Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This systematic review is reasonably well prepared and has the characteristic of making clear contributions, both in the Introduction section and in Results and Discussion sections, not limiting itself to a list of quantitative data. The weak point of the paper is that the topic is very limited to the case of China, partly because of this almost all the articles located are published in journals from that country. Something more encompassing in Dark Tourism would be more universal. As for possible improvements, indicate a couple of small elements that should be corrected or improved:

• It would be appreciated if Figure 1 had a more “conventional” structure for an application of the PRISMA method. At least indicate how many documents were worked with in each phase and how many were discarded in each phase until the final 49 were left.
• Some graphics such as Graphic 1 I think are dispensable. They do not bother, but they do not contribute anything that the text of the paper does not already do.
• Figure 5 mixes publishers, academic journals and general publications, which is a bit shocking to the reader.
• There are some typos such as words separated by hyphens that would be good to review.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments and review of this paper. The following is an explanation of what has been taken on board and carried out in relation to them.

Comments 1: It would be appreciated if Figure 1 had a more “conventional” structure for an application of the PRISMA method. At least indicate how many documents were worked with in each phase and how many were discarded in each phase until the final 49 were left.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your valuable input. We have updated Figure 1 to include the specific number of documents handled in each phase, along with the number of documents discarded at each stage, as required. This update helps better align the figure with the conventional structure for applying the PRISMA method and improves both the figure and the accompanying explanation, making the content more comprehensive.

Comments 2: Some graphics such as Graphic 1 I think are dispensable. They do not bother, but they do not contribute anything that the text of the paper does not already do.

Response 2: We have carefully considered your suggestion, and after thorough discussion among all authors, we have decided to retain Graphic 1. While we understand that some graphics may seem dispensable, we believe this one is essential. It highlights the dominance of Chinese-language publications, emphasizes the concentration of RT research within Chinese academic circles, and illustrates the global imbalance in research attention, driven by China’s unique historical and cultural context. Therefore, we believe these graphic complements the text and enhances the reader's understanding of the global scope of RT research.

Comments 3: Figure 5 mixes publishers, academic journals and general publications, which is a bit shocking to the reader.

Response 3: We appreciate your observation regarding Figure 5. After careful consideration, we have decided to retain this figure as presented for several important reasons. The co-citation network of leading magazines and publishers provides critical insights into the interdisciplinary nature of Red Tourism research by showing how diverse publication outlets connect and influence each other.

While we acknowledge that the figure contains a mix of publishers, academic journals, and general publications, this heterogeneity reveals something significant about Red Tourism research - namely, that knowledge production and dissemination in this field crosses traditional academic boundaries and includes various types of publication outlets.

The network illustrates how specialized Chinese publications like "Tourism Tribune" and "Human Geography" interact with international journals like "Annals of Tourism Research" and publishers like "London: Sage," demonstrating the flow of knowledge between Chinese and international academic circles. Additionally, the presence of official Chinese media outlets alongside academic publications highlights the importance of understanding both scholarly and official discourses in this field.

Rather than being a limitation, we believe this mixed representation provides a more comprehensive understanding of the knowledge ecosystem surrounding Red Tourism research and its educational applications.

Comments 4: There are some typos such as words separated by hyphens that would be good to review.

Response 4: Thank you for your careful review. We have thoroughly checked the manuscript and corrected any typos, including words incorrectly separated by hyphens. We appreciate your attention to detail.

Thank you again for all your comments and review.

Best regards,

Tha authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this research paper, authors aimed to investigate and provide knowledge about Red Tourism and Youth Education.

The thematic is original and actual.

The Title and  Keywords are adequate and relevant, once they highlight the main objectives of the paper.

The abstract is concise and presents the research objectives and method, in the context of a theoretical framework. The objectives are aligned with the overall problem and are enunciated in logical sequence.

In the Introduction, authors present a well-defined overview of the Red Tourism situation in China. However, authors should also provide more information about  the scale of Red tourism (e.g. number of visits or number of tourists) at the main tourist sites (or attractions) or main RT routes (associated with Red Tourism). It's important to be aware of the importance of this type of tourism.

The section Materials and Methods is consistent and suitable for answering the starting questions. Figure 1 clearly shows the chosen sequence or stages of the Systematic Review on RT and Youth Education.

 

The sections Results and Discussion give a coherent and critical interpretation of the research objectives. Simultaneously, they provide answers to the research questions, mainly 1 and 2. However, with regard to the last question ( How can the design of RT be optimized to enrich the educational experience of students and  maximize its educational potential?) authors should explain further the outputs of SLR.          

The conclusion should also highlight the answer to question 3.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments and review of this paper. The following is an explanation of what has been taken on board and carried out in relation to them.

Comment 1: In the Introduction, authors present a well-defined overview of the Red Tourism situation in China. However, authors should also provide more information about the scale of Red tourism (e.g. number of visits or number of tourists) at the main tourist sites (or attractions) or main RT routes (associated with Red Tourism). It's important to be aware of the importance of this type of tourism.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. To address this point, we have added the information to highlight the scale of Red Tourism in China. We believe this data provides a clearer understanding of the scale and significance of Red Tourism.

Comments 2: The sections Results and Discussion give a coherent and critical interpretation of the research objectives. Simultaneously, they provide answers to the research questions, mainly 1 and 2. However, with regard to the last question (How can the design of RT be optimized to enrich the educational experience of students and maximize its educational potential?) authors should explain further the outputs of SLR. 

Response 2: We appreciate your acknowledgment of the coherence and critical interpretation provided in the Results and Discussion sections. Regarding your suggestion on the last research question, "How can the design of RT be optimized to enrich the educational experience of students and maximize its educational potential?" we agree that further clarification on the outputs of the SLR is necessary. We have now elaborated on these outputs in the revised version, providing additional insights into how the design of Red Tourism can be enhanced to better serve educational purposes and maximize its potential impact. We believe these revisions address the question more comprehensively and contribute to a deeper understanding of the findings.

Comments 3: The conclusion should also highlight the answer to question 3.

Response 3: We appreciate your helpful input in strengthening this section. In response to your comment, we have added information to the conclusion to address question 3. This addition emphasizes how the design of Red Tourism can be optimized to enhance the educational experience for students.

Thank you again for all your comments and review.

Best regards,

The authors