You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Wiesław Alejziak*,‡ and
  • Bartosz Szczechowicz‡

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Keun-Soo Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the manuscript, I have the following concerns toward the current version of the study:

  1. The study should begin from the background instead of the initial forming of the research idea.
  2. Actually, the study started to analyze some textual data in introduction, which is also not proper. The study needs to show the research design first before moving to some detailed analysis. 
  3. After presenting the analysis in western context, the study analyzed the research subject in Polish context, which is quite confusing. It needs more justification before doing this and it is better to show the research result in a new section. 
  4. Is there any big difference between the direction of recreation and physical cultural studies? Or is it proper to replace recreation by physical cultural studies in doing analysis or research?
  5. There is no section specifically arranged for doing literature review which is quite important for any academic research. 
  6. In many countries, post-doctoral theses do not exist and it is better to indicate what kind of thesis the postdoctoral thesis of Poland is? Any difference from the doctoral one by nature?
  7. The conclusion section is not complete enough, which does not include the practical implication for tourism education and the limitation.

Author Response

Response to review no. 1

Thank you for reading our article carefully and for your accurate comments, as well as suggestions for changes and additions. Below we respond to all comments contained in the review and send detailed information about the changes we have introduced to the original version of the article.

 

Note number 1. The study should begin from the background instead of the initial forming of the research idea.

 

The introductory part of the article was supplemented with a content that emphasized the multiplicity of scientific disciplines within which scientific research on tourism is conducted, as well as the resulting multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity of many such studies. The importance of methodological issues for scientific research was also emphasized. 

 

Note number 2. Actually, the study started to analyze some textual data in introduction, which is also not proper. The study needs to show the research design first before moving to some detailed analysis.

 

The revised version of the article clearly separates the sections “Introduction” and “Literature review”. The former contains introductory content to the considerations conducted in the article, as well as presents the concept and structure of the article. The latter contains an analysis of data on the disciplinary structure of doctoral and habilitation theses prepared on the basis of works available in the world literature.

 

Note number 3. After presenting the analysis in western context, the study analyzed the research subject in Polish context, which is quite confusing. It needs more justification before doing this and it is better to show the research result in a new section.

 

In response to a comment about ambiguities regarding the international context of the research, in the final part of the “Introduction” section we explained that the problem addressed in the article is international, but its empirical verification was carried out as part of the study including doctoral and habilitation theses prepared in Poland. Therefore, in the “Literature review” section, we have distinguished three chapters that concern: the essence and specificity of physical culture sciences (2.1), the analysis of works and available data characterizing the place and importance of physical culture sciences in the international context (2.2) and the analysis of works and available data characterizing the place and importance of physical culture sciences in Poland (2.3).

 

Note number 4. Is there any big difference between the direction of recreation and physical cultural studies? Or is it proper to replace recreation by physical cultural studies in doing analysis or research?

 

As is well known, science classification systems and their scope in different countries, and even in the same countries, but at different times – may vary. Physical culture sciences are a specific, interdisciplinary field of science, which consists of various components, in the sense of research areas, among which – in addition to physical education, rehabilitation, sports theory, or a strong biomedical component – there are also recreation and tourism. Only the latter were the subject of our research.

 

Note number 5. There is no section specifically arranged for doing literature review which is quite important for any academic research.

 

When preparing the article, we were guided by the instructions contained on the journal's website, according to which the structure of the main part of the article should be as follows: introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions (optional) [https://www.mdpi.com/journal/tourismhosp/instructions]). However, we fully agree that the article should include a separate literature review section and we have introduced it in a revised version of the paper.

 

Note number 6. In many countries, post-doctoral theses do not exist and it is better to indicate what kind of thesis the postdoctoral thesis of Poland is? Any difference from the doctoral one by nature?

 

The article additionally explains the basic differences between doctorates and habilitation theses, emphasizing that the latter are characterized by a much higher scientific level and that review procedures are much more demanding (the habilitation thesis and the scientific, didactic and organizational achievements of the habilitator are assessed by four, not two – as in the case of doctorates – reviewers). It was also indicated that when assessing habilitation applications, the entire scientific achievements of the applicant (collected after obtaining a doctoral degree) are taken into account.

 

Note number 7. The conclusion section is not complete enough, which does not include the practical implication for tourism education and the limitation.

 

The final part of the revised version of the article includes a section called “Theoretical, methodological and practical conclusions”, which contains – among others – practical conclusions regarding the place of physical culture sciences in the classification of sciences and the education and evaluation of doctoral students in this field.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Initially, I have to admit that it is an interesting manuscript which is pleasant to read. The gathering of the opinions of the authors of 119 doctoral theses and 42 postdoctoral dissertations addressing tourism issues is of great importance. In what follows I have several issues which I welcome you to deal with.

