A Decade of Olive Oil Tourism: A Bibliometric Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author corrected everything that was requested to the greatest extent. The reviewer's remarks were complied with and there are no new requirements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for all your cooperation during this process. 

All the best.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for now responding to all the changes - this paper is now ready to move forward, with one final proof read necessary.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please do a final proof read - minor issues prevail. For instance: line 309: ... interesting to note as state on the studies (I do not understand this part of the sentence).  

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I am extremely grateful for all your cooperation throughout this process. I am also tremendously grateful to the very constructive suggestions you did before. Now, I read again the paper and corrected some minor issues. The changes are shaded in gray. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- This is an interesting review paper that aims to provide insight into the importance of olive oil tourism for the sustainable development of rural areas.

- The topic is interesting.

- The title is appropriate.

- Everything that is needed is given in the abstract

- The sample is not representative, a small number of papers were analyzed (42). The author should not have limited himself only to the WOS database, but to analyze works from other databases as well. There are many papers dealing with olive oil tourism in Greece, which the author did not analyze

- Tables are clearly presented.

- One letter is missing in Figure 3. It says Percetions and it should be Perceptions.

- After improving the methodology, the results and discussion will also need to be improved.

- It is necessary to supplement the analysis with works from other databases, and a larger sample of works will certainly contribute to clearer conclusions, so this work will also be a good contribution to the theory and practice of olive oil tourism.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I am extremely grateful for all your cooperation throughout this process. I am also tremendously grateful to the very constructive suggestions you did. I did my best to address all the extremely useful comments received. I now respectfully submit to your consideration. let me say that I agree with you concerning the use of more databeses. However, as it was answered previously to reviewer 2, It is a limitation of the paper (as it was also referred in it). See lines 400-404. To add in this moment other databases is to do a new paper, and we have the limitation of time. Please tahe this in consideration. A new path for future research is include new databases in the search.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the research is remarkably interesting and useful for everyone who deals with tourism in rural areas and rural tourism generally.

The abstract is concrete and very well describes the content and issues the author deals with.

The keywords can be expanded to add rural space and/or rural tourism.

The introduction part is quite sufficient, and the literature review part is consistent in the work. The author does a good job of reviewing and analyzing the existing literature on this topic.

The sources of the data mentioned in the tables should be mentioned.

Materials and Methods are good explained.

Figure 5 shows Spain and Croatia twice each. Is it necessary? It looks confusing on the chart. Need to correct.

References are satisfying.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am  tremendously grateful to the very constructive comments that you did.   I did my best to address all the extremely useful comments received. I now respectfully submit to your consideration. In appendix you can also see the response to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is generally satisfactory but for it to be published there are a number of changes fully required. The work was quite informative (though not necessarily original) and quite fluid in parts.

Therefore, there are a number of amendments required:

1) As this journal fundamentally concerns sustainability issues, the abstract and introduction need to spell out more clearly the links between sustainability (social, cultural & economic) and olive oil tourism (and these links needs to be much clearer in the literature review too - please expand). Other pointers that connect here: how does this form of tourism fit with agritourism? slow tourism? cultural tourism? health tourism? or, even, particular shades of green tourism?  

2) In the literature review it seems that the author is implying that there is an over-focus on demand issues in olive oil tourism rather than supply issues?

This issue should be brought out more and contextualised accordingly. Why is there such an over-focus in one area and an under-focus on another? And what are the gaps of study on the supply side - elaborate on 'governance' and 'policies' (only briefly mentioned), BUT what about division of labour issues and the political economy of olive oil tourism? - see  Sicily's rich olive pickings - the fruit of Italy's migrant exploitation - BBC News

One thus wonders if immigration issues are perhaps one of the barriers to developing this form of tourism in countries beyond (the over-emphasis on) Spain.

- To what extent are these issues apparent (or not) in the literature (and why / why not?)

