Open Innovation in the Tourism Industry: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below are my comments and recommendations:

The abstract provides background information on open innovation and the tourism sector, briefly mentions the application of the PRISMA methodology, and delves into the findings and contributions of the literature review.

I consider it appropriate to further detail the methodological aspects within the abstract. That is, not only mentioning that PRISMA was used, resulting in 35 documents, but also other aspects such as the equations or search criteria in the selected database, the software used, the statistical analysis method, and others.

This paper briefly presents approaches from different authors on the importance and use of open innovation. Henry Chesbrough's approach to open and closed innovation is relevant in the analysis of this type of studies; however, it is advisable to delve deeper into aspects such as open innovation: Inside out, outside in and coupled.

The structure of the review does not present a theoretical framework section, although it presents previous literature on Open Innovation and the Tourism Industry, greater effort could be made in the analysis of different areas and applications of open innovation, for example: Social Open Innovation, Open Innovation Culture, Complexity of Open Innovation, Limits of Open Innovation, Open Innovation in Small and Medium Enterprises (Open Innovation in SMEs).

In the methods section, I recommend building a figure that summarizes the steps/stages carried out in the construction of the paper.

In the results section, I believe that in this session, more relationships could be established that increase the impact of the review results. For example, aspects such as lines of application of open innovation from each study vis-à-vis the tourism industry could be highlighted. In other words, a matrix could be created on the relationship between the results in Open versus the types of tourism.

The discussion was developed in 4 thematic lines: Tourism Branding and Experiential Value in Open Innovation, Collaborative Innovation and Stakeholder Co-Creation in Tourism, Employee Empowerment and Innovation Capacity in Tourism Firms, Digital Transformation and Innovation Resilience in Tourism, however, it is convenient to highlight the differentiating factor of the review, what novelty in the area of ​​open innovation in tourism this study raises, I recommend creating a new axis of discussion related to open innovation and sustainability in the tourism sector, that is, Open innovation allows collaboration and the exchange of ideas, proposing solutions to current challenges in sustainability, acts as an enabling strategy to achieve more sustainable, green and ecological tourism, from there the new axis can be derived.

In the conclusions section, 

Similar to the comment made in the discussion item, it is important to highlight the relationship of open innovation with the different types of sustainable innovations in the tourism sector, that is, how open innovation allows for the generation of sustainable innovations/eco-innovations.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract provides background information on open innovation and the tourism sector, briefly mentions the application of the PRISMA methodology, and delves into the findings and contributions of the literature review. I consider it appropriate to further detail the methodological aspects within the abstract. That is, not only mentioning that PRISMA was used, resulting in 35 documents, but also other aspects such as the equations or search criteria in the selected database, the software used, the statistical analysis method, and others.
Response: Thank you for this important recommendation. In response, the abstract was revised to include additional methodological detail, including the search string used and the inclusion criteria. This provides greater transparency and methodological rigor for the reader. "Articles were retrieved using a predefined search string: “Open innovation” AND “tourism industry” OR “tourism” OR “hospitality” OR “hotels” OR “leisure”. The selection process followed PRISMA guidelines and included only peer-reviewed journal articles in English within Business and Economics."

Comment 2: This paper briefly presents approaches from different authors on the importance and use of open innovation. Henry Chesbrough's approach to open and closed innovation is relevant in the analysis of this type of studies; however, it is advisable to delve deeper into aspects such as open innovation: Inside out, outside in and coupled.
Response 2: We appreciate this insightful suggestion. Accordingly, we have expanded the discussion on Chesbrough’s typology of open innovation by explicitly introducing and explaining the “inbound”, “outbound”, and “coupled” models in the Introduction section. "Chesbrough (2003) further classifies open innovation into three main types: (i) inbound (outside-in), which involves sourcing and integrating external ideas and knowledge; (ii) outbound (inside-out), in which internal ideas are shared externally to create additional value; and (iii) coupled processes that combine both dimensions through co-creation with partners These typologies are essential to understanding how tourism firms interact within innovation ecosystems."

Comment 3: The structure of the review does not present a theoretical framework section, although it presents previous literature on Open Innovation and the Tourism Industry, greater effort could be made in the analysis of different areas and applications of open innovation, for example: Social Open Innovation, Open Innovation Culture, Complexity of Open Innovation, Limits of Open Innovation, Open Innovation in Small and Medium Enterprises (Open Innovation in SMEs).

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting this opportunity to strengthen the conceptual analysis. A dedicated passage was added to the literature review that discusses these different dimensions of open innovation in the context of tourism. The paragraph integrates “Social Open Innovation”, “Open Innovation Culture”, “Limits of Open Innovation”, and “Open Innovation in SMEs”, with references from the studies included in the review.

Revision made at the end of section 2. Open Innovation and the Tourism Industry: "Moreover, several conceptual strands within open innovation remain underexplored in tourism. For example, Social Open Innovation, which emphasizes inclusive, community-based approaches, has been referenced in studies involving co-creation with residents and tourists (Carrasco-Santos et al., 2021; Cruz-Ruiz et al., 2022). The idea of an Open Innovation Culture, that is, the organizational mindset and values fostering openness, has been associated with empowerment and collaborative learning environments (Gusakov et al., 2020; Shin & Perdue, 2022). Other studies touch upon the complexity and limits of open innovation, particularly regarding the challenges of managing trust, power asymmetries, and stakeholder expectations (Rehman et al., 2024; Jutidharabongse et al., 2024). Finally, research on Open Innovation in SMEs highlights how small tourism enterprises engage in participatory innovation despite limited resources (Biconne et al., 2024; Mota et al., 2024)."

Comment 4: In the methods section, I recommend building a figure that summarizes the steps/stages carried out in the construction of the paper.

Response 4: We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. A new visual figure was added to summarize the steps of the systematic review, from research question formulation to thematic synthesis, in line with the PRISMA protocol.

Comment 5: In the results section, I believe that in this session, more relationships could be established that increase the impact of the review results. For example, aspects such as lines of application of open innovation from each study vis-à-vis the tourism industry could be highlighted. In other words, a matrix could be created on the relationship between the results in Open versus the types of tourism.

Response 5: This is an excellent suggestion. In response, we created a new matrix that categorizes the reviewed studies according to types of open innovation and types of tourism (e.g., cultural, rural, heritage, health). This was added as Figure 3, with a discussion paragraph preceding it.

Comment 6: The discussion was developed in 4 thematic lines […] I recommend creating a new axis of discussion related to open innovation and sustainability in the tourism sector […] as an enabling strategy to achieve more sustainable, green and ecological tourism.

Response 6: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. Instead of a fifth thematic cluster, a new integrative section (5.5) was created titled “Cross-Cutting Reflections: Sustainability, Digitalization, and the Future of Open Innovation in Tourism”. This section synthesizes transversal insights and specifically addresses the link between open innovation and sustainability using only the reviewed studies.

Comment 7: In the conclusions section, it is important to highlight the relationship of open innovation with the different types of sustainable innovations in the tourism sector.

Response 7: This point has been addressed in the final part of the conclusion. The revised paragraph now connects open innovation to eco-innovation and sustainable transformation, reinforcing the broader implications of the findings for tourism sustainability.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction should not only identify a gap but also compellingly argue for its significance and the novelty of your research. For instance, creating a large model without focusing on enhancing the study's unique contribution can detract from its originality. The current rationale based on the scarcity of studies on congruence theory and source credibility theory is inadequate. A noticeable weakness of this study is its lack of innovation.
2. Please clarify how the article addresses the following: Does open innovation offer advantages or benefits for the tourism industry? The current content of the article does not answer this central question.
3. The discussions surrounding the study results are insufficient and should be supported by the theories referenced in this study. The discussion section must provide deeper insights by linking to the theoretical foundations and integrating the results with existing literature. By incorporating these theories, we can deepen our understanding of the relationships between the constructs of the study and illustrate how the results differ from those of other studies in the field.
4. This search initially yielded 78 publications, published from 2009 to 2025. Why begin with 2009?
5. Create a section for discussing the results and a separate section for future trends on the topic?

