Breaking Brands: New Boundaries in Rural Destinations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The discussed problem is very important and topical in the context of tourism area management. The research concerns the creation of the brand of a tourist area from the perspective of the consumer - tourist. The problem posed in this way has the features of originality. The article presents a microscale study. The research was conducted on the basis of 835 questionnaires in the period of 5 consecutive months of the tourist season. The analyzed flows of tourists between individual points are below 50, the use of tourist attractions - below 250, and the number of tourists in the accommodation base - below 100. It seems that the analyzed sample is too small to be a basis for drawing fully objective evaluations and conclusions concerning the rural brand of a tourist destination without administrative boundaries. This study can be treated as a case study. The literature analysis was conducted quite subjectively. The conclusions should be developed, institutional and instrumental issues related to the scope of activities aimed at creating the brand of a rural destination should be included in the considerations. The text should also be supplemented with the limitation of inference.
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Please find in here the answers to your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction: I suggest to insert the paper structure, with short summaries of the single paragraphs
Conclusion: I suggest emphasizing more clearly the practical implications of the research.
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Please find in here the answers to your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is original, coherent and balanced, however it would be better to emphasize the findings more and clarify the research hypotheses and method. (For example, how the survey questionnaire was defined, what kind of questions it contained).
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Please find in here the answers to your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
- Rewrite abstract with subheadings that explain the "A brief statement of method" and "results with significant values" Please modified the Abstract.
- The “introduction” has reiterated the content that was presented within the introduction. The researchers suggest that there is a gap in the academic literature on this topic. There are so many contributions that have explored this topic in more depth and breadth. This is not a novel paper. It is not original enough. The constructs that were used in this study were adopted in many other papers.
- “ Methodology”-Questionnaire design is the important of quantitative research. Sampling methodology and techniques adopted are not clear. In consumer research, sampling details are crucial. The representativeness of the questionnaire has influence on the research results. The number of demographic data are not clear, please added demographic data (please show table).
- What information is used to obtain Tables 1 and 2? Please provide and explanation. (I feel like it is a tool written in Python, is it necessary to put it in this article?) Figure 3-6 may be the author has to present too much information, it seems very cluttered, it is difficult to see that the author wants to present the research results, I suggest the author to redraw briefness figure showing the more important information.
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Please find in here the answers to your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Nice paper and interesting approach,
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
Please find in here the answers to your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My opinion about the article has not changed. The Authors only partially improved the text. However, the research carried out has some scientific and cognitive value. The literature is still the weaker side of the article. I believe that the title of the article should be supplemented with the information that it is a case study of a rural tourism destination selected for research.
Author Response
My opinion about the article has not changed. The Authors only partially improved the text. However, the research carried out has some scientific and cognitive value.
Thanks for understanding the value of our scientific and cognitive contribution. The text has been improved in many areas following the suggestions of the five reviewers: introduction, methodology, map representation, and conclusions, which has fully satisfied the other four reviewers. Concerning your comments on the second round of review, find here a point per point answer to the two improvements requested:
- The literature is still the weaker side of the article.
In the first round of review, reviewer 1 already mentioned that the literature was conducted subjectively without providing any kind of reasoning. We believe that his/her approach is certainly another. However, we want to highlight that we are approaching branding in rural areas from the destination perspective, but based on the consumer perspective, not from the supply side perspective, as usual. That is why probably reviewer 1 considers that the literature is the weaker section of the article, probably considering that we are missing the supply-side perspective.
However, considering our different scientifically-based approach to the topic, we believe that the supply-side perspective should not be included since our approach and focus is on consumer side.
But this is just a guess, because reviewer 1 does not give us a hint of what is he/she thinking about.
In conclusion, including sections in the literature review to refer to branding in rural areas from the supply side would not help to conceptually frame the research carried out. The authors have invested many efforts in building the conceptual framework of this paper and the objectively selected references totally help to frame all the aspects that need to be conceptualized to introduce our approach.
- I believe that the title of the article should be supplemented with the information that it is a case study of a rural tourism destination selected for research.
Regarding this point, although we may understand the suggestion of converting the paper into a case study, we clearly disagree with the reviewer’s opinion. Considering that the results can be extrapolated to other rural areas, this is a research paper using a case of study to illustrate the theory, and not viceversa.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have revised this paper and in accordance with the reviewer committee’s comments, therefore agree to publish the Journal.
Author Response
The authors have revised this paper and in accordance with the reviewer committee’s comments, therefore agree to publish the Journal.
Thanks indeed for your support.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