First, it is unfortunate that you did not follow the layout/format of the journal.

Second, the manuscript is lengthy and occasionally repetitive; sections of the literature review (esp. historical notes on PCS) could be more concise. Especially, older data could be reduced.

Third, I have two issues regarding the Literature Review. It is somewhat descriptive. A more critical synthesis would help highlight research gaps more sharply. In addition, I identified limited engagement with recent international debates on interdisciplinarity in tourism research beyond 2015.

Fourth, postdoctoral/habilitation analysis is based on only 7 theses, which makes generalizations fragile. The authors acknowledge this but could discuss more explicitly how it affects reliability.

Fifth, I believe that there is potential bias in self-reporting by authors of theses (subjective classification of fields/methodologies).

Sixth, conserving the results, figures and tables are informative, but some (e.g., extensive historical tables from other countries) feel more like background than core results.

Seventh. With respect to the Discussion, it could better connect Polish findings to international patterns rather than mostly describing them side by side.

Eighth, conclusions need stronger articulation of implications: for example, it could be mentioned how should PCS institutions adapt to tourism’s interdisciplinary nature? Or what does this mean for doctoral training, supervision, and evaluation? How might findings inform comparative international research? etc…

Author Response

Response to review no. 2

 

Thank you for your thorough review, valuable comments and suggestions, and appreciation of the fact that collecting research material from 161 authors of doctoral and habilitation theses, especially their answers to difficult methodological issues, was not easy. Below we refer to the individual issues raised in the review.

 

Note number 1. First, it is unfortunate that you did not follow the layout/format of the journal.

 

When preparing the article, we followed the instructions contained on the journal's website [https://www.mdpi.com/journal/tourismhosp/instructions] and tried to format the text in accordance with the guidelines contained therein. For example, it indicates that the structure of the main part of the article should be as follows: introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions (optional). That's why we originally introduced such sections into our article. In the revised version of the paper, however, we have separated the section “Literature review” – following the demands of the reviewers and other articles that were published in the journal. We also corrected minor errors found in text formatting in the article. We hope that the current version of the article fully meets the guidelines adopted in the journal.

 

Note number 2. Second, the manuscript is lengthy and occasionally repetitive; sections of the literature review (esp. historical notes on PCS) could be more concise. Especially, older data could be reduced.

 

Agreeing with the Reviewer's comment, the current section entitled “Literature review” was shortened, removing some historical references (which are rather complementary in nature) and limiting the amount of data presented. Therefore, some footnotes were also removed, as well as several works were removed from the bibliography.

 

Note number 3. Third, I have two issues regarding the Literature Review. It is somewhat descriptive. A more critical synthesis would help highlight research gaps more sharply. In addition, I identified limited engagement with recent international debates on interdisciplinarity in tourism research beyond 2015.

 

The way of preparing the literature review resulted from the adopted layout of the article, and the fact that it mainly concerned the issue of disciplines involved in tourism research and studies. Therefore, discussions on research gaps – apart from the differences in the classification systems of scientific disciplines in individual countries and the scientific bases used in research – were rather limited.

 

Note number 4. Fourth, postdoctoral/habilitation analysis is based on only 7 theses, which makes generalizations fragile. The authors acknowledge this but could discuss more explicitly how it affects reliability.

 

Habilitation theses, due to the fact that they appear as an important element of a scientific career only in some countries, were (in a sense) an additional, cognitively interesting element of our research. The content related to them is presented as a specific added value of the work. However, the indicated small number of completed questionnaires regarding physical culture sciences corresponds to the proportions compared to the doctorate (in fact, many more doctorates are prepared than habilitations). It should also be emphasized that in this part our research was not so much quantitative, but qualitative, and these 7 completed questionnaires contain some interesting methodological information.

 

Note number 5. Fifth, I believe that there is potential bias in self-reporting by authors of theses (subjective classification of fields/methodologies).

 

In fact, there is such a danger, but it should be considered as a limitation resulting from the subjective opinion of the authors about the methodology of their research, rather than errors in self-report. However, thank you for this very important comment. We will remember it when improving the research method and in further research.

 

Note number 6. Sixth, conserving the results, figures and tables are informative, but some (e.g., extensive historical tables from other countries) feel more like background than core results.

 

Three tables have been deleted from the section “Literature review”. They contained (in our opinion) interesting and valuable data, but not necessary for the article. As a consequence, we also changed the numbering of the remaining tables and the references to them in the text.

 

Note number 7. Seventh. With respect to the Discussion, it could better connect Polish findings to international patterns rather than mostly describing them side by side.

