The Impact of a Global Crisis on Areas and Topics of Tourism Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read the manuscript with fair interest. The manuscript presents an current research issue to explain the impact COVID-19 on tourism as an issue of sustainability. Reviewing 87 articles the authors have done a gigantic job. The paper is oryginal and well-structured but it should be improved in some parts before being ready for publication. In detail:

Title. I would recommend a change of the paper's title into more pertinent to the main aim and content of the manuscript. An analysis the impact of COVID-19 on tourism research is a much wider issue then what authors done. Such a broad issue would require answers to many questions regarding among others: the impact of covid-19 on the conducting or abandonment/suspension of research in tourism; research funding; the change of research issues in general; a share of studies on COVID-19 and tourism in tourism research in general. While the paper focused only on research areas/themes undertaken within studies on the impact of COVID-19 on tourism and their relationship with sustainability.

Introduction. In general introduction is well-written and divulges what will be discussed next manuscript sections. There is one shortcoming – the lack of citations. For example, if authors write: "On the one hand, voices have been heard ar-guing that as we deal with the effects of the pandemic, we run the risk of, but must not forget about, sustainability..." or "Originating outside of discussions of tourism is a view of sustainability problems as wicked problems...", they should support these statements with the appropriate citations.

Methodology. The methodology is the weakest point of the manuscript. How many articles were actually analyzed? (authors claimed "...total of 85 articles..." - 105 line; "...87 articles..." - lines 18, 84, 504, 518 etc., while the references contains just 69 items). The used methods could much wider clarified. How the content analysis process was going? Authors should precisely describe a research process: searching,  selecting and analysing (steps /operations) and the categorization key of qualifying or rejecting the scientific articles for the further synthesis stage (e.g. keywords, what article parts were searched - title, abstract, main text; arcticle category/type, period availability etc.). Keywords proposed by authors „COVID-19” and „tourism” do not seems clear. Were they used separately or together? Also authors need to explain whether their analysis was detailed to the full article or if they just focused on specific areas (e.g. abstract, findings). What was the period of literature analysis ( e.g. May-September 2020)? Authors should also justify the basis for including literature datebases that were reviewed (Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Elsevier, MDPI). Why did they skip two rich databases (SagePub and Emerald)? I recommend to look at a literature review on the externalities generated in cities by the sharing economy in tourism by Jaremen et al. (Jaremen D.E, Nawrocka E., Żemła M. 2020, Externalities of development of the sharing economy in tourism cities, International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 138-157, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJTC-05-2019-0068/full/html) to have better idea of what rigorous literature review methodology reporting entails.

Findings. The reporting of findings reflects how a broad research problem is the impact COVID-19 on tourism. Six themes/areas were identified and discussed at length.

Conclusions. The authors contribution into theory should be more emphasised.

References. All items need to be described in detail (journal, volume, issue, year, page range) as recommended by the ACS style guide. Such description like this: "Lee, C., Olasehinde-Williams, G. and Akadiri, S., 2020. Geopolitical risk and tourism: Evidence from dynamic heterogeneous panel models. International Journal of Tourism Research", is not proper (inconsistent with Sustainability journal’s standards). The bibliography needs to be full. In references to this manuscript, for example, there is no the article by Stankov, Filimonau and Vujičić (2020). Also citations in the main text are not compatible with Sustainability journal’s standards.

Other. The term „conclusion” was used twice in titles of 5th and 6th section. Abbreviation ICE’s (line 750) should be explained. In 6th section there are some editing errors (e.g. line 652).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: I would recommend a change of the paper's title into more pertinent to the main aim and content of the manuscript. An analysis the impact of COVID-19 on tourism research is a much wider issue then what authors done. Such a broad issue would require answers to many questions regarding among others: the impact of covid-19 on the conducting or abandonment/suspension of research in tourism; research funding; the change of research issues in general; a share of studies on COVID-19 and tourism in tourism research in general. While the paper focused only on research areas/themes undertaken within studies on the impact of COVID-19 on tourism and their relationship with sustainability.

 

Response 1: We have changed our title to: The impact of covid-19 on tourism research: What are tourism scholars writing about?   Please let us know if this revised title is better.

 

Point 2: In general introduction is well-written and divulges what will be discussed next manuscript sections. There is one shortcoming – the lack of citations. For example, if authors write: "On the one hand, voices have been heard arguing that as we deal with the effects of the pandemic, we run the risk of, but must not forget about, sustainability..." or "Originating outside of discussions of tourism is a view of sustainability problems as wicked problems...", they should support these statements with the appropriate citations.

 

Response 2: Does you mean "references" or "quotations"? Direct quotes I think is not appropriate there. References on the other hand, yes. We have fixed it in the introduction part.

 

Point 3: Methodology. The methodology is the weakest point of the manuscript. How many articles were actually analyzed? (authors claimed "...total of 85 articles..." - 105 line; "...87 articles..." - lines 18, 84, 504, 518 etc., while the references contains just 69 items). The used methods could much wider clarified. How the content analysis process was going? Authors should precisely describe a research process: searching,  selecting and analysing (steps /operations) and the categorization key of qualifying or rejecting the scientific articles for the further synthesis stage (e.g. keywords, what article parts were searched - title, abstract, main text; arcticle category/type, period availability etc.). Keywords proposed by authors „COVID-19” and „tourism” do not seems clear. Were they used separately or together? Also authors need to explain whether their analysis was detailed to the full article or if they just focused on specific areas (e.g. abstract, findings). What was the period of literature analysis ( e.g. May-September 2020)? Authors should also justify the basis for including literature datebases that were reviewed (Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Elsevier, MDPI). Why did they skip two rich databases (SagePub and Emerald)? I recommend to look at a literature review on the externalities generated in cities by the sharing economy in tourism by Jaremen et al. (Jaremen D.E, Nawrocka E., Żemła M. 2020, Externalities of development of the sharing economy in tourism cities, International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 138-157, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJTC-05-2019-0068/full/html) to have better idea of what rigorous literature review methodology reporting entails

 

Respond3: Thank you for pointing it out. I read the article you recommended and searched for more related articles and finally revised the methodology part. Now the methodology clearly stated how many articles identified, data selection and analysis process and related considerations. I also provided more explanations on why I choose those 4 databases and the period of literature analysis the relationship between those two keywords.

 

Point 4: The reporting of findings reflects how a broad research problem is the impact COVID-19 on tourism. Six themes/areas were identified and discussed at length

 

Respond4: Exactly. I think this purpose has been reached. If you think there are any points that need to be further modified in the findings part, please let us know in the next feedback.

 

Point 5: Conclusions. The authors contribution into theory should be more emphasized.

 

Respond4: In the new revision, we have separated the discussion and conclusion parts to make the contribution part clearer. And we also added some statements about the contribution of our research.

 

Point 6: All items need to be described in detail (journal, volume, issue, year, page range) as recommended by the ACS style guide. Such description like this: "Lee, C., Olasehinde-Williams, G. and Akadiri, S., 2020. Geopolitical risk and tourism: Evidence from dynamic heterogeneous panel models. International Journal of Tourism Research", is not proper (inconsistent with Sustainability journal’s standards). The bibliography needs to be full. In references to this manuscript, for example, there is no the article by Stankov, Filimonau and Vujičić (2020). Also citations in the main text are not compatible with Sustainability journal’s standards.

 

Respond6: We have modified the referencing list and in-text citation according to the requirements for references in the sustainability website by using Zotero. We generated the new referencing list and numbered reference in order of appearance in the text with Zotero.

 

Point 7: The term „conclusion” was used twice in titles of 5th and 6th section. Abbreviation ICE’s (line 750) should be explained. In 6th section there are some editing errors (e.g. line 652).

 

Respond 7: We have fixed it now.

