Comprehensive Analysis of Rural Tourism Development: Historical Evolution, Current Trends, and Future Prospects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The visibility of figure is very poor.

Authors need to present the criteria for the selection of the data sources.

Rural tourism could be defined varied manners. Authors need to clearly present the definition of rural tourism at the review of literature section.

Authors need to present the description of variables clearly. 

Authors also need to present how this work accomplished the research goals.

Authors could present theoretical contribtion of this work more clearly at the conclusion section. 

Authors need to present how this work contributes to the literature of sustaiable science in both introduction and conclusion sections. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Thank you for your comments. The response to your review is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article submitted for review, “Comprehensive Analysis of Rural Tourism Development: Historical Evolution, Current Trends, and Future Prospects” comprehensively analyzes rural tourism's development. The authors focus on the evolution of this form of tourism, its current trends, and future research directions. 

The article is based on a bibliometric analysis of over 1,600 publications from 1967 to 2023. The authors used VOSviewer, which allowed for a detailed examination of the co-authorship network, key research topics, and geographical distribution of studies. Particular attention was paid to such areas as the impact of rural tourism on the environment, the role of nature conservation in sustainable development, and the use of technological innovations.

The article is a valuable contribution to rural tourism research, offering both a detailed historical analysis and a forward-looking perspective on the development of this field. The work may be particularly useful for researchers, practitioners and decision-makers interested in using rural tourism as a tool for sustainable development.

The article can be published in its current version. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and positive review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and recognition of our work as a valuable contribution. We are delighted that it meets the standards for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Noting the important role of rural tourism in sustainable development, the author systematically sorted out the relevant articles in the web of science literature database from 1967 to 2023 by using the bibliometric analysis method, and comprehensively analyzed the historical evolution, current trend and future prospect of rural tourism development. The research results have certain academic significance, but it has to be said that the research is not innovative, and the literature review of rural tourism lacks sufficient discussion on how to guide practical development in detail. The most difficult thing to understand is that the quality of pictures in the paper is too low, and citespace could have done a more thorough analysis.

The following is my careful reading of the paper proposed amendments:

Point 1: The abstract clearly summarizes the core of the article, but is slightly general in its presentation of the research findings. It is recommended that the authors add to this.

Point 2: The introduction part of the article gives a more comprehensive description of the importance of rural tourism and the background of the study, and clarifies the motivation and objectives of the study. But the overall logic needs to be improved. For example, the author first introduces the uniqueness of rural tourism, then mentions the importance of integrating local traditions and practices into rural tourism, and then discusses the role of digitalization and technological progress. Although this part cites a large number of scholars' research results, the overall logic is poor, and the logical connection between the parts is not clear. In addition, when describing the connection between the importance of rural tourism and sustainable development, it fails to explain in sufficient depth how the various positive effects of rural tourism can directly contribute to global sustainable development. It is recommended that the authors reorganize the introductory part of the article to build a rigorous logical framework.

Point 3: The article systematically analyzes rural tourism research through multiple aspects, covering publishing trends, influential works, collaborative networks and conceptual structures. It is innovative in terms of research content, but lacks the depth of existing content. In the third part, when analyzing the high-producing authors, institutions and countries, the article only analyzes the number of documents and citation indexes, and does not further dig into the characteristics of their academic contributions and differences in research directions in rural tourism research. In addition, in the analysis of the most cited publications, besides presenting the main contents and citation counts of the articles, the dissection of the research methods and innovations of these high-impact articles can be added.

Point 4: The description of each literature cluster in the literature coupling analysis section of the article is too brief, and the core ideas and interrelationships of the articles within each cluster should be elaborated in detail.

Point 5: The authors visualize the results of the study, but as in Figures 3, 4, and 5, the image clarity is low. It is recommended that the authors improve the resolution of the images.

Point 6: The data used in the article come from articles published between 1967-2023 included in web of science, and it is recommended that the authors include articles published in 2024 in the analyzed data, so that the study can better connect with the current development of the field, and improve the timeliness of the study and the grasp of the latest research trends. In addition, there are a large number of references cited in the article, but a relatively low percentage of them are from the last five years, and it is recommended that the authors further review the literature from the last five years to supplement the relevant research results.

Point 7: The conclusion section clearly identifies the problems of the study in terms of reliance on a single database, subjective bias and limitations of the clustering methodology, which is commendable. However, it is recommended that the authors provide more specific suggestions and directions on how to overcome these limitations. Moreover, the future outlook section of the article is also more general, which the authors are recommended to add.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your comments. The responses are attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made sufficient revisions to the paper and the pictures are clearer. Innovation is general, but the demonstration is more sufficient, recommend employment.