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The introduction should not only identify a gap but also compellingly argue for its significance and the novelty of your research. For instance, creating a large model without focusing on enhancing the study's unique contribution can detract from its originality. The current rationale based on the scarcity of studies on congruence theory and source credibility theory is inadequate. A noticeable weakness of this study is its lack of innovation.

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive comment. We have revised the Introduction to better articulate the originality and significance of the study. A new paragraph was added that highlights the innovative contribution of this work, namely the systematic integration of open innovation theory into tourism research. The review introduces a thematic synthesis of empirical applications, identifies four distinct innovation clusters, and maps their relevance across tourism segments. This reinforces the study’s added value in addressing a knowledge gap and advancing theoretical and practical insights at the intersection of open innovation and tourism. "Moreover, this review offers a novel contribution by bridging open innovation theory and tourism studies through a thematic synthesis of empirical applications. While open innovation is well established in manufacturing and high-tech industries, its systematic integration in tourism remains underexplored. By identifying four innovation clusters and mapping their implications across tourism segments, this study advances our understanding of how openness fosters co-creation, resilience, and sustainable development within tourism ecosystems."

Comment 2: Please clarify how the article addresses the following: Does open innovation offer advantages or benefits for the tourism industry? The current content of the article does not answer this central question.

Response 2: Thank you for raising this important point. The manuscript was revised to explicitly address the benefits and added value of open innovation for the tourism industry. Specific references to advantages such as stakeholder co-creation, enhanced digital transformation, and increased resilience were incorporated into both the Discussion and Conclusion sections. These additions clarify how open innovation contributes to service improvement, sustainability, and competitiveness within tourism ecosystems.

Comment 3: The discussions surrounding the study results are insufficient and should be supported by the theories referenced in this study. The discussion section must provide deeper insights by linking to the theoretical foundations and integrating the results with existing literature. By incorporating these theories, we can deepen our understanding of the relationships between the constructs of the study and illustrate how the results differ from those of other studies in the field.

Response 3: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. To address this concern, we revised the Discussion section by explicitly integrating theoretical perspectives and relevant authors into the interpretation of each thematic cluster. The analysis now draws on well-established frameworks, including Chesbrough’s open innovation paradigm (2003, 2014), stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Dredge, 2006), the service-dominant logic of value co-creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008), and absorptive capacity theory (Zahra & George, 2002). These theoretical lenses were used to support the empirical interpretations, deepen the analysis, and position the study within the broader academic discourse on innovation and tourism.

Comment 4: This search initially yielded 78 publications, published from 2009 to 2025. Why begin with 2009?

Response 4: Thank you for this pertinent observation. The year 2009 was selected as the starting point because it marks the first appearance of the term “open innovation” explicitly applied to the tourism industry in peer-reviewed literature indexed in the Scopus database. This year, therefore, represents the empirical starting point for the academic discussion of open innovation in tourism, justifying its use as the lower bound of the review’s temporal scope. We added "The year 2009 was selected as the starting point because it corresponds to the earliest publication applying the concept of open innovation explicitly to the tourism sector in peer-reviewed literature indexed in Scopus."

Comment 5: Create a section for discussing the results and a separate section for future trends on the topic?

Response 5: Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. The structure of the revised manuscript has been adjusted to better highlight the distinction between theoretical discussion and future research trends. Section 6 is now clearly divided into 6.1 Theoretical and Managerial Implications and 6.2 Limitations and Future Research, with the latter focusing explicitly on emerging trends and research opportunities.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title claims “to reinvent the tourism” but there is not much evidence how the “reinvented tourism” must look like–as a result of the study conducted. It should be.
2. Conversely, the methodology discloses that the study is a systematic literature review, which is not announced by the title. Coherence is highly recommended across the paper.
3. The “systematic literature review” is not appropriate to be mentioned among the keywords. It is suggested to be removed.
4. In addition, the term “innovation management” is neither introduced nor discussed in the paper. Removal is recommended as long as the rest of the paper does not deal with it.
5. Per Abstract: “Findings reveal that open innovation positively impacts the tourism sector through enhanced stakeholder collaboration, improved service development, and increased organizational adaptability”. This statement is not covered by or found among research outputs / findings.
6. In addition, an illustrative scheme of the above statement would suggest a conceptual model (as support of the research undertaken). This issue is highly recommended to be addressed.
7. The key concepts visible in the Title (open innovation, branding, collaboration, empowerment, digital transformation) are significantly different than findings declared in Abstract (stakeholder collaboration, service development, organizational adaptability) and key research areas identified (destination branding; experiential value; stakeholder collaboration and co-creation; internal dynamics of employee empowerment, innovation culture, strategic use of digital technologies, digital transformation, resilience). There are too many concepts with no clear emphasis on drivers and/or cause-effect analysis. Alignment of core-concepts and terminology along the whole paper is strongly recommended.
8. The literature review, reduced to open innovation and tourism industry (section 2), does not refer punctual and targeted to the main research question: “Does open innovation provide advantages or benefits for the tourism industry?”(p.2, line 62). This issue should be addressed.
9. Under section 3 (Methods), two research questions are formulated:

(1) What is the current empirical research on open innovation in the tourism industry? – Which was supposed to be already answered in the previous section (2. Open Innovation and the Tourism Industry).

(2) What are the benefits of open innovation for the tourism industry? – To which the four key areas identified obviously do not answer.

Revision and reformulation of the research questions are strongly recommended.

10. The author/s decided to use limited sources of data (e.g., only Scopus and areas of “Business, Management and Accounting” and “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”). Arguments and decision criteria should be provided.
11. Other than an accounting exercise, the paper does not show too much value-added. No further results analyses were conducted.
12. Table 3: the significance and use of some abbreviations (TGC/t and TLC/t) is not explained. They should be.
13. “Each theme aggregates a cluster of studies sharing conceptual and empirical similarities” (p.8, lines 294–295). A visual representation would help the author/s’ discourse and increase the paper quality.
14. Under subsection 6.1 (Theoretical and managerial implications) there are generally valid and disperse statements only. More specific implications would be welcome.
15. In addition, the phrases related to “managerial implications” (p.16, lines 660–673) barely could be accepted by any acting manager. Revision is highly recommended.
16. As far as further research: it is quite strange to claim “the need to expand research's geographic scope” (p.17, line 700), since no geographic limitation was imposed by the methodology chosen by author/s. Revision is recommended.
17. The paper has no graphic support materials (graphs, diagrams, drawings, etc.) which would help authors’ discourse. It is recommended to make use of them when appropriate (e.g., author/s’ network, publications’ dynamics, etc.)
18. Support Appendix is cited as Appendix 1 (p.4, line 186). Correction is suggested.
19. It is suggested to double-check the funding issue: On one hand author/s declare “this research received no external funding”, and, on the other, it reads that “NECE and this work are supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, …”). In addition: What is NECE abbreviation standing for?

Author Response

Comment 1: The title claims ‘to reinvent the tourism’ but there is not much evidence how the ‘reinvented tourism’ must look like–as a result of the study conducted. It should be.

Response 1: Thank you for this observation. To ensure greater alignment between the title and the content of the paper, the title has been revised to better reflect the scope and objectives of a systematic review. The updated title avoids overclaiming and now focuses on the empirical investigation of open innovation in tourism. This adjustment reinforces the coherence and integrity of the manuscript.

Comment 2: Conversely, the methodology discloses that the study is a systematic literature review, which is not announced by the title. Coherence is highly recommended across the paper

Response 2: We agree with this recommendation. As mentioned above, the title has been revised to explicitly reflect the methodological nature of the study as a systematic literature review, enhancing consistency throughout the manuscript.