 

This comment concerns the part of the article where we described the discipline of previous research on doctorates, which (due to different classification systems of science in individual countries and at different periods) we decided to analyse in this arrangement, pointing out some similarities and differences between them. Research on Polish habilitations in the field of physical culture sciences is difficult to link with international models, because there are basically no publications on this topic.

 

Note number 8. Eighth, conclusions need stronger articulation of implications: for example, it could be mentioned how should PCS institutions adapt to tourism’s interdisciplinary nature? Or what does this mean for doctoral training, supervision, and evaluation? How might findings inform comparative international research? etc…

 

The final part of the article distinguishes a section entitled “Theoretical, methodological and practical conclusions”, which contains – among others – practical conclusions regarding the place of physical culture sciences in the classification of sciences and the education and evaluation of doctoral students in this field.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the disciplinary and methodological positioning of tourism-related doctoral and postdoctoral theses within the field of Physical Culture Sciences (PCS) in Poland between 2003 and 2023. This is a timely and relevant study, as it offers insights into the academic evolution of tourism research, its interdisciplinary nature, and the methodological diversity shaping the field. The topic is of interest not only to tourism scholars but also to those concerned with research evaluation, disciplinary classification, and the future of tourism studies as a scientific domain.
At the same time, several important issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication:

1. Novelty and Contribution
The manuscript highlights the interdisciplinary linkages of PCS with social sciences, humanities, and health sciences, and introduces the Methodological Imaging of Academic Works (OMPN©) approach. These are valuable contributions.
However, the theoretical novelty remains underdeveloped. The paper mainly reports descriptive findings on disciplinary classifications and methodological profiles. To meet the standards of an SSCI-level journal, the study should more clearly articulate its unique theoretical contribution. For example:
How does this analysis advance debates on the epistemological foundations of tourism studies?
What does it imply for the long-standing discussion of whether tourism is a distinct discipline or an applied field drawing from others?
Can the PCS context provide transferable lessons to global academia beyond Poland?

2. Methodology
The paper makes solid use of survey data from 161 respondents and applies OMPN© to visualize methodological diversity. This is innovative, yet certain aspects require clarification:
Please justify more explicitly why OMPN© is preferable to other bibliometric or content-analytic approaches.
The sampling relies on authors’ self-reporting, which may introduce subjective bias. This limitation should be discussed in greater depth.
While descriptive statistics are well presented, the analysis could benefit from additional multivariate techniques (e.g., factor analysis, correspondence analysis, cluster mapping of methodological tendencies). This would provide more robust evidence for the identified patterns.

3. Results and Interpretation
The results clearly show PCS dissertations are highly interdisciplinary and methodologically diverse. Yet the interpretation remains somewhat descriptive.
The discussion should go further in connecting findings to global literature on tourism epistemology (e.g., debates in Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management). At present, the manuscript is heavily contextualized within Poland, with limited linkage to broader international scholarship.
The differences between doctoral and habilitation theses are interesting, but the implications of these differences (e.g., for academic training, knowledge production, or disciplinary identity) should be elaborated.

4. Practical and Policy Implications
The manuscript suggests that tourism theses in PCS reflect strong interdisciplinarity and methodological plurality. However, practical implications for academia and policy remain vague.
Please expand on questions such as:
How can universities and policymakers use these findings to design doctoral programs that better prepare tourism scholars?
What does the observed decline in PCS-related theses after 2014 imply for future disciplinary positioning of tourism?
How might this research inform funding, classification systems, or research evaluation frameworks in Poland and beyond?

5. Writing and Structure
Overall, the manuscript is clearly written and well-structured. The literature review is extensive, but at times it reads as a chronological survey rather than a critical synthesis. Please condense and sharpen the review to focus on gaps your study addresses.

Author Response

Response to review no. 3

 

Thank you very much for your comments – both those that emphasize the value of our work and the importance of its considerations and analyses for the further development of tourism research, as well as those that are critical and aimed at improving the submitted version of the work. We refer to these comments below.

 

Paragraph: “Novelty and Contribution”.

 

In the article, we made some additions aimed at indicating the innovation of research, which applies especially to empirical research of the research methodology of both types of promotion work, i.e. the issue of methodological profiling and visualization of the obtained results. This content seems to be of great importance for considering the issues of the epistemological basis of tourism research. In this paper we have merely signalled the problem of the possible autonomy of tourism research and whether it has a chance of becoming a separate discipline. We focused on the importance of this part of the research on tourism, which is carried out within the framework of the physical culture sciences.

 

Paragraph: “Methodology”.

