Pandemic Boosts Prospects for Recovery of Rural Tourism in Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well organised: the study area context, the work placement in the scientific context, the working methodology, and the processing and interpretation of the results. Rich in content, it concludes with well-argued conclusions. The article only needs minor editing for minor errors.

For example:

-      Line 34 change “apstract” into “abstract”

-      Line 338, cancel (Box et al, 1994)

-      Line 457 Replace (Hanley, 1989) with [69] and then renumber the subsequent ones. Inserts in bibliography Hanley.

-      Line 537 acf and pacf change in ACF and PACF.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions that improved the quality of our manuscript. Changes made are marked in red and all changes suggested by other reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their nice pieces of work. After reviewing, the followings are the observations: 

1) In the graphical abstract, there is a typo, which is "apstract". Please modify it.

2) A well-written introduction includes a few problems, objectives, and significance. However, I would like to request to revise the research gap in more detail, so that, the audiences can better understand the research problems.

3) The literature review needs to be revised according to the proposed hypotheses. All the variables and their inter-correlations must be discussed in the literature review section. Presently the authors just have discussed "The quality of service in rural households as a booster for the recovery of tourism".

4) I would also request providing a more visible conceptual framework with variables name instead of a Graphical flow of hypothesis development.

5) Please discuss the sampling technique when selecting the target respondents. 

6) The findings and conclusions are presented very well.

7) It would be great if the theoretical and practical implications are presented separately for better understanding.

Best Wishes.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions that improved the quality of our manuscript. Changes made are marked in red and all changes suggested by other reviewers. 

In the graphical abstract modified abstract

2) Revised research gap in introduction. Added some sentences about research and aim for better understanding the problem. 

3) The literature review revised. We have added parts of the text that talk about variables and their relationships, supported by literature.

4) Provided conceptual framework instead of a Graphical flow of hypothesis development.

5) Discussed  the sampling technique. 

7) Separated the theoretical and practical implications 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is a very clearly presented research with a high methodological robustness. As Improvement I suggest to chhange Figure 4 for the legend to be understandable.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for suggestions that improved the quality of the manuscript. We have modified figures 4 and hopefully the resolution is better now.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx