The Role of the Visitor Center in Destination Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting. However, statistical analysis are very simple for an academic paper. Moreover, some questions have to be answered and some mistakes have to be corrected:

-Revise the way to reference in the text according to the journal style. I don't think you have to write "According to the study [1]" but "According to [1]"; neither "Authors [3]" but "Gursoy et al. [3]".

-L72 and following pages. A comment in the same line. I don't think you have to write "Authors Pike & Page [7]" but "Pike & Page [7]". Please, use an academix style, according to the journal.

-L92. There is an extra space before "Mazuchova...".

-A last paragraph with the structure of the paper is missed in the Introduction.

-L147 and following lines. RTO and LTO are written without "s", but authors write "WICs", "CICs" and "VICs". Check the correct form and apply the same rule to all the acronyms.

-L159, L162 and following text. Because you have described the previous acronyms the first time the complete expression appear, you have to use them in the rest of the text. Check this mistake in all the text.

-L191 to L198 and L209 to L219. I don't think the instructions of the journal include to write the complete title of some papers/works. Check the requirements of the journal about references in the text.

-L222. Can you write the advantages and disadvantages and compare the methods?

-Table 1 and text. Automatic, canoot be direct or indirect? Are you mixing two classifications?

-L251. You don't explain why you have data until 2020. Later, we can see the forecast, but we don't know about it here.

-TIC is an acronym introduced in item 4 but not in item 3.1 as the rest of the acronyms, although authors write the corresponding expression in 3.1. Why?

-In item 4, authors have to use the previously defined acronyms.

-Hipothesis 2 only makes sense if foreign tourists and domestic ones have similar figures. You say something about this in L377, but it is not justified enough.

-L284. Just one quotation marks (opened but not closed). I think they do not correspond here.

-Figure 1. We cannot see clearly, low quality.

-L298. Authors write "multiple formulas", but there is only one. Maybe you want to say "multiple results from the formula".

-References are missed in all the item 4, when authors write definitions or ideas about the statistical tools used.

-Authors have to join short paragraphs about the same idea and construct longer paragraphs. This is an academic paper, remember.

-Figure 6 is a table.

-L455. Authors should use bullets to clarify the dependence of the sentences.

-Where is the relationship with sustainability? Only a key word is "sustainable tourism", but we cannot see it in the justification of the paper, neither some theoretical review about sustainable tourism.

-Figure 8. The forecast, is fitted with real data? The forecast is for 2021-2023, I am pretty sure that authors have this data.

-The newest reference is from 2020, four years ago. Update the references.

-There are not references from Sustainability.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Revise the way to reference in the text according to the journal style. I don't think you have to write "According to the study [1]" but "According to [1]"; neither "Authors [3]" but "Gursoy et al. [3]".

Response 1: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 2: L72 and following pages. A comment in the same line. I don't think you have to write "Authors Pike & Page [7]" but "Pike & Page [7]". Please, use an academix style, according to the journal.

Response 2: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 3: L92. There is an extra space before "Mazuchova...".

Response 3: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 4: A last paragraph with the structure of the paper is missed in the Introduction.

Response 4: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 5: L147 and following lines. RTO and LTO are written without "s", but authors write "WICs", "CICs" and "VICs". Check the correct form and apply the same rule to all the acronyms.

Response 5: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 6: L159, L162 and following text. Because you have described the previous acronyms the first time the complete expression appear, you have to use them in the rest of the text. Check this mistake in all the text.

Response 6: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 7: L191 to L198 and L209 to L219. I don't think the instructions of the journal include to write the complete title of some papers/works. Check the requirements of the journal about references in the text.

Response 7: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 8: L222. Can you write the advantages and disadvantages and compare the methods?

Response 8: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 9: Table 1 and text. Automatic, canoot be direct or indirect? Are you mixing two classifications? 

Response 9: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 10: L251. You don't explain why you have data until 2020. Later, we can see the forecast, but we don't know about it here.

Response 10: At the time of writing, we only had data up to 2020. The data for 2021, 2022 and 2023 was a forecast. We have added data up to 2023 and have made a forecast for 2024, 2025, 2026. 

Comments 11: TIC is an acronym introduced in item 4 but not in item 3.1 as the rest of the acronyms, although authors write the corresponding expression in 3.1. Why?

Response 11: Accepted, added in 3.1

Comments 12: In item 4, authors have to use the previously defined acronyms.

Response 12: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 13: Hipothesis 2 only makes sense if foreign tourists and domestic ones have similar figures. You say something about this in L377, but it is not justified enough.

Response 13: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 14: L284. Just one quotation marks (opened but not closed). I think they do not correspond here.

Response 14: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 15: Figure 1. We cannot see clearly, low quality.

Response 15: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 16: L298. Authors write "multiple formulas", but there is only one. Maybe you want to say "multiple results from the formula".

Response 16: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 17: References are missed in all the item 4, when authors write definitions or ideas about the statistical tools used.

Response 17: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 18: Authors have to join short paragraphs about the same idea and construct longer paragraphs. This is an academic paper, remember.

Response 18: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 19: Figure 6 is a table.

Response 19: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 20: L455. Authors should use bullets to clarify the dependence of the sentences.

Response 20: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 21: Where is the relationship with sustainability? Only a key word is "sustainable tourism", but we cannot see it in the justification of the paper, neither some theoretical review about sustainable tourism.

Response 21: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 22: Figure 8. The forecast, is fitted with real data? The forecast is for 2021-2023, I am pretty sure that authors have this data.

Response 22: At the time of writing, we only had data up to 2020. The data for 2021, 2022 and 2023 was a forecast. We have added data up to 2023 and have made a forecast for 2024, 2025, 2026.

Comments 23: The newest reference is from 2020, four years ago. Update the references.

Response 23: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 24: There are not references from Sustainability.

Response 24: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, this research report has many issues, and the study itself does not seem to bring about any substantial contribution to the field. Starting with the report issues, the writing (not just the English) is not adequate for an academic paper. In the abstract, the authors call the study a "thesis”. The in-text citations are inadequate. They use the structure of indirect speech citations (e.g., "In the study by [2], the effectiveness of marketing"), but do not mention the authors' names (there is a confusion here with the citation format - you must the numbers, but if you cite in indirect speech, you must mention the authors' names nonetheless, otherwise the sentence does not have coherence). the language used is also inadequate as indicated in the attached file. There are also problems with punctuation and many issues with clarity. For example, in the first line of the literature review, you say that you "relied on 70 relevant sources and scientific articles". Are those two different things?

The literature review is not well structured at all. There are too many studies individually described one after the other with no connection drawn between them, and no inference made from them. Also, chapter 3 is still literature review, but is is outside it within the articles' structure. 

Regarding methodological aspects and the relevance of the research per se, the hypotheses presented are not well justified at all. Why these hypotheses? Which theoretical contributions justify them? What does their potential validation bring in terms of theoretical contributions to the field? Plus, they do not refer to causal relationships between variables, but simply to possible outcomes of the descriptive analysis, which again, are not even justified by previous literature. So, arguably, they couldn't even be called hypotheses. Finally, there is no discussion against the backdrop of the literature review in the conclusions.

 

 

Considering the addressed issues, I do not consider the article suitable for publication.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please, see the attached file.

Author Response

Comments 1: In the abstract, the authors call the study a "thesis”.

Response 1: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 2: The in-text citations are inadequate. They use the structure of indirect speech citations (e.g., "In the study by [2], the effectiveness of marketing"), but do not mention the authors' names.

Response 2: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 3: The language used is inadequate as indicated in the attached file. There are also problems with punctuation and many issues with clarity. For example, in the first line of the literature review, you say that you "relied on 70 relevant sources and scientific articles". Are those two different things?

Response 3: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 4: The literature review is not well structured at all. There are too many studies individually described one after the other with no connection drawn between them, and no inference made from them. Also, chapter 3 is still literature review, but is is outside it within the articles' structure. 

Response 4: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 5: Regarding methodological aspects and the relevance of the research per se, the hypotheses presented are not well justified at all. Why these hypotheses? Which theoretical contributions justify them? What does their potential validation bring in terms of theoretical contributions to the field? Plus, they do not refer to causal relationships between variables, but simply to possible outcomes of the descriptive analysis, which again, are not even justified by previous literature. So, arguably, they couldn't even be called hypotheses.

Response 5: The reason for the selection of each hypothesis is explained in Section 3.1, as well as the literature used to support these hypotheses. The results of the individual hypotheses are described in chapter 4- Results.

Comments 6: Finally, there is no discussion against the backdrop of the literature review in the conclusions.

Response 6: Accepted, The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript extensively reviews the existing literature on visitor centers and tourism, offering valuable insights into their multifaceted roles. The statistical analyses conducted (regression analysis and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) are robust and clearly presented. These provide strong support for the hypotheses and help draw meaningful conclusions. The discussion of sustainable tourism practices within the context of visitor centers adds depth to the manuscript and demonstrates its relevance to current global tourism challenges. The structure of the paper is logical, moving from a broad literature review to a focused empirical study, and culminating in a well-rounded discussion and conclusion.

 

Besides these strengths, I would like to point to some minor issues that need to be addressed:

-        - The hypotheses are clearly stated, but the authors could provide additional explanation of the rationale behind them. For example, while it is intuitive that foreign visitors use TICs more frequently, an explicit justification based on tourist behavior theory would strengthen the argument.

-        Some of the figures (especially Figures 2, 3, and 4) would benefit from more descriptive captions and clearer labeling on the axes. The visual representation is critical for understanding the data, but some graphs lack sufficient detail in terms of explanation.

-        - The analysis could benefit from including more recent data, especially after the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. This would provide a more holistic view of tourism trends post-pandemic, which have shifted in significant ways.

-       -  The manuscript could further elaborate on the practical implications of the findings for destination managers and policymakers. While some discussion is present, more concrete recommendations would add value.

-        - The limitations of the study are briefly mentioned but should be expanded. For instance, the study could acknowledge the challenges in generalizing the results to other cities with different tourism dynamics. Furthermore, a more detailed section on future research directions would be beneficial, especially regarding the evolving role of ICT (information and communication technologies) in visitor centers.

 

This manuscript provides valuable insights into the role of visitor centers in destination management and sustainable tourism. With minor revisions, particularly around hypothesis justification, visual presentation, and expanding on practical implications, the paper will make a significant contribution to the field of tourism studies. The methodologies used are appropriate, and the findings are relevant, making it a worthy addition to the literature.

Author Response

Comments 1: The hypotheses are clearly stated, but the authors could provide additional explanation of the rationale behind them. For example, while it is intuitive that foreign visitors use TICs more frequently, an explicit justification based on tourist behavior theory would strengthen the argument.

Response 1: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 2: Some of the figures (especially Figures 2, 3, and 4) would benefit from more descriptive captions and clearer labeling on the axes. The visual representation is critical for understanding the data, but some graphs lack sufficient detail in terms of explanation.

Response 2: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 3: The analysis could benefit from including more recent data, especially after the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. This would provide a more holistic view of tourism trends post-pandemic, which have shifted in significant ways.

Response 3: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 4: The manuscript could further elaborate on the practical implications of the findings for destination managers and policymakers. While some discussion is present, more concrete recommendations would add value.

Response 4: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Comments 5: The limitations of the study are briefly mentioned but should be expanded. For instance, the study could acknowledge the challenges in generalizing the results to other cities with different tourism dynamics. Furthermore, a more detailed section on future research directions would be beneficial, especially regarding the evolving role of ICT (information and communication technologies) in visitor centers.

Response 5: Accepted. The information has been supplemented in a new document, which is available in the attached file.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments. Authors have accepeted all the recommendations from the first review.

Author Response

Comments 1: No comments. Authors have accepeted all the recommendations from the first review.

Response 1: Thank you. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The research report has been significantly improved in terms of structure, clarity and language. However, there are still improvements that need to be made, and the major issue with the hypotheses remains. 

1. Starting with this major issue, in your response, you say “The reason for the selection of each hypothesis is explained in Section 3.1, as well as the literature used to support these hypotheses.”. First, you must have referred to section 3.1 in your first manuscript, as the section 3.1 in your revised version describes the regression analysis. Second, saying “Based on a thorough review of the literature on tourist behavior” and simply citing four studies, is not enough, specially for hypotheses (or non-hypotheses, as I see them) that are so difficult to justify. Why is it relevant, and how is it not self-evident that there is “a significant dependency between the number of visitors to the CIC and the total number of visitors to the city”? The visitors to the city are literally the “target market” of the CIC. That is, they are the group of people whose needs they meet. Therefore, if there are no visitors to the city, there are no visitors to the CIC. I understand that sometimes, a supposed relationship being apparently self-evident is not a reason not to test it. In many instances, causal relationships or correlations that seem extremely intuitive end up not passing empirical scrutiny, while a less obvious explanation emerges. However, this does not seem to be the case here, as we are not even talking about the correlation or a causation relationship between two constructs, but between two clearly related phenomena. If you were exploring which other factors affect the number of visitors to the CIC (or the proportion of tourists who visit them), then it would be a different story. Or, for instance, building on something you say in the introduction, verifying whether visitor centres do “serve as a pivotal instrument for advancing sustainable tourism and safeguarding the natural and cultural assets of the destination”, but I suppose your data does not allow that. Or even, building on some of your conclusions, comparing the proportion of tourists who visit the CIC before and after COVID.

This is not saying that those hypotheses cannot possibly be justified, but to properly justify them, you need to say something like: “Studies X, Y, and Z, show that … (maybe that attendance to CIC increase with visitation to the city), while studies A, B, and C show that (maybe that this relationship is not as self-evident as it seems), therefore, we hypothesise that…”. Otherwise, it is very hard to take these hypotheses seriously.

2. Another issue is that, in your discussion chapter, you basically analyse more data, and related to that, you seem to have two studies in one here: one aiming to understand the (already understood) relationship between visitation to a city and visitation to its CIC, and another one aiming to build a model for visitors’ number forecast. Moreover, it is not clear at all how the confirmation of your hypotheses contributes to the proposition of the model. Therefore, a second alternative would be, instead of working harder to justify the hypotheses, skip them altogether and focusing this forecast model, emphasising the role of CIC visitation data analysis in building it. Please choose one of these alternatives and restructure your manuscript accordingly. 

3. Minor issues

a. Check the in-text citations. The numbering does not reflect the order in which they appear. For example, you skip from 46, in the literature review, to [60, 61, 62, 63,], in section 3. It seems like you added new citations and did not adapt the numbering. Using a citation manager, like Mendeley, helps a lot with that, as everything is done automatically.

b. In your introduction you say that “This study seeks to critically examine the evolving function of visitor centres in the destination development process, positioning them as integral components of tourism management.” – Please consider whether this is really an aim of your study or just part of the literature review on visitor centres.

c. In several parts of your introduction (e.g., line 152) and literature review (e.g., line 223) you have too many consecutive sentences starting with "Visitor centers...". At least, add some connectives.

d. In the very end of the introduction, you use the term “competitive advantage”. Please, verify whether this term is not being employed generically here. I.e., is being able to predict visitor numbers really a competitive advantage, that is, an advantage competitors cannot imitate no matter how much they try?

e. In the beginning of the introduction: “Sustainable tourism is an increasingly important objective in…” - "Sustainable tourism" is not the objective. You can have "sustainable tourism objectives", that is, specific objectives that concur to make the tourism activity more sustainable. Objectives must be quantifiable and timebound. A sustainability objective for a destination could be: "Increasing the average stay from two to four days", for instance.

f. There are also instances in which you insert a period before the citation (e.g., lines 209, 212).

g. I put this as a minor issue because it is quite easy to solve, but it is actually a bit critical.  Why do you first dedicate a section to address the role of visitor center in sustainable destiantion development (2.1), and only after that, define "visitor centers" (2.2)? The logical order would be the opposite.

h. In table 1, consider merging the cell where you have “Direct methods” with the three cells below it, and the one where you have “Indirect methods” with the four cells below it”.

i. (This is a suggestion only) Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3: You do not need to dedicate over one page to explain how regression analysis, correlation analysis, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test work. Just write one sentence or two justifying why each of those are the adequate methods for testing the hypotheses.

j. Figure 2: This graph is very confusing. First, I cannot differentiate the colours for "tourists (number of visitors)" and "domestic visitors". Please, choose more distinct colours (of course I can figure out which is which because domestic visitors are necessarily fewer than the total number of tourists, but the colours should be distinguishable nonetheless). Second, what are the two different lines of each colour? Are they the actual data and the prediction? If so, please signalise them. Please explain it better.

k. Line 599: “For the purpose to confirming Hypothesis 2,…”. Consider changing to “For the purpose of testing Hypothesis 2,…”. Your purpose should not be to confirm.

l. Same line (and sentence): “…we are analyzing the market of domestic”. Consider chainging to “we analyzed…” or “… were analyzed”.

m. Line 193: “In conclusion, we will compare the correlation coefficients”, please replace with “In conclusion, we compared the correlation coefficients” or “In conclusion, the correlation coefficients were compared”. You should not refer to your procedures in the future.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor issues are included in the general comments.

Author Response

Comments 1: Starting with this major issue, in your response, you say “The reason for the selection of each hypothesis is explained in Section 3.1, as well as the literature used to support these hypotheses.”. First, you must have referred to section 3.1 in your first manuscript, as the section 3.1 in your revised version describes the regression analysis.

Response 1: We apologize for the incorrect information. We meant Chapter 3. Materials and Methods

Comments 2: Second, saying “Based on a thorough review of the literature on tourist behavior” and simply citing four studies, is not enough, specially for hypotheses (or non-hypotheses, as I see them) that are so difficult to justify.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your feedback. We understand and appreciate your concern regarding the phrasing “Based on a thorough review of the literature on tourist behavior” and the citation of only four studies. We would like to clarify that the literature review in Section 2.1 also includes an overview of tourist management, from which we derived insights pertinent to this issue. Therefore, the sources used to explain this context extend well beyond the four studies directly cited, which we consider sufficient to address the topic.

Comments  3: Why is it relevant, and how is it not self-evident that there is “a significant dependency between the number of visitors to the CIC and the total number of visitors to the city”? The visitors to the city are literally the “target market” of the CIC. That is, they are the group of people whose needs they meet. Therefore, if there are no visitors to the city, there are no visitors to the CIC. I understand that sometimes, a supposed relationship being apparently self-evident is not a reason not to test it. In many instances, causal relationships or correlations that seem extremely intuitive end up not passing empirical scrutiny, while a less obvious explanation emerges. However, this does not seem to be the case here, as we are not even talking about the correlation or a causation relationship between two constructs, but between two clearly related phenomena. If you were exploring which other factors affect the number of visitors to the CIC (or the proportion of tourists who visit them), then it would be a different story. Or, for instance, building on something you say in the introduction, verifying whether visitor centres do “serve as a pivotal instrument for advancing sustainable tourism and safeguarding the natural and cultural assets of the destination”, but I suppose your data does not allow that. Or even, building on some of your conclusions, comparing the proportion of tourists who visit the CIC before and after COVID.

This is not saying that those hypotheses cannot possibly be justified, but to properly justify them, you need to say something like: “Studies X, Y, and Z, show that … (maybe that attendance to CIC increase with visitation to the city), while studies A, B, and C show that (maybe that this relationship is not as self-evident as it seems), therefore, we hypothesise that…”. Otherwise, it is very hard to take these hypotheses seriously.

Response 3: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our approach to examining the dependency between the number of visitors to the CIC and the total number of visitors to the city. We acknowledge that the relationship between city visitor numbers and CIC visits might appear self-evident, given that city visitors are indeed the CIC’s primary target group. However, we included this hypothesis to establish an empirical foundation specific to our study context. This relationship serves as a baseline for understanding visitor flow dynamics to the CIC, which we believe is essential for interpreting subsequent findings in our research. Regarding the relevance of testing an apparently intuitive relationship, we agree that testing can sometimes reveal unexpected insights, even in cases where a relationship seems straightforward. By empirically verifying this connection, we aim to confirm the assumption’s validity within our particular dataset and provide a basis for future studies that may investigate additional factors affecting CIC visitation patterns.

We appreciate your suggestions on exploring other factors. We consider them valuable directions for future research, which could offer further insights into the CIC's broader impact.