Comment 3: The ‘systematic literature review’ is not appropriate to be mentioned among the keywords. It is suggested to be removed.

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. The term “systematic literature review” has been removed from the list of keywords to ensure that only thematic and conceptual keywords are retained.

Comment 4: In addition, the term ‘innovation management’ is neither introduced nor discussed in the paper. Removal is recommended as long as the rest of the paper does not deal with it.

Response 4: We acknowledge this oversight. Since the term “innovation management” is not explicitly developed or analysed in the paper, it has been removed from the list of keywords to ensure thematic coherence.

Comment 5: Per Abstract: ‘Findings reveal that open innovation positively impacts the tourism sector through enhanced stakeholder collaboration, improved service development, and increased organizational adaptability’. This statement is not covered by or found among research outputs / findings.

Response 5: Thank you for noting this inconsistency. The abstract has been revised to better reflect the actual findings of the review and ensure full alignment with the results presented in the main body of the paper.

Comment 6: In addition, an illustrative scheme of the above statement would suggest a conceptual model (as support of the research undertaken). This issue is highly recommended to be addressed.

Response 6: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. In response, we have developed and included a conceptual figure (Figure 4) that synthesises the main findings of the review. This visual representation provides a holistic overview of how open innovation operates within the tourism industry and supports the coherence and interpretative strength of the review.

Comment 7: The research questions under section 3 (Methods) are: (1) What is the current empirical research on open innovation in the tourism industry? – Which was supposed to be already answered in the previous section (2. Open Innovation and the Tourism Industry). (2) What are the benefits of open innovation for the tourism industry? – To which the four key areas identified obviously do not answer. Revision and reformulation of the research questions are strongly recommended.

Response 7: We appreciate this insightful observation. In response, the research questions have been revised to improve their clarity, consistency, and alignment with the structure and objectives of the study. The first question now focuses on the characteristics and focus areas of existing empirical research, while the second examines how this body of literature addresses open innovation outcomes in tourism. These revised formulations ensure better correspondence with the theoretical foundation (Section 2), the methodological procedures (Section 3), and the thematic synthesis (Sections 4 and 5).

Comment 8: The author/s decided to use limited sources of data (e.g., only Scopus and areas of ‘Business, Management and Accounting’ and ‘Economics, Econometrics and Finance’). Arguments and decision criteria should be provided.

Response 8: Thank you for raising this point. A justification for the database and subject area selection has been added to Section 3. Scopus was chosen due to its broad coverage of peer-reviewed publications, particularly in management and tourism studies. The selected subject areas "Business, Management and Accounting; and Economics, Econometrics and Finance" were prioritised to ensure conceptual rigour and alignment with the research objectives, which focus on strategic, organisational, and innovation-related dimensions of tourism.
"The Scopus database was selected for its extensive coverage of high-quality, peer-reviewed literature in the fields of management, innovation, and tourism. The search was restricted to the subject areas of “Business, Management and Accounting” and “Economics, Econometrics and Finance” to ensure thematic relevance and conceptual rigour, given the study’s focus on innovation processes and strategic applications within tourism organisations."

Comment 9: Other than an accounting exercise, the paper does not show too much value-added. No further results analyses were conducted.

Response 9: We acknowledge the need to reinforce the value-added dimension of the review. In response, additional analytical content has been integrated into the results section, including a relational matrix (Figure 3) mapping types of open innovation against tourism segments, and a conceptual model (Figure 4) synthesising the review’s thematic findings. These additions enhance the interpretative and theoretical contribution of the paper beyond simple descriptive reporting.

Comment 10: Table 3: the significance and use of some abbreviations (TGC/t and TLC/t) is not explained. They should be.

Response 10: Thank you for this comment. The concepts of Total Global Citations (TGC) and Total Local Citations (TLC) are introduced and defined in the results section, immediately before Table 3. To improve clarity, we have now added a direct cross-reference in the table caption and a short explanatory note below the table. These adjustments ensure that readers can easily understand the meaning and relevance of these citation metrics without having to return to the main text. Note added to Table 3: “TGC/t = Total Global Citations per theme; TLC/t = Total Local Citations per theme.”