 

In summary, thank you for pointing them out. Hope our latest revisions have covered the points you suggested.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The submitted manuscript titled „COVID-19: the impact of a global crisis on tourism research” presents very interesting, timeless outcomes. However, I have some suggestions for its improvement. I have provided them below:

1. In my opinion the Abstract section should contain information about main results and conclusions.

 

2. In chapter „Introduction” the literature of subject should be involved (e.g. publications summarizing goals/rules of sustainable tourism).

 

3. I suggest to remove lines 83-97. In my opinion they might be replaced by main aims of investigations.

 

4. I propose to enlarge the „Metodology” section. There is lack of data about (i) time period of literature searching, (ii) databases, which were browsed, (iii) used key words, (iv) exclusion/inclusion criteria of literature sources. The chart presenting the procedure of literature searching would be very useful in understanding metodology.  I suggest to look into publication of Moher et al. (2009), which might be helpful in preparation this chapter.

 

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

 

5. I think that chapter „Discussion and Conclusions” should be divided into two separate chapters. Moreover, in my opinion the discussion should be more concise because in present form it is difficult to follow. Furthermore, the chapter "Conclusions" (Line 573) should be placed in the end of manuscript.

 

6. I encourage Authors to take into consideration the possibility of reduction of number of Tables.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: In my opinion the Abstract section should contain information about main results and conclusions.

Respond 1: we have provided statements about main results and conclusions by “As a result, through the content analysis, this study has found 6 leading themes in COVID-19 and tourism and has provided valuable information with descriptive statistical analysis for its distributions by theory, methodology, and study area.”

Point 2: In chapter „Introduction” the literature of subject should be involved (e.g. publications summarizing goals/rules of sustainable tourism)

Respond2: Thank you for pointing it out. I would like to explain that since our research is a literature review, our findings contains the leading literature subjects. So I would say there is less necessary to repeat it in the introduction. And the introduction part itself is discussing the main subject of the literature of sustainable tourism as well. Please let us know if you have different opinion on this point and we would like to revise it later.

Point 3: I suggest to remove lines 83-97. In my opinion they might be replaced by main aims of investigations.

Respond3: Thank you for this point. I think this is because different requirements of the introduction section of each region. As far as I know, introduction should contain the summary our efforts on this research and a brief outline of the paper. Thus, I think these two paragraphs can stay. Of course, if you insist to remove these two paragraphs however, we can remove them for sure.

Point 4: I propose to enlarge the „Metodology” section. There is lack of data about (i) time period of literature searching, (ii) databases, which were browsed, (iii) used key words, (iv) exclusion/inclusion criteria of literature sources. The chart presenting the procedure of literature searching would be very useful in understanding metodology.  I suggest to look into publication of Moher et al. (2009), which might be helpful in preparation this chapter

Respond 4: the first reviewer (you are the second reviewer appeared in my list)has already pointed this out. So, I have already revised the methodology part. Now it has been wisely enlarged and it has covered the points you suggested.

Point 5: I think that chapter „Discussion and Conclusions” should be divided into two separate chapters. Moreover, in my opinion the discussion should be more concise because in present form it is difficult to follow. Furthermore, the chapter "Conclusions" (Line 573) should be placed in the end of manuscript.

Respond5: Thank you for this point. I have already separated two chapters and placed the conclusion part in the end of the paper and added more statements.

Poin6: I encourage Authors to take into consideration the possibility of reduction of number of Tables.

Respond6: Thank you for this point. I have been seriously considering it. But I think those tables clearly summarize the related contents, providing readers a quick and straightforward understanding of the related sections. I think it is beneficial to let them stay. If you consider which table is really unnecessary however, please let us know and we will remove it.

 

In summary, thank you for pointing them out. Hope our latest revisions have covered the points you suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of the manuscript presented the impact of the global crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on tourism. The authors present an important point in the manuscript, although the manuscript has some drawbacks.

