Purchasing Spices as Tourist Souvenirs—A Risk Assessment in the Context of Sustainable Tourism Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on the field of sustainable development and explores a certain theme (the specific content is not fully displayed), involving cross-analysis of ecological, economic and social impacts. The paper framework is clear and the research content is in line with the theme of sustainable development. I have some suggestions and comments for the author's reference only, and I hope they will help improve the quality of this manuscript.

Main suggestions
1. In the introduction, the author needs to clearly point out the research question or hypothesis.
2. The description of data sources and analysis methods (such as regression models, structural equation models, etc.) is relatively simple. The author needs to further explain the data analysis methods, such as whether it involves data cleaning, variable selection, model parameters and other details.
3. The conclusion of the paper should reflect the impractical contribution. For example:
(1) How do research findings affect policy making?
(2) How to optimize sustainable development measures in the future?
4. It is recommended that the author add prospects for future research, such as data expansion, method improvement or cross-national comparison.

Other minor issues
1. The language expression of the paper can be optimized to avoid lengthy or repetitive sentences.
2. Analysis instructions should be added to the charts to improve the intuitiveness and interpretability of the data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. The language expression of the paper can be optimized to avoid lengthy or repetitive sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Best regards Joanna Newerli-Guz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the topic you chose for your article is very original. There are practically no such studies in the field of tourism and hospitality. But before publishing this article, I believe that it is necessary to finalize the material and place accents.

1. each scientific article, like a scientific study, must have an object and subject of research. If in relation to the object of your research it is more clear: the market for tourist souvenirs, namely, spices. That in relation to the subject of research - it is not entirely clear what the authors chose as the subject of research. Perhaps this issue should be specified.

2. If I understood your article correctly, are you trying to present the whole world as a potential market for tourist spices in your research? Is there too much scope? As a formulation of scientific problems, such an approach is possible, but for a specific study it is unrealistic. Or scientific research turns into a popular science description. I believe that at the moment, your article is closer to the second option. Maybe choose a region of the world as a model platform?

3. And finally, if your study studies the purchase of tourist souvenirs - spices, I believe that some financial indicators should be present in the study. Until I saw them in the article.

4. And one more note. Still, it would be desirable for the authors to explain in more detail the connection between the concept of sustainable development and the purchase of "correct" tourist souvenirs - spices.

I hope that these comments will improve the quality of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Best regards Joanna Newerli-Guz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should update the content of the abstract by focusing on the problem, objective, research methodology, the most important research results, and recommendations for further research steps. Authors draw special attention to the first three sentences of the abstract, which refer to transport, as they are not related to the problem and the goal of the research, which diminishes the effects of the work and the attention of future readers. The research problem is very interesting and should be looked at more professionally and scientifically from the aspect of sustainable development and risk-ecology and pollution, health risks and counterfeit products, education and tourist awareness, social and economic dimensions, control and regulation.

Following the above suggestions, update the Introduction section.

Authors should expand the work with a Literature review section where research in this area should be reviewed with a focus on the period of the last five years, studies published in the publication Q1/Q2. In the Results section, authors should show the specific results of the research. The research results described in the current way are loaded with information from previous research and are not clear. Table 1 is commendable, but it leaves the focus of the research objective - spices as tourist souvenirs. Edit Table 1 to indicate spices, not culinary souvenirs. 3.1. The Food as souvenirs from tourist destinations section indicates research results broader than the research objective of this paper, so these results could be used in another paper whose goal would be culinary souvenirs, which is broader than spices, which is the focus of this paper. Section 4 refers again to the Results, correct the order and names of the sections in the paper. The Discussion section is missing from the paper. Cite the source below the following Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 and explain. The results in Table 3 are not clear, nor is the design of this table, the reader does not understand which data refer to what.
Develop and clarify the research methodology.

References older than five years were mostly used. Focus on newer research published in publications ranked Q1/Q2.

