Benchmarking of Technological Platforms for Accessible Tourism: A Study Resulting in an Innovative Solution—Access@tour
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is interesting; however, I have some suggestions for the authors.
1. Introduction. Authors need to highlight the research gaps that justify the study and explain how the findings contribute to knowledge. It is necessary to clarify the objective of the study concerning research gaps.
3. Materials and Methods. I would like to advise the authors to specify the methodological approach used (qualitative analysis) first by analyzing the state of the art of the existing platforms and then by analyzing, through content analysis, the contents of the identified platforms.
Explain better and in more depth the Methodological process for attaining access @ tour by action. In addition, explain the results that emerge from questionnaires and focus groups.
Author Response
We are extremely grateful for your relevant comments and valuable contributions to improving our work.
In the manuscript the amended sections are in yellow. The changes made are not in track changes because the document became too confusing.
Comment 1: The paper is interesting; however, I have some suggestions for the authors.
Answer to comment 1: Thank you very much for this comment and for your relevant contributions to improving the quality of our study.
Comment 2: Introduction. Authors need to highlight the research gaps that justify the study and explain how the findings contribute to knowledge. It is necessary to clarify the objective of the study concerning research gaps.
Answer to comment 2: As suggested by the reviewer, in the introduction section the research gaps were highlighted and the contributions to increasing knowledge in the accessible tourism as well as those related to information systems on accessible tourism were added. Moreover, the objectives of the paper related to the gaps identified were clarified.
Comment 3: Materials and Methods. I would like to advise the authors to specify the methodological approach used (qualitative analysis) first by analyzing the state of the art of the existing platforms and then by analyzing, through content analysis, the contents of the identified platforms.
Answer to comment 3: In order to provide more details in the materials and methods section, the methodological approach used was better explained.
Comment 4: Explain better and in more depth the Methodological process for attaining access @ tour by action. In addition, explain the results that emerge from questionnaires and focus groups.
Answer to comment 4: We introduced a better explanation of the methodology used to obtain the access@tour by action. However, the focus of this work lies in the benchmarking of the platform and not in the exposure of the results of the questionnaires and focus groups carried out related to the access@tour by action.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is devoted to the very urgent issue – integration of people with specific needs (people with physical, intellectual, visual and hearing disabilities and people with other special needs, such as seniors, pregnant women, parents with baby strollers, people with respiratory allergies, and people with food allergies) into contemporary society and social life by means of accessible tourism. Tourism information systems are becoming crucial tools to ensure access to tourism for these people. The authors analyse the functional and non-functional properties of the selected systems and propose their own platform for accessible tourism.
- Literature Review
It seems that the authors should increase the theoretical basis for their research. In total they use only 39 sources, and only 18 of them are scientific articles, others are acts, internet sources and investigated platforms.
- Literature Review & Results
Another drawback of the article: the results contain the passages about educational institutions, but neither in introduction, nor in literature review or in aim and tasks nothing was said about the so important agent of the market. Moreover, in lines 219-221 there is a direct reference to the literature, which is not mentioned anywhere. It seems, some notes should be added about the role of the educational institutions.
- Results
In section 4.3 mentioned the global index. It seems that there should be added some explanations, what global index is meant by the authors.
- Typo?
Line 59 – not got the meaning fully
Line 271 – offer or supply – possibly you mean “demand or supply”?
- Tables
No references/sources for the tables. If they are generated by the authors – it should be noted
- Plagiarism
Lines 72-73 – please, show the source
Please try to rewrite in your own words the following passages:
Lines 87-88
Lines 105-114 (the entire paragraph is shown as a plagiarism)
Lines 151-154
Lines 424-425
Author Response
We are extremely grateful for your relevant comments and valuable contributions to improving our work.
In the manuscript the amended sections are in yellow. The changes made are not in track changes because the document became too confusing.
Comment 1: The article is devoted to the very urgent issue – integration of people with specific needs (people with physical, intellectual, visual and hearing disabilities and people with other special needs, such as seniors, pregnant women, parents with baby strollers, people with respiratory allergies, and people with food allergies) into contemporary society and social life by means of accessible tourism. Tourism information systems are becoming crucial tools to ensure access to tourism for these people. The authors analyse the functional and non-functional properties of the selected systems and propose their own platform for accessible tourism.
Answer to comment 1: Thank you for your relevant contributions to improving the quality of our study.
Comment 2: 1. Literature Review
It seems that the authors should increase the theoretical basis for their research. In total they use only 39 sources, and only 18 of them are scientific articles, others are acts, internet sources and investigated platforms.
Answer to comment 2: As suggested the literature review section was improved and more scientific articles were added.
Comment 3: 2. Literature Review & Results
Another drawback of the article: the results contain the passages about educational institutions, but neither in introduction, nor in literature review or in aim and tasks nothing was said about the so important agent of the market. Moreover, in lines 219-221 there is a direct reference to the literature, which is not mentioned anywhere. It seems, some notes should be added about the role of the educational institutions.
Answer to comment 3: Thank you for this comment. As suggested, some evidence concerning the role of educational institutions in the development of accessible tourism and why the stakeholder should be included in an information system to accessible tourism were included in the introduction sections as well as in the literature review section.
Comment 4: 3.Results
In section 4.3 mentioned the global index. It seems that there should be added some explanations, what global index is meant by the authors.
Answer to comment 4: The global index is the name of the quantitative scale obtained with AccessMonitor. This term was clarified in section 4.3.
Comment 5: 4.Typo?
Line 59 – not got the meaning fully
Line 271 – offer or supply – possibly you mean “demand or supply”?
Answer to comment 5: We apologise for the typos. The mistakes were corrected.
Comment 6: 5.Tables
No references/sources for the tables. If they are generated by the authors – it should be noted
Answer to comment 6: The authors produced all tables and figures. The information regarding the source: “own elaboration” was added.
Comment 7: 6. Plagiarism
Lines 72-73 – please, show the source
Please try to rewrite in your own words the following passages:
Lines 87-88
Lines 105-114 (the entire paragraph is shown as a plagiarism)
Lines 151-154
Lines 424-425
Answer to comment 7: Our apologies for these occurrences. All mentioned sentences have been rewritten to avoid plagiarism.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper proposes a Web platform aimed at increasing knowledge transfer among all stakeholders involved in accessible tourism. The topic is very interesting and the manuscript is overall well-written.
Below some comments to raise further its quality.
Authors provide the definition of accessible tourism in introduction without discussing the problem of accessibility in the framework of the inclusivity and responsible tourism activities. I therefore warmly recommend the Authors to discuss the link between responsible, inclusive and accessible tourism. Section 2.1 is probably the most suited section to discuss this.
In section 2.1, Authors report some figures about accessible tourism at global level. Then, they provide figures for Portugal. Referring to a specific country does not make sense in this context. Authors should therefore take into account the possibility to delete such information or eventually to expand figures by making a country-level comparison in the EU.
Section 3.1 and 3.2 deal with the context of analysis and data collection, respectively. However, Authors do not explain the geographical context where the analysis is carried out. Only later (Table 1), the reader finds out that Authors analyses platforms at worldwide level. Moreover, some additional information about the research project “access@tour by action” are necessary to help the reader to contextualise the analysis (for instance, Authors should report whether it is an EU or national project, how many research institutes have been involved, etc.)
Figure 1 should be explain a bit more in detail.
Table 1 reports the 10 platforms analysed. Is there any specific reason why 3 of them are Portuguese? Authors should discuss this.
Results are well discussed and complete while conclusions lack of some policy implications.