Main remarks:
1. Introduction - how many billions of dollars has the tourism industry lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020? And what are the forecasts for 2021? According to the World Tourism Organization and other institutions.
2. Results:

• The manuscript has been sent to Sustainability. I propose to refer more to sustainable development in tourism.
• Table 11 is after table 13. (The table numbering is incorrect). Figure 3 - name missing.
• The footnotes in the manuscript are inappropriate.
• COVID-19 is written with both uppercase and lowercase letters.

3. Conclusions - what about COVID and tourism? The conclusions need to write more about the current tourism crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Suggested publications:

• Roman, M.; Niedziółka, A.; Krasnodębski, A. Respondents’ Involvement in Tourist Activities at the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229610
• Sánchez-Teba, E.M.; García-Mestanza, J.; Rodríguez-Fernández, M. The Application of the Inbound Marketing Strategy on Costa del Sol Planning & Tourism Board. Lessons for Post-COVID-19 Revival. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239926

In your applications, please also answer the following questions:
• What is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international tourism markets?
• Are there "safe corridor" systems or mechanisms for specific tourism demand zones? In which countries?
• What are the directions for the future? Why is the topic new? What are the research gaps? What's new in this manuscript?

DOI is missing from the literature list.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: Introduction - how many billions of dollars has the tourism industry lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020? And what are the forecasts for 2021? According to the World Tourism Organization and other institutions.

Respond 1: Regarding "how many billions of dollars has the tourism industry lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020?", I think the answer to this question would provide explanation to a certain extent why research on covid-19 and tourism is important, but our introduction is mainly from the perspective of covid-19 literature research. In other words, the purpose of our introduction is to explain that because the study of covid-19 can be used as a thermometer for sustainable tourism development, we need to conduct a literature review of covid-19 and tourism. If we add the amount of money lost, I personally think it is a bit abrupt and odd in the introduction. For "And what are the forecasts for 2021?", our research is actually to provide a knowledge framework for future research which is discussed in the conclusion part, so I think adding this is abrupt and odd too.

Point2: The table numbering is incorrect

Respond2: We corrected the numbers of all the tables in the new revision.

Point3: The footnotes in the manuscript are inappropriate.

Respond3: We fixed it in the new revision.

Point 4: COVID-19 is written with both uppercase and lowercase letters.

Respond4: We fixed it in the new revision

Point 5: DOI is missing from the literature list

Respond 5: we have corrected the referencing list according to the reference requirement in the Sustainability website, by using Zotero. The referencing list and in-text citation now is onsistent with the requirements

Point 6: Conclusions - what about COVID and tourism? The conclusions need to write more about the current tourism crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Suggested publications:   Roman, M.; Niedziółka, A.; Krasnodębski, A. Respondents’ Involvement in Tourist Activities at the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229610

    Sánchez-Teba, E.M.; García-Mestanza, J.; Rodríguez-Fernández, M. The Application of the Inbound Marketing Strategy on Costa del Sol Planning & Tourism Board. Lessons for Post-COVID-19 Revival. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239926

In your applications, please also answer the following questions:

• What is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international tourism markets?
• Are there "safe corridor" systems or mechanisms for specific tourism demand zones? In which countries?
• What are the directions for the future? Why is the topic new? What are the research gaps? What's new in this manuscript?

Respond6: I deleted "6.4 important yet overlooked areas" because this part of the original manuscript simply lists these important yet overlooked areas in bullet points. I rewrote the conclusion part. The new revision first emphasized the purpose of the article and how we achieve the research purpose. Then the new revision clarified the research gaps in current literatures and then pointed out how we filled this research gap, that is the contribution and innovation point of our research. After this, the new revision also made relevant supplements to the "safe corridor" and refined the focus of disaster remedial measures. Finally, the new revision pointed out and explained the direction of future research.

In summary, thank you for pointing them out. Hope our latest revisions have covered the points you suggested.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the revised the manuscript and your answers to my comments.