The research problem is current and interesting, but how it is viewed should be changed so that the work is focused on the problem and goal of the research, that the sections of the work are by the methodology of preparing scientific research papers, that the results are clear and precise and that modern research in this area is considered.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Best regards Joanna Newerli-Guz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present paper needs major revisions in order to meet the requirements for publication in the Sustainability journal.

First, this paper should have been submitted in the review category, not as an article.

Second, the abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.

Thirdly, the introduction is very short and it does not meet the Sustainability journal requirements. It should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited.

Moreover, this paper lacks a conceptual framework regarding the role of souvenirs in tourism, as well as risk assessment in the context of sustainable tourism development. The authors should first define the key studied concepts according to other scholars, and then provide the literature review.

The references are cited in two different styles: the sustainability journal recommended style, with numbers under brackets, as well as the APA style. The authors should also revise this. Also, the authors should improve their reference list with more recent studies (from 2023, 2024, 2025).

The conclusion section is short and weak. It should present the theoretical and practical implications of this study, as well as its limitations and directions for future research.

Author Response

Please see attachment
Best regards Joanna Newerli-Guz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks a lot for all the coauthors substantial and careful revisions. I trust the research will contribute to  the  research of sustainable tourism. At the same time, I expect the authors can continue to do the further research as they refer in the manuscript.  Good luck!

Best Regards!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

 

Thank You very much for all the comments given to us in the first review and for appreciating the changes we have made. We will continue to strive for research in the field of sustainable tourism.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your attention to the comments on the revision of the article. Drawings have also become more readable. I think that the article may be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

 

We would like to thank You very much for all your previous comments and the present recommendation of the article for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for trying to consider the reviewer’s suggestions.

I wish to instruct them to amend the text in lines 14 to 17. The information that data have been published in only a few studies should be included only in the Methodology and Conclusion section as a limitation of the study. Instead of referring to the literature review, it is necessary to describe the applied research methodology and state the scientific methods based on which the results were reached. Considering that the authors state that the most serious hazards from spices are pathogens, pesticides, and mycotoxins in products from Asia, I do not understand the addition of the title "European perspective".

I suggest that authors move the text from lines 167 to 186 to the Materials and Methods section.

The text in lines from 602 to 603 should be corrected with information about the method used for data collection and processing – authors wrote "the available literature", but they should write about the methodology of scientific research, they should state the methods and techniques used.

References have been supplemented according to the reviewer's suggestion, but not according to the needs of the manuscript. Please explain references numbers 35 to 40. Apart from links to portals, no data is accessed. Whether you used the data from the given links is not verifiable. Also, most of the newer references are related to studies related to the period of the COVID pandemic, which indicates the need to include newer studies, but without any great sense when it comes to this manuscript.

The manuscript has potential but is not legible, it is necessary to relax the text and focus on the essence. Check the references and leave those that are important for the manuscript. Not everything can be said in one manuscript. I suggest that the authors relax the text, focus on the essence, and define the scientific methods and literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

 

We would like to thank You very much for all your previous comments and the present recommendation of the article for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been much improved. However, there are some issues that should be addressed:

1. In the title, the authors should articulate the newly added issues and specify “A European perspective”.
2. The conclusion section was improved with some limitations and directions for future research. However, the theoretical and practical implications have not been added.
3. In the reference list, the authors should exclude: Parveen et al., 2014 and leave the full citation. Same for Ellis et al., 2018.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

 

We would like to thank You very much for all your previous comments and the present recommendation of the article for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have worked diligently to improve the manuscript, considering the suggestions given. I maintain that the paper is a demanding read, so the text should be freed from repetition of information and information that is not directly related to the research problem (which I have referred to in previous peer review reports). I believe that the manuscript contains material for two solid papers. I suggest that the authors clean up the text and prepare a manuscript that will be readable and attractive to both the academic and professional public.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I am posting our response to your review below.
With respect Joanna Newerli-Guz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf