Effects of COVID-19 Infection Control Measures on the Festival and Event Sector in Poland and Norway

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written and articulated. Hovewer, a greater and more detailed description (also with data on the number of the companies, employees,  and so on) of the festival and event sector in the Norway and Poland could contribute to a better contextualization of the considerations expressed.

Author Response

Thanks for all your suggestions. We corrected and supplemented the text having comments and tips. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have identified an interesting topic for research. I think it would be of interest to the journal readership, though a clearer statement on the link to sustainability is required at the start and end. At the moment there is an assumption that readers will make the connection to the value of events in economic and cultural sustainability.

Overall I think that the content of the manuscript is largely descriptive and mostly 'lists' of actions taken during Covid-19. The article would therefore benefit hugely from a  greater literature review to set the context from an academic context, plus greater discussion of points, as opposed to statements. The methods section needs considerable work as it does not adequately explain or justify the approach taken, not would it be replicable in any way (as per journal guidance).

The balance of the manuscript is poor, with only very brief literature review and discussion/conclusions sections, with extensive descriptive material in between. So while I an see evidence of considerable data collection, it is difficult to see why those data were collected, how, what wasn't gathered and how it was analysed.

A few points to consider if you are given the opportunity to revise the manuscript -

• The Abstract - this doesn't follow journal guidance and requires content on methods and findings
• The Introduction would benefit from a clear justification of Poland and Norway as comparison destinations - why those two and not others? By line 95 this has just become a list of statements and not a reasoned argument. Also, a statement on the link to sustainability should be made here.
• The writing style is not flowing in any manner and seems to be more of a  random set of statements that are not supported with academic sources - see for example line 72 and 697. This continues with the findings sections 4 and 5 with extensive lists of points on lines 497-and 520 and 551 - these are just lists, there's no explanation for why this information is included, why other things excluded or the relevance of them.
• I know the journal style is numbered sources but the sources are really just listed, there's little discussion of what the relevant point is or for them being used in support of arguments. So there is a fair amount of unsupported statements - see line 265 - what sort of crises? Some relevant sources but all just cited and no explanation of the points authors made.
• Methods - I'm afraid to say that this is very basic, with no explanation of what done, why relevant or how analysed. It certainly isn't replicable as required by the journal guidance.
• Structure - sections 4-6 are largely descriptive listing data, rather than being a results - was there no form of analysis to enable the identification of sub-headings and theming?
• Reference list - needs attention to detail with full details to be provided - see no5 where the title of journal is abbreviated and  some odd presentation - see nos 30-32 and unusual referencing style - is it in style for journal?
• Length - the balance of content seems odd, with a very short discussion but overly long sections 4-6

Finally - I suggest you ask yourselves if you achieved the set objectives - for example, how do we know which actions made most difference? If you can figure out how to link the title and objectives throughout so that there is a clear explanation of why this research is relevant and what the findings are (and mean) then this would be of great benefit.

So, I'd say there are some aspects of the manuscript that are of value and likely interest to readers, but the current format and presentation doesn't adequately justify the approach, content, format or outcomes.

Author Response

Thanks for all your suggestions. We corrected and supplemented the text having comments and tips. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for doing some work on this manuscript, though in many ways you don't seem to have addressed the various points that I made in the original review. So I'm quite surprised to see your Response to Reviewer Comments document that suggests you have addressed the points in full. 

In my opinion, while there has been some slight amendment and slight improvement, the manuscript as it stands still requires major revision prior to it being considered by publication. Please see my comments below in relation to each point - 

1. The authors have identified an interesting topic for research. I think it would be of interest to the journal readership, though a clearer statement on the link to sustainability is required at the start and end. At the moment there is an assumption that readers will make the connection to the value of events in economic and cultural sustainability.
   I am of the opinion that this still doesn't address the link to sustainability here - adding in 3 lines from articles does not provide any synthesis or much contribution.

2. Overall I think that the content of the manuscript is largely descriptive and mostly 'lists' of actions taken during Covid-19. The article would therefore benefit hugely from a greater literature review to set the context from an
academic context, plus greater discussion of points, as opposed to statements. The methods section needs considerable work as it does not
adequately explain or justify the approach taken, not would it be replicable in any way (as per journal guidance).
I can't see any significant improvement to the methods section  -it's still not replicable nor does it explain the potential issues with the use of secondary materials from potentially very different sources. I think it still includes long lists of points with no added interpretation or analysis.

3. The balance of the manuscript is poor, with only very brief literature review and discussion/conclusions sections, with extensive descriptive material in between. So while I an see evidence of considerable data collection, it is difficult to see why those data were collected, how, what wasn't gathered and how it was analysed.

This comment still stands and needs to be addressed.

4. The Abstract - this doesn't follow journal guidance and requires content on methods and findings
This comment still stands - no mention of sustainability and just a brief line added re findings.

5. The Introduction would benefit from a clear justification of Poland and Norway as comparison destinations - why those two and not others? By
line 95 this has just become a list of statements and not a reasoned argument. Also, a statement on the link to sustainability should be made here.
Some addition and response to this point, but limited and still no justification as to why these are comparable or not - still nothing on sustainability.

6. The writing style is not flowing in any manner and seems to be more of a random set of statements that are not supported with academic
sources - see for example line 72 and 697. This continues with the findings sections 4 and 5 with extensive lists of points on lines 497-and 520 and
551 - these are just lists, there's no explanation for why this information is included, why other things excluded or the relevance of them.
I know the journal style is numbered sources but the sources are really just listed, there's little discussion of what the relevant point is or for
them being used in support of arguments. So there is a fair amount of unsupported statements - see line 265 - what sort of crises? Some
relevant sources but all just cited and no explanation of the points authors made.
As above, still many of the sources, where given, just listed and not used to add analysis of impact of the research. This still needs to be addressed.

7. Methods - I'm afraid to say that this is very basic, with no explanation of what done, why relevant or how analysed. It certainly isn't replicable as required by the journal guidance. 

Very little done on this point - it is still not replicable - how could someone when there is no discussion of sources, who conducted the original work, why etc. Still limited sources.

8. Structure - sections 4-6 are largely descriptive listing data, rather than being a results - was there no form of analysis to enable the
identification of sub-headings and theming?

Limited attention to this point - still to be addressed.

9. Reference list - needs attention to detail with full details to be provided - see no5 where the title of journal is abbreviated and some odd
presentation - see nos 30-32 and unusual referencing style - is it in style for journal?

These have not been addressed - see for example reference number 9 - Int. J. Event Festv Manag. - this is not full referencing.

10. Length - the balance of content seems odd, with a very short discussion but overly long sections 4-6
I think little has been done to address this point, though can see some sections have been removed, but no improvement in flow and balance overall.
11. Finally - I suggest you ask yourselves if you achieved the set objectives - for example, how do we know which actions made most difference? If
you can figure out how to link the title and objectives throughout so that there is a clear explanation of why this research is relevant and what the findings are (and mean) then this would be of great benefit.
As above....not addressed.

12. So, I'd say there are some aspects of the manuscript that are of value and likely interest to readers, but the current format and presentation
doesn't adequately justify the approach, content, format or outcomes.

You say you've done this but I really don't think that you have.

 

Overall it appears to me that you have not made major revisions to the paper, simply that you've removed a few lines, added a few lines and not addressed the majority of the comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for taking the time to address the various comments that I made in the previous review, I can see that substantial work have been undertaken and my comments largely addressed. I still think the use of abbreviations in the Reference List is inappropriate but have checked with the journal that this will be addressed in the proof stages. I am now of the opinion that the manuscript is suitable for publication and look forward to seeing it published.