- In terms of the socio-political forms of sustainable tourism, what is being said about the age, gender and ethnic composition of olive oil tourism production? Is there a real need to look these areas more and why?

3) On the demand issues: What are the published papers saying about domestic tourism compared to international tourism? 

4) Consequently, it is imperative to see a stronger more dimensional gap analysis and for this to come out far more prominently in the findings - in addition to the political economic aspects of sustainable frameworks in olive oil tourism, what about the need to study more the environmental impacts of climate change and draughts concerning olive oil production as well as the potentiality and actuality of olive oil tourism? Hence, the real central issues of sustainability need to come through stronger in this paper.

5)  Methodology,

(i) page 5, main empirical approaches utilised - but where does the mixed methodological approach fit in? i.e., the combination of the qualitative and quantitative approach - if not applied significantly in the study of olive oil tourism, then what is this field of study missing as a consequence of this omission? especially in terms of empirical depth and cross-checks (including triangulation): this is important given the merits of the application of a mixed methodology.

(ii) what other approaches to niche or thematic forms of tourism have utilised a similar approach (bibliometric surveys) adopted in this paper and what were the merits and potential shortcomings of those studies  (include references accordingly) - and how were these resolved?

6) Table 3 - this is very useful, though there is a strong implication for tourism studies to examine olive oil tourism in much more critical detail, and from a multi-disciplinary perspective - thus, though there are emerging insights in the tourism studies field, surprisingly there is far more potential for such journals in this field to dominate contributions and discussions (than is seemingly the case).

7)  Although the paper acknowledges the fairly significant amount of papers that have been published on olive oil tourism in the journal of Sustainability - there are several missing - should mention those actual papers.

8)  Doesn't olive oil tourism have significant links to volunteer tourism?  Hence, it would be constructive to illustrate interplay between olive oil tourism and other such forms of tourism and how they have (or have not) been treated in the literature? It is arguably crucial not to see this form of tourism in complete isolation of the wider tourism system and other tourism products and types of tourism - what do the sample of articles have to say about this?

9)  The work can be better written and expressed - a thorough proof read on the final draft is required.

i. Avoid starting sentence with the word 'because' (several instances noted)

ii. Page 5, line 2: note = not;

iii. Page 6, line 233: belong = belongs  

iv. Page 4, line 175 - sentence not clear

v. Page 5, line 193: three or four categories?

vi. Page 5, line 218: found = find (or, better still, use the word: locate)

There are a range of other errors (grammatical or otherwise)  in the paper that should be spotted and dealt with accordingly,

10) Conclusions - this final section is rather disappointing and should be re-written to include:

-More updating and elaborating on the gaps and the implications of these gaps (some of which have been identified in this review) - what do you mean by institutional framework exactly? and as you identify the gap concerning policies, can you be more specific and suggestive of the actual direction of future research enquiries; and what kind of policies should be researched and why? 

-Strengthen the summary of the paper overall which will help to present a stronger conclusion.

Thank you and best wishes

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

These have been explained in the above review.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I am also tremendously grateful to the very constructive comments that you did.   I did my best to address all the extremely useful comments received. You can see the response to your comments in appendix. I now respectfully submit the paper to your consideration. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article in question aims to explore an area that undoubtedly has potential and relevance in today's research landscape. However, upon a close examination of the manuscript, several issues must be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

 

Sample Size: One of the most significant concerns with the current study is the sample size. It appears that the sample is rather limited, which might undermine the generalizability of the findings. A more extensive and diverse sample would strengthen the conclusions and make the results more applicable to a broader context.

Literature Review: The choice of utilizing Web of Science (WoS) instead of Google Scholar may have limited the scope of the literature review. Google Scholar generally provides a more comprehensive overview of available literature, allowing for a richer and more nuanced understanding of the subject. I suggest reconsidering the resources used for the literature review, and I recommend looking at "The many names of roots tourism…" by Tomczewska-Popowycz and Taras, which may serve as a valuable example of how to present a comprehensive review of literature, despite addressing a different subject.