Comments 4:  Another issue is that, in your discussion chapter, you basically analyse more data, and related to that, you seem to have two studies in one here: one aiming to understand the (already understood) relationship between visitation to a city and visitation to its CIC, and another one aiming to build a model for visitors’ number forecast. Moreover, it is not clear at all how the confirmation of your hypotheses contributes to the proposition of the model. Therefore, a second alternative would be, instead of working harder to justify the hypotheses, skip them altogether and focusing this forecast model, emphasising the role of CIC visitation data analysis in building it. Please choose one of these alternatives and restructure your manuscript accordingly.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your detailed comments. To effectively design a predictive model for visitor numbers, it was essential to thoroughly examine and understand the relationship between overall city visitation and CIC visitation by both domestic and foreign visitors. In this way, we strengthen the model’s reliability and ensure that the predictive conclusions are based on robust data about variable relationships. Since each section in the manuscript contributes to the overall structure and logical arrangement of the study, we have decided to maintain the original structure of the discussion section. We believe that the current format offers a comprehensive view of the topic, beneficial for predictive modeling as well as for a deeper understanding of visitor behavior.

Comments 5: Check the in-text citations. The numbering does not reflect the order in which they appear. For example, you skip from 46, in the literature review, to [60, 61, 62, 63,], in section 3. It seems like you added new citations and did not adapt the numbering. Using a citation manager, like Mendeley, helps a lot with that, as everything is done automatically.

Response 5: Accepted, edited

Comments 6: In your introduction you say that “This study seeks to critically examine the evolving function of visitor centres in the destination development process, positioning them as integral components of tourism management.” – Please consider whether this is really an aim of your study or just part of the literature review on visitor centres.

Response 6: Accepted, edited

Comments 7: In several parts of your introduction (e.g., line 152) and literature review (e.g., line 223) you have too many consecutive sentences starting with "Visitor centers...". At least, add some connectives.

Response 7: Accepted, edited

Comments 8: In the very end of the introduction, you use the term “competitive advantage”. Please, verify whether this term is not being employed generically here. I.e., is being able to predict visitor numbers really a competitive advantage, that is, an advantage competitors cannot imitate no matter how much they try?

Response  8: Accepted, edited

Comments 9: In the beginning of the introduction: “Sustainable tourism is an increasingly important objective in…” - "Sustainable tourism" is not the objective. You can have "sustainable tourism objectives", that is, specific objectives that concur to make the tourism activity more sustainable. Objectives must be quantifiable and timebound. A sustainability objective for a destination could be: "Increasing the average stay from two to four days", for instance.

Response 9: Accepted, edited

Comments 10: There are also instances in which you insert a period before the citation (e.g., lines 209, 212)

Response  10: Accepted, edited

Comments 11: Why do you first dedicate a section to address the role of visitor center in sustainable destiantion development (2.1), and only after that, define "visitor centers" (2.2)? The logical order would be the opposite.

Response  11: Accepted, edited

Comments 12: In table 1, consider merging the cell where you have “Direct methods” with the three cells below it, and the one where you have “Indirect methods” with the four cells below it”.

Response 12: Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully considered your recommendation. However, we have decided not to incorporate this change. The reason is that each cell has its own description, and we are concerned that merging the cells would make the content appear unclear.

Comments 13: (This is a suggestion only) Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3: You do not need to dedicate over one page to explain how regression analysis, correlation analysis, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test work. Just write one sentence or two justifying why each of those are the adequate methods for testing the hypotheses.

Response 13: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have carefully considered your recommendation. However, we believe that providing a detailed description of the methods used makes the content clearer and more comprehensible.

Comments 14: Figure 2: This graph is very confusing. First, I cannot differentiate the colours for "tourists (number of visitors)" and "domestic visitors". Please, choose more distinct colours (of course I can figure out which is which because domestic visitors are necessarily fewer than the total number of tourists, but the colours should be distinguishable nonetheless). Second, what are the two different lines of each colour? Are they the actual data and the prediction? If so, please signalise them. Please explain it better.

Response 14: Accepted, edited

Comments 15: Line 599: “For the purpose to confirming Hypothesis 2,…”. Consider changing to “For the purpose of testing Hypothesis 2,…”. Your purpose should not be to confirm.

