Enhancing Direct Air Transport Connectivity to Boost Sustainable Tourism in BRICS+ Nations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents intriguing research potential, yet several critical areas require improvement:
1.The title—"Enhancing Direct Air Transport Connectivity to Boost Sustainable Tourism in BRICS+ Nations"—emphasizes the Direct Air Transport and tourism. However, the current analysis fails to:
Clearly establish causal relationships between direct flights/direct air transport and tourism growth in BRICS+ countries.
Provide empirical evidence or theoretical frameworks explaining how direct connectivity specifically drives tourism sustainability.
2.The literature review lacks depth in three dimensions:
Mechanism Analysis: How do direct flights and tourism interact? What are the key determinants of tourism demand?
Comparative Insights: What lessons can be drawn from similar multilateral groups (e.g., ASEAN, G20) regarding the role of direct air transport in fostering tourism and economic cooperation?
BRICS-Specific Context: What forms of collaboration exist among BRICS+ nations? What conclusions have prior studies reached about their aviation-tourism synergies?
3. Superficial data analysis The analysis part requires a richer data set and a longitudinal perspective to discover trends. Suggested enhancements include:
Expanded indicators: â–¶ Aviation: direct flights, route network, airport infrastructure â–¶ Tourism: cross-border tourist flows, international tourist demographics, hotel capacity â–¶ Economics: tourism revenue, industry GDP contribution
Time depth: The current chart only covers 1-2 years of data, which is not enough to assess the long-term impact of aviation on tourism. Integrate at least 5-10 years of historical data for robust trend analysis
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of the article in English is OK but needs improvement
Author Response
Thank you for the comments that have been provided. I have uploaded the documents for reference, and I have highlighted in red the changes I have made.
Clearly establish causal relationships between direct flights/direct air transport and tourism growth in BRICS+ countries. Provide empirical evidence or theoretical frameworks explaining how direct connectivity specifically drives tourism sustainability. We added the changes
2.The literature review lacks depth in three dimensions:
Mechanism Analysis: How do direct flights and tourism interact? What are the key determinants of tourism demand? Comparative Insights: What lessons can be drawn from similar multilateral groups (e.g., ASEAN, G20) regarding the role of direct air transport in fostering tourism and economic cooperation? We were able to add and shed some light on these points, and we were able to incorporate with examples taken from the ASEAN
BRICS-Specific Context: What forms of collaboration exist among BRICS+ nations? What conclusions have prior studies reached about their aviation-tourism synergies? On this point, the direct flight section is meant to show that the BRICS+ nations do have some ongoing collaboration with the air transportation and tourism sector, but we also tried to show that the BRICS+ nations are working on a strategy that will serve all members for tourism purposes
3. Superficial data analysis The analysis part requires a richer data set and a longitudinal perspective to discover trends. Suggested enhancements include: Expanded indicators: â–¶ Aviation: direct flights, route network, airport infrastructure â–¶ Tourism: cross-border tourist flows, international tourist demographics, hotel capacity â–¶ Economics: tourism revenue, industry GDP contribution. Time depth: The current chart only covers 1-2 years of data, which is not enough to assess the long-term impact of aviation on tourism. Integrate at least 5-10 years of historical data for robust trend analysis
In this section (charts), we were looking at the after-COVID-19 effects. Because of the new members in the BRICS+, we decided to look at the data from 2023/2024 because we wanted to include the new members of the BRICS, and we made the graphs based on having direct flights as part of the BRICS+ nations. It also seems like those were the years we would be able to see if there is any shift in the sector because that was when many countries and businesses started to go back to "normal".
We were able to incorporate other points in this section in the literature review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article effectively highlights the importance of enhancing direct air transport connectivity to boost sustainable tourism in BRICS+ nations. With clear emphasis on economic and sustainability impacts, it underscores the potential of direct air links to address logistical inefficiencies that currently exist. However, the work seems to be underdeveloped and significant improvements are required for each part of the work.
The introduction does not clearly identify the specific research gap in the field of tourism and air transport. It mentions the importance of tourism in BRICS+ nations but lacks a strong justification with references to existing studies or literature that highlight what has not been addressed in prior research.
The literature review provides a descriptive summary of existing studies without offering a critical analysis. This section could be improved by engaging more deeply with the literature, discussing different viewpoints, and highlighting specific gaps that this study aims to fill. The key theories / theoretical frameworks should be identified.
The methodology is the weakest section. The abstract mentions the use of mixed methods, however, it is not described in enough detail. It mentions using a mixed-methods approach but does not explain how the methods were implemented or why they were chosen. More information about the data sources and modeling techniques would help readers understand and trust the study's findings. There should be the most significant improvements. The study should ensure replicability of the study findings.
The findings section presents the results, but it lacks specific examples or case studies to illustrate the points made. It currently presents very basic figures, which does not explain much. Authors should also consider to align all the figures in similar style. Including real-world examples from BRICS+ countries would make the findings more relatable and easier to understand.