Suggested references:
Bianchi et al. (2020) Accessible Tourism in Natural Park Areas: A Social Network Analysis to Discard Barriers and Provide Information for People with Disabilities (Sustainability)
Darcy and Dickson (2009). A whole-of-life approach to tourism: The case for accessible tourism experiences (Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management)
Sisto et al. (2021) Sustainable and accessible tourism in natural areas: a participatory approach (Current Issue in Tourism)
Bindu and Devi (2016). Accessible tourism: Determinants and constraints; A demand side perspective (Journal of Business and Management)
Gillovic and McIntosh (2020). Accessibility and inclusive tourism development: Current state and future agenda (Sustainability)
Author Response
We are extremely grateful for your relevant comments and valuable contributions to improving our work.
In the manuscript, the amended sections are in yellow. The changes made are not in track changes because the document became too confusing.
Comment 1: The paper proposes a Web platform aimed at increasing knowledge transfer among all stakeholders involved in accessible tourism. The topic is very interesting and the manuscript is overall well-written.
Answer to comment 1: Thank you very much for your comments and for your relevant contributions to improving the quality of our study.
Below some comments to raise further its quality.
Comment 2: Authors provide the definition of accessible tourism in introduction without discussing the problem of accessibility in the framework of the inclusivity and responsible tourism activities. I therefore warmly recommend the Authors to discuss the link between responsible, inclusive and accessible tourism. Section 2.1 is probably the most suited section to discuss this.
Answer to comment 2: Thank you for this suggestion. As recommended, some discussion concerning the link between responsible, inclusive and accessible tourism were added in section 2.1.
Comment 3: In section 2.1, Authors report some figures about accessible tourism at global level. Then, they provide figures for Portugal. Referring to a specific country does not make sense in this context. Authors should therefore take into account the possibility to delete such information or eventually to expand figures by making a country-level comparison in the EU.
Answer to comment 2: Thank you for this comment. As recommended, the information related to the accessible tourism market in Portugal was deleted.
Comment 3: Section 3.1 and 3.2 deal with the context of analysis and data collection, respectively. However, Authors do not explain the geographical context where the analysis is carried out. Only later (Table 1), the reader finds out that Authors analyses platforms at worldwide level. Moreover, some additional information about the research project “access@tour by action” are necessary to help the reader to contextualise the analysis (for instance, Authors should report whether it is an EU or national project, how many research institutes have been involved, etc.)
Answer to comment 3: Thank you for these comments. In order to provide more detail concerning this issue, the geographical context in which the analysis was carried out was added.
Comment 4: Figure 1 should be explain a bit more in detail.
Answer to comment 4: - Thank you for this suggestion. We added a better explanation of the methodology used to obtain access@tour by action.
Comment 5: Table 1 reports the 10 platforms analysed. Is there any specific reason why 3 of them are Portuguese? Authors should discuss this.
Answer to comment 5: To provide an explanation of why three of the 10 platforms are Portuguese, some explanations were introduced before table 10. The fact that the data collection was made using the Portuguese versions of Google Play Store, Microsoft Store, and Apple Store may help explain why three of the platforms are Portuguese. Moreover, in Portugal the accessible tourism in the last years has grown considerably. Consequently, some platforms were developed in Portugal.
Comment 6: Results are well discussed and complete while conclusions lack of some policy implications.
Answer to comment 6: Thank you for the suggestion. Some policy implications were added in the section containing the conclusions.
Comment 7: Suggested references:
Bianchi et al. (2020) Accessible Tourism in Natural Park Areas: A Social Network Analysis to Discard Barriers and Provide Information for People with Disabilities (Sustainability)
Darcy and Dickson (2009). A whole-of-life approach to tourism: The case for accessible tourism experiences (Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management)
Sisto et al. (2021) Sustainable and accessible tourism in natural areas: a participatory approach (Current Issue in Tourism)
Bindu and Devi (2016). Accessible tourism: Determinants and constraints; A demand side perspective (Journal of Business and Management)
Gillovic and McIntosh (2020). Accessibility and inclusive tourism development: Current state and future agenda (Sustainability)
Answer to comment 8: Thank you very much for these suggestions. As recommended, these references were included in the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, all my suggestions have been incorporated in the manuscript which looks now definitely improved. Congratulations!