Comment 11: “Each theme aggregates a cluster of studies sharing conceptual and empirical similarities” (p.8, lines 294–295). A visual representation would help the author/s’ discourse and increase the paper quality.

Response 11: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have included a conceptual figure (Figure 4) that synthesises the four thematic clusters identified in the review and illustrates their relationship with key innovation outcomes in the tourism industry. This visual representation enhances the clarity and coherence of the narrative by mapping the connection between the core thematic domains and four strategic outcomes: collaborative innovation, experiential differentiation, digital adaptability, and sustainable development. The model serves as both a summary of findings and a conceptual basis for future empirical work.

Comment 12: Under subsection 6.1 (Theoretical and managerial implications) there are generally valid and disperse statements only. More specific implications would be welcome.

Response 12: Thank you for this valuable observation. In response, the subsection “6.1 Theoretical and Managerial Implications” has been revised to offer more targeted and actionable insights. The theoretical implications now emphasise the need for developing tourism-specific frameworks that integrate open innovation with service-dominant logic, stakeholder theory, and digital transformation. On the managerial side, the revised text provides concrete recommendations for tourism practitioners, such as creating participatory innovation cultures, leveraging frontline employee input, and adopting digital tools to enhance stakeholder engagement and co-creation. These refinements aim to strengthen the practical utility of the review while grounding it more explicitly in theoretical contributions.

Comment 13: As far as further research: it is quite strange to claim ‘the need to expand research's geographic scope’ (p.17, line 700), since no geographic limitation was imposed by the methodology chosen by author/s. Revision is recommended.

Response 13: Thank you for this observation. We acknowledge the need to clarify this point. Although no explicit geographic filter was applied during the database search, the empirical studies retrieved from Scopus predominantly focused on European and East Asian destinations, with limited representation from other world regions. This was an emergent outcome of the selection process. To improve clarity, the sentence in the limitations section has been revised to explicitly state that the geographic limitation refers to the distribution of the reviewed literature itself, not to the methodological parameters imposed by the authors. This clarification helps distinguish between methodological scope and observed patterns in the existing body of research.

Comment 14: The paper has no graphic support materials (graphs, diagrams, drawings, etc.) which would help authors’ discourse. It is recommended to make use of them when appropriate (e.g., author/s’ network, publications’ dynamics, etc.).

Response 14: Thank you for this suggestion. In response, we have added multiple visual elements throughout the manuscript to enhance readability and analytical value. These include:

Figure 2: A flowchart illustrating the methodological steps followed in the systematic review.

Figure 3: A relational matrix mapping types of open innovation against tourism segments, highlighting applied contexts.

Figure 4: A conceptual model synthesising the four thematic clusters and their relationship with key innovation outcomes in the tourism industry.

Comment 15: “Support Appendix is cited as Appendix 1 (p.4, line 186). Correction is suggested.”

Response 15: Thank you for noting this inconsistency. The citation has been revised to ensure coherence with the actual labelling of the appendix. The term “Appendix 1” has been replaced with simply “Appendix” to maintain consistency across the document.

Comment 16: “It is suggested to double-check the funding issue: On one hand author/s declare ‘this research received no external funding’, and, on the other, it reads that ‘NECE and this work are supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, …’. In addition: What is NECE abbreviation standing for?

Response 16: 

Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. We have revised the Funding and Acknowledgements sections to ensure alignment. Specifically:

The Funding section now clarifies that no direct funding was received for this specific study.

The Acknowledgements now explain that institutional support is provided by NECE – Research Center in Business Sciences, which is funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under project UIDB/04630/2020.

The acronym NECE is now expanded in its first mention to ensure clarity for readers unfamiliar with the research centre.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you; the article has been improved. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revised paper has improved.

Wish authors good luck.