection process for the systematic review.

In the Scopus database 523 papers were found, and in Science Direct 1978 papers were found, for a total of 2501 papers. A total of 924 papers were eliminated as duplicates in both databases, resulting in 1577 unique papers. Of these, 410 were excluded because they were not published in English, leaving 1167 documents. Subsequently, 237 documents were discarded because they could not be retrieved, 498 because they were not related to the topic of nostalgia tourism, and 351 because they dealt exclusively with tourism in general. Finally, 81 papers were assessed for eligibility, of which 61 were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Thus, for the systematic review, only 20 papers that met all the established criteria were considered.

In the results section, an introductory paragraph is included for table 1.

Nostalgic tourism has gained increasing relevance in recent years, becoming a phenomenon of great interest to both researchers and professionals in the tourism sector. This trend responds to the search for authentic and meaningful experiences by travellers, who yearn to connect with their personal or collective past through the destinations and activities they choose.

The determinants driving nostalgia tourism are diverse and intertwine to shape this mode of travel. First, nostalgia acts as a powerful catalyst, evoking emotional memories and longing for emblematic moments or places. This manifests itself in the attraction to destinations that evoke an earlier era, whether through their cultural heritage, ancestral traditions or popular iconography.

The search for authenticity also plays a crucial role, prompting tourists to immerse themselves in genuine and unconventional experiences. This ranges from immersion in traditional practices to the exploration of historical and cultural sites that represent the essence of a place.

Another key determinant is the emotional connection travellers establish with certain events or places in the past. This can stem from personal memories, such as attending a memorable sporting event, or from a fascination with significant historical and cultural moments. In this sense, nostalgia tourism provides an opportunity to relive those emotions and deepen the knowledge and understanding of such transcendental moments. In this way, the following table shows 20 documents with the authors, document title, objective, methodology and determinants selected for the systematic review.

We add a deeper analysis of the studies to the results found in Table 1.

A paragraph is made in the introduction describing the relevance of nostalgia tourism. The relationship between each of the paragraphs is established, and an explanation of figures 18 and 20 is given, contextualising them within the texts. A paragraph is added in the conclusions on the limitations of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

1. The topic of the manuscript is fascinating and valuable for the tourism issue.

2. By reviewing the articles from the Scopus and Science Direct databases, the trends and perspectives of nostalgia in Tourism were expected to be proposed.

3. There are some specific weaknesses in this manuscript. I would like to highlight:

(1) In Table 1, the authors presented 20 documents and tried to systematically review the authors, title, objective, methodology, and determinants. How these documents were chosen and the specific findings from the review seem unclear.

(2) The authors analyzed the "annual scientific production," the "average citations per year," the "plot of three fields," the "most relevant sources," the "production of the sources over time," the "most relevant authors," the "authors' production over time," the "most cited countries," the "most cited documents worldwide," the "most frequent words," the "word cloud," the "frequency of the words over time," the "trending topics," the "coupling grouping," the "thematic map," the "keywords co-occurrence," the "world map of country collaboration," and the "determinants. The relationship between these items and how the finding could be used and deducted to the insight presented in the discussion and conclusions seems vague and weak.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don’t have the comments on the quality of English language.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

In the discussion, two paragraphs are added which analyse various aspects of the results in detail. First, the ‘annual scientific production’, the ‘average citations per year’ and the ‘three-field plot’ are examined, providing an overview of the growth and influence of scientific production in the area studied. In addition, the ‘most relevant sources’, the ‘production of sources over time’, the ‘most relevant authors’ and the ‘production of authors over time’ are analysed, highlighting the main contributions and the evolution of research. The ‘most cited countries’, ‘most cited documents worldwide’ and ‘most frequent words’ are discussed. The ‘word cloud’, ‘word frequency over time’, ‘trending topics’, ‘coupling clustering’, ‘thematic map’, ‘keyword co-occurrence’ and ‘global map of cross-country collaboration’ are included. Finally, the ‘determinants’ are addressed, providing a comprehensive analysis of the interconnections and emerging trends in the field of study, and highlighting the areas of greatest impact and international collaboration.

The results of the systematic review and bibliometric analysis on nostalgia tourism reveal a detailed and in-depth picture of the evolution and impact of this field of study. The ‘annual scientific production’ shows a steady growth in the number of publications, indicating a growing interest and increased academic attention towards nostalgia tourism. The ‘average citations per year’ reflects the influence and relevance of studies in this field, highlighting those papers that have had the greatest impact on the scientific community. The ‘three-field plot’ allows us to visualise the interconnection between authors, institutions and keywords, highlighting the most significant collaborations and the predominant thematic areas. The ‘most relevant sources’ and the ‘production of sources over time’ highlight the journals and publications that have been instrumental in the dissemination of knowledge on nostalgia tourism. Likewise, ‘authors’ output over time’ and “most relevant authors” highlight key researchers and their ongoing contributions to the development of the field.

On the other hand, the analysis of the ‘most cited countries’ and ‘most cited papers worldwide’ provides a global overview of the scope and influence of nostalgia tourism research, pinpointing the most influential geographies and works. The ‘most frequent words’, ‘word cloud’ and ‘word frequency over time’ reveal the most studied topics and concepts, allowing for the identification of predominant trends and areas of interest. The ‘trend themes’ and ‘coupling clustering’ provide insight into emerging trends and thematic relationships between different studies. The ‘thematic map’ and ‘keyword co-occurrence’ facilitate the identification of central themes and their interrelationships. Finally, the ‘world map of cross-country collaboration’ highlights international cooperation in nostalgia tourism research, indicating the most frequently collaborating countries and the strongest patterns of collaboration. These findings not only illuminate the current state of the field, but also suggest future directions for research, promoting a more complete and nuanced understanding of nostalgia tourism.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Systematic review and bibliometric analysis are hot topics these days in the academic field, but authors need to bring to discussion something new and innovative to their research.

Please consider revising the table presented, it is too long and very difficult to read. I believe you need to find another way to present these results.

Also revise some sentences, to be more clear, using some more "academic" words.

References need to be revised and verified.

Discussion of results need some improvements, as well as conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This article does not present anything new.

Need some revisions and improvements.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Table 1 is organized based on the outcomes derived from the PRISMA model, detailing the findings of the 20 articles identified in the systematic review. As a result, the data presented in the table cannot be modified. However, to provide context, three paragraphs precede the table, elucidating the discovered insightsConsider reviewing the table presented, it is too long and very difficult to read. I think it is necessary to find another way to present these results.

• The writting was adjusted in all changes with a more academic sense.

• All references were reviewed and one was added.

• The paragraphs have been integrated into the discussion and conclusions sections.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article has undergone a significant improvement after reviewing the above suggestions. The summary has been improved and the research hypothesis of the study, essential to prove the objectives of the study, has been added. In addition, the meaning of this specific segment of tourism has been specified, differentiating it from other typologies with which it has features in common. The relationship between nostalgia tourism and sustainability has been established, an essential aspect considering the scope and scope of the journal in which it is intended to be published.

Furthermore, the explanation of the methodological section has been improved and the results and conclusions have been more clearly argued.

After the improvements made, the article could be published.