The discussion of the results does not fully explore the implications of the findings for the aviation or tourism industries in BRICS+ nations. Discussing how these findings compare with previous research or what they mean for future policy could provide more depth.
Conclusions are somewhat brief and does not effectively summarize the key findings or their importance. A stronger conclusion should bring together the study's main insights and suggest practical outcomes and implications for policymakers and industry leaders.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageFurther proofreading would improve the quality of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for the shared comments. We have attended to the comments and we have highlighted them in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper examines whether improving direct air transport connectivity among BRICS+ nations can reduce travel barriers, boost sustainable tourism, and stimulate economic growth (see Abstract and Section 1). The topic is both original and relevant. It fills a gap by linking air connectivity with tourism recovery in emerging economies—an area not extensively covered in the literature. I have the following suggestions:
Compared to other studies, this work uniquely integrates policy analysis with economic impact modeling, offering specific recommendations (e.g., easing visa requirements, reducing flight costs) that directly address current challenges. Personally, I ask to detailed your values and compared your research to other related to highlight your contributions.
A more detailed explanation of the economic impact model and clearer integration of qualitative and quantitative methods would improve transparency and robustness. That is, try to provide more details, such as the time you get the data.
The conclusions are generally consistent with the presented evidence and address the main question, though they could more explicitly link specific findings to the recommendations. Please follow it.
The references are appropriate and up-to-date, though minor formatting tweaks could enhance consistency. Try to fix them based on MDPI format.
The visuals are useful in illustrating trends and relationships. Enhancing resolution, adding clearer captions, and ensuring consistent formatting would further improve their effectiveness.
I think this is an article with a high degree of completion, and the author has written it in great detail. There are just two small suggestions: First, the figures need to be optimized, as many figures have numbers covering them, which is not very aesthetically pleasing; Second, the reference format needs to be adjusted according to the magazine format.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please find the attached manuscript that addresses the comments we highlighted them in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made a lot of modifications to the manuscript, and the overall level of the article has been further improved, but there are still the following defects:
1. Improper citation of literature. The author should check the correctness of the references cited in this chapter and maintain the scientific rigor of the expression. For example, on pages 45-48, “The majority of the BRICS-plus countries are in the process of reducing their fossil fuel and one way of achieving this goal is by reducing the amount of planes people take to get to another country to also reduce the traveling logistics and services required.[3]”, Reducing flights can indeed reduce fossil fuel consumption, but it is by no means a restriction on the air transport industry. It should be described as: most BRICs countries and new member states are committed to reducing the use of fossil fuels. To achieve this goal, we can reduce the carbon emissions of the aviation industry and related logistics by reducing the frequency of unnecessary international flights and optimizing the travel management process (such as reducing the demand for travel services by 47%). In addition, literature [3] explores the impact of tourism and economic growth on carbon emissions in different countries, without directly mentioning the relevant content or information of the aviation industry.
2. most of the references cited in the article are mainly news pages, and the format of the references is incorrect. It is suggested that the author should further analyze the relationship between the direct flights between BRICs countries and the development of tourism industry in section -5.direct flight in the brics+nation, rather than simply quote the content of web analysis.
3. in the Conclusion part, the author should point out the shortcomings of the article at present and point out the development direction of future research.
4. the figures and tables in the article are not standardized, so it is suggested to modify and adjust according to the requirements of the journal.
The English language quality of the article is OK
Author Response
I have made amendments and I have highlighted the change in red.
Please see the attached manuscript.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are several improvements that the paper needed based on my previous review.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCan be improved.
Author Response
Please note I have made amendments and I have highlighted them in red.
Please see the attached manuscript.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made a lot of amendments to the comments on the manuscript, and the quality of the article has been further improved. However, there are still some small problems in the article, such as inaccurate section number, unclear text in the picture and so on. It is suggested that the author carefully check, modify and adjust the pictures to make the contents of the pictures clear and beautiful.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIts OK
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. I have made amendments to the manuscript. I have mentioned below which figures and sections I have adjusted.
The author has made a lot of amendments to the comments on the manuscript, and the quality of the article has been further improved. However, there are still some small problems in the article,
such as inaccurate section number.- I have double-checked the sections. I have removed the figures in the passages where they didn't belong. Like the theoretical framework section. I removed (figure 2)
unclear text in the picture, and so on. - I was able to adjust (figure 1). I made sure that the words fit the squares of the graphs. I was able to change the graph in (figure 4) to make sure that all the words are clear and being seen.
It is suggested that the author carefully check, modify and adjust the pictures to make the contents of the pictures clear and beautiful.- I tried to align the pictures to make sure that they are not overlapping (figure 5). I checked the full paper to make sure that the figures and table i was able to number them correctly and they fit the content of the paper.
I have attached the manuscript for your perusal.
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has been improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article has been improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comment.
The article has been improved.
I did not upload the paper for the reviewer because there were no further comments to address on the manuscript.
Thank you.