Response 15: Accepted, edited

Comments 16: Same line (and sentence): “…we are analyzing the market of domestic”. Consider chainging to “we analyzed…” or “… were analyzed”.

Response 16: Accepted, edited

Comments 17: Line 193: “In conclusion, we will compare the correlation coefficients”, please replace with “In conclusion, we compared the correlation coefficients” or “In conclusion, the correlation coefficients were compared”. You should not refer to your procedures in the future.

Response 17: Accepted, edited

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Congratulations for the changes made. Now, finally, the hypotheses are, apparently, properly justified. However, the studies used to justify them raise further causes of concern. I’m really sorry for dragging this even further, but this needs to be addressed. 

You say that… 

“Studies [47,48,49] indicate that city visitors seeking information have a natural tendency to use CIC services, thereby creating a direct dependency between the total number of tourists and CIC visitation. Conversely, studies [50,51,52,53] suggest that this relation-ship may not be as significant.”

I checked the studies, and they don’t seem to suggest that. None of these studies – 50 (Xiang, Z., Dan, W., O´Leary, J., Fesenmaier, D.R., 2014), 51 (Gretzel, U., Yoo, 2008), 52 (Molinillo, S., Japutra, 2017), and 53 (Ashworth, G., Page, S.J., 2011) – even mention information centres. I’m sorry, but his sounds made up. It sounds like you just used the template I provided you and populated it with random studies. Which conclusions of these studies suggest that the increase in the number of visitors to a destination does not lead to an increase in the number of visitors using the CIC? Just the fact the people increasingly use online sources to search for information? Even if only, say, 20% of tourists use the CIC because the rest relies exclusively on online sources, there is still a direct relationship between the total number of tourists and the total number of people using the CIC. The only way this hypothesis cannot be supported is if an increase in the number of tourists does not lead to an increase in the number of users of the CIC, which is extremely unlikely. And this does not seem to be suggested by these studies.

Please elaborate on this and clarify how these studies suggest what they say they suggest, if they actually do.

Minor issues:

Just a clarification, my suggestion for merging cells in table 1 is exactly what you did in the revised version: merging the cells with the tittles “Direct methods” and “Indirect methods” with the empty cells below them. 

 

The other issues have been satisfactorily tackled or explained.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language on the revised version of materials and methods, right after the hypotheses, is a bit weird. However, the authors need to review this section again, anyway. 

Author Response

Comments 1: 

I checked the studies, and they don’t seem to suggest that. None of these studies – 50 (Xiang, Z., Dan, W., O´Leary, J., Fesenmaier, D.R., 2014), 51 (Gretzel, U., Yoo, 2008), 52 (Molinillo, S., Japutra, 2017), and 53 (Ashworth, G., Page, S.J., 2011) – even mention information centres. I’m sorry, but his sounds made up. It sounds like you just used the template I provided you and populated it with random studies. Which conclusions of these studies suggest that the increase in the number of visitors to a destination does not lead to an increase in the number of visitors using the CIC? Just the fact the people increasingly use online sources to search for information? Even if only, say, 20% of tourists use the CIC because the rest relies exclusively on online sources, there is still a direct relationship between the total number of tourists and the total number of people using the CIC. The only way this hypothesis cannot be supported is if an increase in the number of tourists does not lead to an increase in the number of users of the CIC, which is extremely unlikely. And this does not seem to be suggested by these studies.

Please elaborate on this and clarify how these studies suggest what they say they suggest, if they actually do.

Response 1:

Thank you for your feedback. After a thorough review of the relevant publications, we concluded that our assertions were not as comprehensively described in the presented sources. Consequently, we have conducted a new literature review, which is meticulously documented. We can confidently state that the presented publications suggest there is no unequivocal evidence that visitors to the city of Prague are automatically inclined to visit the municipal information center. The review of new publications has been revised in the submitted document and described as per your request.

Comments 2: The language on the revised version of materials and methods, right after the hypotheses, is a bit weird. However, the authors need to review this section again, anyway. 

Response 2: This section has been revised, and the changes are incorporated in the submitted version.