 

In the article, we justified why we used the OMPN© method in the empirical part. This is due to the fact that we wanted to obtain answers to methodological questions directly from the authors of the works; such information cannot be obtained based on data contained in traditional scientific databases and bibliometric systems. Thank you for the valuable tips aimed at improving our method towards greater objectivity, which we intend to use in further research, and which we also mentioned in the article. In the final part of the article, a separate section was introduced entitled “Limitation and Further Research”. It contains, among others: synthetic, specific information about the limitations of the research method used (OMPN©), as well as plans for further research that will allow – at least to some extent – to objectify data on the methodological profiles of the examined doctoral and habilitation theses.

 

Paragraph: “Results and Interpretation”

 

The article in the empirical part is focused on the case study of Poland, due to the fact that no similar research has been conducted in other countries so far (we conducted pilot research only a few weeks ago in Slovakia). In the work, we additionally explained the basic differences between doctorates and habilitation theses, emphasizing that the latter are characterized by a much higher scientific level and review procedures are much more demanding (f.ex. the habilitation thesis is assessed by four, not two – as in the case of doctorates – reviewers). It was also indicated that when assessing habilitation applications, the applicant's entire scientific achievements, collected by him after obtaining the doctoral degree, are taken into account.

 

Paragraph: “Practical and Policy Implications”

 

A certain decrease in the number of promotion (doctoral and postdoctoral) papers noticeable in recent years is due to the fact that currently tourism research – despite its interdisciplinarity – is more carried out in disciplines such as economics, geography or management. This, in turn, has some connection with the increasing practical importance of this research and the funds allocated to it within the most important Polish research financing institutions (such as the National Science Centre or the National Centre for Research and Development). In the final part of the article, we separated the section entitled “Theoretical, methodological and practical conclusions”, which distinguishes theoretical and methodological conclusions, and introduces (in the revised version of the article) practical conclusions regarding the place of physical culture sciences in the classification of sciences and the education and evaluation of doctoral students in this field.

 

Paragraph: “Writing and Structure”

 

To better organize the theoretical background of the article, we have introduced the “Literature Review” section to its revised version and we have distinguished three chapters that concern: the essence and specificity of physical culture sciences (2.1), the analysis of works and available data characterizing the place and importance of physical culture sciences in the international perspective (2.2) and the analysis of works and available data characterizing the place and importance of sciences in Poland (2.3). At the same time, the section entitled “Literature review” was shortened, removing some historical references (which are rather complementary in nature) and limiting the amount of data presented. Three tables were also deleted, which contained (in our opinion) interesting and valuable data, but not necessary for the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the manuscript, I find the author team has made some improvements based on the first round comments, but I still have the following concerns:

  1. I feel the introduction is not sufficiently addressed as more background should be presented before moving to the detailed study.
  2. The subtitles used in literature review is too long and should be revised properly. This problem actually appears in other sections of the manuscript as well. 
  3. At the end of the review section, I still could not see a critique of past studies, which is used to identify the research gap and lay the foundation for the current one. 
  4. Regarding the discussion section, I hope the study should not only open a dialogue between the current study and the previous research, but also compare the current study with other countries to highlight the difference and similarity between Poland and the global context. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and for your cooperation in preparing the final edition of our article.

 

As suggested, the subtitles in the ‘Literature Review’ section have been shortened.

 

As for the comment regarding the indication of the research gap, we feel that it was presented at the beginning of the ‘Materials and Methods’ section. There is a justification for undertaking our own research, which results from the literature review. We decided to include these considerations in this section so that it would not be associated by readers solely with subsection 2.3, but would refer to the entire theoretical background presented in section 2.

 

We have taken the liberty of omitting comments regarding the introduction and discussion, although perhaps correct. We had in mind that the other two reviewers did not submit comments to the current version of the article and recommended its publication as it stands. Moreover, in the discussion, direct reference to the comparison of the results of our empirical research with international literature would not, in our opinion, be entirely possible – because the research was largely innovative. We are not aware of other, similar types of research that would directly concern tourist research conducted within the framework of physical culture sciences, as well as the methodology used in this type of doctoral and habilitation theses.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I welcome the way you adressed the issues that I raised.

Author Response

Thank you once again for your valuable comments and for your cooperation in preparing the final edition of our article.

Your insights will also be helpful in our future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows comprehensive and substantial improvements in response to the previous review. All major and minor concerns raised earlier have been carefully and effectively addressed. The paper now presents a coherent theoretical framework, robust methodological justification, and well-developed practical implications. Its structure, clarity, and academic positioning are of publishable quality.

The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and can be accepted without further modification.

Author Response

Thank you once again for your valuable comments and for your cooperation in preparing the final edition of our article.

Your insights will also be helpful in our future research.