My additional proposals:

(1)       Please take the following title for consideration "The impact of a global crisis on areas and topics of tourism research”

(2)       I propose to check the compliance of the references with the Sustainability Journal's standards again (look at the items: (3), (6)).

(3)       The mauscript contains several editorial/typographical errors that are distracting, thus affecting the overall readability of the paper. For example in line 107 -  „⁵ pointed”, you need to use surnames instead ⁵. A proof checking is needed for the manuscript.

After becoming familiar with the amendments, I can conclude that the paper The impact of a global crisis on tourism research: what are  tourism scholars writing about? was revised according to the reviewer’ suggestions and now is worth to public in Sustainability.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1

 

Point 1: Please take the following title for consideration "The impact of a global crisis on areas and topics of tourism research”

Response1: Thank you for the suggestion. We decided to use it.

 

Point2: I propose to check the compliance of the references with the Sustainability Journal's standards again (look at the items: (3), (6)).

Response2: Thank you for pointing it out. We have now fixed it.

 

Point3: The mauscript contains several editorial/typographical errors that are distracting, thus affecting the overall readability of the paper. For example in line 107 -  „⁵ pointed”, you need to use surnames instead ⁵. A proof checking is needed for the manuscript.

Response3: Thank you for pointing it out. We have now fixed in-text citations by using surnames instead of numbers.

 

In summary, thank you for your suggestions. Hope this revision is ideal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
The manuscript has been substantially improved. I do not have more suggestions nor remarks.

Author Response

Thank you very much!

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

When writing about the crisis in tourism (global crisis, COVID-19 pandemic), one should refer to economic losses in countries. In the introduction, you should write what these values were!

1. Introduction - how many billions of dollars has the tourism industry lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020? And what are the "forecasts for 2021"?

2. Conclusions - the conclusions need to write more about the current tourism crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Suggested publications from Sustainability:

• Roman, M.; Niedziółka, A.; Krasnodębski, A. Respondents’ Involvement in Tourist Activities at the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229610
• Sánchez-Teba, E.M.; García-Mestanza, J.; Rodríguez-Fernández, M. The Application of the Inbound Marketing Strategy on Costa del Sol Planning & Tourism Board. Lessons for Post-COVID-19 Revival. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239926
• Kitamura, Y.; Karkour, S.; Ichisugi, Y.; Itsubo, N. Evaluation of the Economic, Environmental, and Social Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Japanese Tourism Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410302
• Sung, Y.-A; Kim, K.-W.; Kwon, H.-J. Big Data Analysis of Korean Travelers’ Behavior in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Sustainability 2021, 13, 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010310

Author Response

Point1: Introduction - how many billions of dollars has the tourism industry lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020? And what are the "forecasts for 2021"?

 

Response1 : Thank you for pointing it out. We have now added 2020 economic loss statement and the 2021 forecast in the first paragraph of the introduction, according to the UNWTO report.

 

Point2: Conclusions - the conclusions need to write more about the current tourism crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Suggested publications from Sustainability:

• Roman, M.; Niedziółka, A.; Krasnodębski, A. Respondents’ Involvement in Tourist Activities at the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9610. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229610
• Sánchez-Teba, E.M.; García-Mestanza, J.; Rodríguez-Fernández, M. The Application of the Inbound Marketing Strategy on Costa del Sol Planning & Tourism Board. Lessons for Post-COVID-19 Revival. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239926
• Kitamura, Y.; Karkour, S.; Ichisugi, Y.; Itsubo, N. Evaluation of the Economic, Environmental, and Social Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Japanese Tourism Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410302
• Sung, Y.-A; Kim, K.-W.; Kwon, H.-J. Big Data Analysis of Korean Travelers’ Behavior in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Sustainability 2021, 13, 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010310

 

Response2: Thank you for pointing it out and thank you for the literature recommended. We have read the four recommended articles and looked for other related articles. We have now rewritten the conclusion part by expanding the description of the current tourism crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Thank you for your suggestion and hope this revision is ideal.