Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract and all sections of this manuscript need to be revised. See the notes; it's about the format of texts, in which the text breaks in the middle. Please correct this. Add a figure of a conceptual model of the variables that the author intends to study and find out about the hypothesis. In the literature review, a figure or graphic that shows a conceptual model is needed in this manuscript. The introduction section should not contain a hypothesis but rather research questions or objectives. The hypothesis should be changed in research questions in this section.. The number of samples is too low; only 5 interviews were conducted. Please add more to give more context and insight to the study. There are some issues with format of tables as well please check the guidelines. The manuscript is quite lengthy; please synthesize the result and discussion section. The result section needs to be more concise.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good but can be further improved so the manuscript can be more concise.

Author Response

Comment: The abstract and all sections of this manuscript need to be revised. See the notes; it's about the format of texts, in which the text breaks in the middle. Please correct this.

Response: We have carefully revised the abstract and all sections of the manuscript to correct formatting issues, including unintended text breaks, and ensured consistency.

Comment: Add a figure of a conceptual model of the variables that the author intends to study and find out about the hypothesis. In the literature review, a figure or graphic that shows a conceptual model is needed in this manuscript.

Response: We have developed and added a conceptual model, now included as Figure 1, which synthesizes the key analytical components of the study. The model illustrates how trauma referentiality informs narrative forms, which subsequently shape calls-to-action and dominant emotional regimes, ultimately influencing the campaign’s position on Stone’s (2006) dark tourism spectrum. An ethical moderation layer has also been incorporated to reflect the interpretive constraints identified in H7. The figure is now referenced in both the Literature Review and the analytical sections.

Comment: The introduction section should not contain a hypothesis but rather research questions or objectives. The hypothesis should be changed in research questions in this section.

Response: We have revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to explicitly articulate the research objectives and clarify the study’s rationale, reformulating the hypotheses as research questions in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation.

Comment: The number of samples is too low; only 5 interviews were conducted. Please add more to give more context and insight to the study.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding the number of interviews. As clarified in the Sampling and Data Collection section (Section 3.2), the number of interviews was determined by the interpretative and exploratory nature of the study rather than by principles of statistical representativeness. The interviews were selected through theoretical sampling to ensure coverage of key institutional and professional positions involved in the production of dark tourism narratives, including public memorial institutions, private tour operators, and independent guides.

The five interviews were designed to represent distinct narrative-production clusters rather than individual variation, allowing for triangulation between institutional, commercial, and spiritual actors. To further clarify this rationale, we have added a sentence in the Methodology section explicitly emphasizing the logic of cluster-based representativeness and the sufficiency of the sample for interpretive saturation.

Comment: There are some issues with format of tables as well please check the guidelines.

Response: We have revised the formatting of all tables in line with the MDPI guidelines, including adjustments to font size and layout. Table 2 has been retained in full, as it presents the complete cross-case narrative matrix used in the analysis. Its format has been reviewed to enhance readability, while preserving the analytical integrity of the data.

Comment: The manuscript is quite lengthy; please synthesize the result and discussion section. The result section needs to be more concise.

Response: We agree that greater synthesis improves the clarity of the manuscript. The Results and Discussion sections have been carefully reviewed to improve conciseness and readability. Rather than removing analytical components that address distinct aspects of the findings, we have streamlined the presentation and added a concise summary paragraph at the end of the Discussion section to highlight the key contributions and overarching results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed study examines the communication of dark tourism in Romania, focusing on a set of narrative components that position storytelling not only as a tool available to the tourism destination, but also as an interpretive key - a cultural mediator. A pivotal focus is placed on emotional branding and emotional responses.

The study aims to investigate a series of hypotheses and adopts a mixed-methods research design. Ten promotional campaigns of dark tourism in Romania are analysed, supplemented by five semi-structured interviews. The latter are conducted with strategic stakeholders involved in the promotional campaigns rather than with tourists: this may constitute a limitation, but the authors appropriately acknowledge such an issue.

The manuscript presents a well-structured introduction and a carefully articulated theoretical background, indicating an in-depth engagement with the topic under investigation. Overall, the work is clearly articulated across the various sections and supported by a solid expertis. I therefore consider the manuscript to be worthy of publication.

The following comments are intended as minor revisions as well as suggestions aimed at improving the clarity and comprehensibility of the article.

- INTRODUCTION
Storytelling is fundamental to the configuration of the destination image, especially when its emotional component is foregrounded. For this reason, it is important to clarify which phase of the destination image is being investigated: pre-visit, in situ, or post-visit. Communication of the tourism product generates a set of expectations, and these may play different roles depending on the phase in which the touristic image is configured/managed.
I think the authors are focusing on the pre-visit destination image, but I would suggest making this aspect explicit.

- MATERIALS AND METHODS
I should provide more details on the semi-structured interviews. A table outlining the interviews structure might be helpful for readers.

- FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Table 2 shows the ten campaigns selected for the study, which are explained through the cross-case narrative matrix. In the previous section, the authors emphasise that the selection of the campaigns was guided by a search for heterogeneity, so as to investigate cases that differ in their various components. I wonder, however, whether the seasonality of the specific tourism offers and the environment in which they are situated were taken into consideration. These aspects could influence, in perceptual terms (e.g. landscape characteristics, temperature), the communication of the destination. Also, it could be useful (though not mandatory!) to include a cartographic representation of the places featured in the selected campaigns.

Author Response

Comment: “I should provide more details on the semi-structured interviews. A table outlining the interviews structure might be helpful for readers.”

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that additional transparency regarding the interview design can enhance methodological clarity. In response, we have expanded Section 3.2 (Sampling and Data Collection) and Section 4.6 (Interview Methodology and Interpretation) to further specify the structure and thematic focus of the semi-structured interviews.

Additionally, we have introduced a new table summarizing the interview framework, outlining the key thematic blocks, analytical objectives, and example guiding questions. This table is intended to clarify how the interviews supported the interpretive and narrative aims of the study, while preserving the flexibility inherent to a semi-structured design.

Comment: “I wonder whether the seasonality of the tourism offers and the environment in which they are situated were taken into consideration. These aspects could influence the communication of the destination. Also, it could be useful (though not mandatory!) to include a cartographic representation of the places featured in the selected campaigns.”

Response:
Thank you for raising these important points. The study acknowledges that seasonality and environmental conditions (e.g., landscape atmosphere, temperature, light, or weather-specific cues) may influence the perceptual framing of dark tourism destinations. In our research design, these factors were considered contextually rather than treated as independent variables, since the focus of the analysis lies on narrative-discursive structures rather than on the experiential or environmental dimension of on-site visitation. However, to improve clarity, we have added a short statement in the Methods section noting that campaigns were collected and analysed as pre-visit communication artefacts, whose narrative and affective structures remain relatively stable across seasonal variations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This is an interesting and scientifically complete text.   The research contribution to the literature is satisfactory.   The adopted research methodology is convincing.   The research hypotheses require further clarification. First, it would be worthwhile to consider the main hypothesis, which should encompass the entire discussion. Specific hypotheses should be directly related to the research area. Nowhere is it stated that they concern Romania. Based on the research conducted, it is impossible to draw conclusions about all manifestations of dark tourism.   The inclusion of the Chernobyl Tour in the study is surprising. Although such a tour can be organized from Romania, this example does not fall within the declared research area.      

Author Response

Comment: “It would be worthwhile to consider a main hypothesis… Nowhere is it stated that they concern Romania.”

Response: Consistent with interpretive qualitative research, the study does not advance a single overarching hypothesis, but instead develops a set of analytically grounded working propositions that guide theory-building through narrative and affective pattern identification. We have revised the Method section to clarify this qualitative logic and to explicitly state that the working hypotheses are formulated in relation to the Romanian post-socialist context and are grounded in Romanian dark tourism communication between 2020 and 2025.

 

Comment: ”It is impossible to draw conclusions about all manifestations of dark tourism”

Response: The study does not aim at universal generalization across all manifestations of dark tourism, but at developing an analytically transferable model grounded in Romanian cases, consistent with qualitative theory-building approaches. We have acknowledged this at the end of Materials and methods section and in the Limitations section. 

 

Comment: “The inclusion of the Chernobyl Tour in the study is surprising… this example does not fall within the declared research area.”

Response: The analytical focus of the study is not limited to dark tourism sites physically located in Romania, but rather to dark tourism campaigns promoted by Romanian tourism operators and addressed to Romanian audiences. From this perspective, the Chernobyl tour functions as a relevant case, as it is actively marketed within the Romanian tourism sector and framed through locally embedded narrative, affective, and ethical strategies. We have clarified this distinction in the Materials and methods to avoid any potential ambiguity regarding the unit of analysis. Thank you for your relevant observation!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the efforts by the authors to revise, and most of the revisions have been done in accordance with the comment. However, why does the format of this paragraph still have words cut in the middle? such as ar...eas...should be areas. Please check again the whole manuscript and make sure there are no cut off words in the end of the manuscript. I think there is something wrong with the paragraph format, where some words are cut off into two sections.

 

Update via email:  "I do not have any other comments on the content revision of this manuscript, and the manuscript can be accepted now.“

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good but can be further improved so the manuscript can be more concise.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the Authors for their response to the review. I accept the scope of the changes.