Research Gap and Specific Aims: The article falls short in highlighting the research gap and outlining specific aims. Without a clear articulation of what the study seeks to address or how it fills a gap in the existing literature, it is difficult to grasp the unique contribution of this work. Clarifying the research gap and the detailed objectives will help position the study within the broader field and indicate why the research is significant.

Value of the Research: The paper currently lacks a clear statement on the most significant value of the research. What does the study offer that is novel or groundbreaking? How does it contribute to the field or benefit society? These are critical questions that should be addressed to help the reader understand the importance of the study.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations: This paper seems to be in its early stages and requires substantial revisions to meet the scholarly standards. The author must carefully consider the mentioned issues and work on strengthening the methodology, literature review, and overall narrative of the paper.

 

I encourage the author to undertake a thorough revision of the manuscript, taking into account the suggestions and guidelines mentioned. After addressing these critical areas, the paper may present a more compelling and robust contribution to the field. Therefore, I recommend resubmitting the manuscript after careful and comprehensive revisions.

Good luck!

Author Response

Der reviewer, 

I am also tremendously grateful to the very constructive comments that you did. I did my best to address all the extremely useful comments received. You can see the response to your comments in appendix. I now respectfully submit the paper  to your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The responses and updates were far from satisfactory  - I was especially disappointed with responses to points 2, 3, and 5 - the responses were either defensive or dismissive of important issues and questions raised; and no or little treatment was apparent in the text.

Please seriously revisit and provide a full response and indicate in the paper exactly where the updates have been made (including page numbers)  (with new references also to support the updates). Thank you!

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English is satisfactory overall.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the manuscript could significantly benefit from a deeper level of novelty and synthesis in its current approach and narrative. Furthermore, there is a necessity to address more explicitly the existing gaps in the literature related to your topic. Below, I detail specific areas that require your attention for improvement:

   - The manuscript does well in summarizing existing knowledge but falls short in offering new perspectives or hypotheses in the context of the broader field. It is imperative for the enhancement of the paper’s intellectual merit that you integrate a clearer demonstration of how your findings either shift current understanding or bring new concepts to light.

   - Consider discussing unforeseen results or observations and their implications. This approach would not only reflect the novelty of your work but also stimulate future research, aiding in the progression of the field.

- The paper would be strengthened by a more analytical discussion of how these works converge or diverge in their findings and the implications of these trends for your research question.

   - Your analysis needs to build a compelling story that justifies your study's necessity. It should draw on the complexity and nuances from existing literature, highlighting why your research fills a critical void.

   - The manuscript would benefit from a clearer articulation of the gaps in the current research landscape. Identifying these gaps isn't merely about stating what hasn't been done, but also involves explaining why those unexplored areas matter.

   - Discuss the potential impact if these gaps were filled and how your research is attempting to address some of these key areas, or propose the necessity for future studies to explore these voids.

   - Your literature review seems to rely heavily on indexed publications from databases like Web of Science (WoS). While these are reputable sources, I strongly recommend broadening your literature survey by utilizing Google Scholar.

   - Google Scholar may uncover a variety of scholarly contributions (e.g., white papers, thesis publications, conference papers) that are pertinent to your topic but not necessarily indexed in traditional databases. This approach could potentially bring valuable multidisciplinary viewpoints or methodologies that are currently underrepresented in your paper.

   - Strengthen your concluding remarks by highlighting the potential applications of your findings in real-world scenarios.

   - Explicitly discuss the future directions this research could take in light of the gaps identified. This discussion will underscore the importance of your study and set the stage for forthcoming research endeavors.

In summary, the manuscript holds potential but needs to better position itself within the broader scholarly dialogue. By addressing these points, your study will not only gain depth and context but also contribute more robustly to academic discourse and inquiry in the field.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf