What Is Interdisciplinarity in the Study of Sustainable Destination Development?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- This bibliographic review should be done following a theoretical framework on sustainable tourism and sustainable tourist destinations.
- Important tourism journals, indexed in SSCI of the Web of Science and SCOPUS, are not reviewed
- How were the themes and perspectives determined? it is necessary to know the analysis criteria of the 150 articles.
Author Response
Comment1:
This bibliographic review should be done following a theoretical framework on sustainable tourism and sustainable tourist destinations.
Reply1:
Because the whole article is a systematic literature review, we agreed that it is not necessary to list the literature review separately. We wrote the definition and theory of sustainable tourism and sustainable destination development in "1. Introduction". We first talked about sustainability and sustainable tourism, and then we pointed out the ambiguity in terms of sustainability, sustainable tourism and sustainable destination development, and pointed out the similarities and differences between the three. Then we pointed out that we are not trying to define what sustainable destination development is and write that sustainable destination development is interdisciplinary. Finally, we wrote that the concept of sustainable destination development was vague and dangerous, and pointed out research gaps. The above is the logic of "1.introduction". We tried to write bibliographic reviews in a step-by-step manner.
Comment 2:
Important tourism journals, indexed in SSCI of the Web of Science and SCOPUS, are not reviewed
Reply2:
We wrote in "2. Methodology", the reasons for using mainstream publishers instead of using other broader search engines such as "Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar". "And we have now added the limitations of this methodology at the end of the article: “In the methodology section, we explained the reasons for choosing this method instead of other broader search engines such as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar. Although this method improves the quality of the included publications to a certain extent, it limits the scope of the search and may not include some references that are also valuable. Therefore, we encourage to expand the search scope smartly in future research.”
Comment 3:
How were the themes and perspectives determined? it is necessary to know the analysis criteria of the 150 articles.
Reply 3:
We have now added "2.2 content-based literature review analysis", "2.3 Reliability and validity of content analysis" and "2.4 descriptive analysis" in "2.methodology". In these three parts, we explained how the theme and perspectives are determined.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
your work is quite interesting and tries to approach the SDD from many points of view. The paper relies mainly on previous researches, that is why I would have expected to have a more complex list of references since the issue is very frequently analyzed by scholars. More, a geographical presentation should be also useful.
Good luck
Author Response
Comment 1:
your work is quite interesting and tries to approach the SDD from many points of view. The paper relies mainly on previous researches, that is why I would have expected to have a more complex list of references since the issue is very frequently analyzed by scholars. More, a geographical presentation should be also useful.
Reply1:
Thank you for your suggestion. We have attached 5 figures. "Figure3 Distribution by regions" visualizes the regions of the cases involved in these documents. For your "more complex list of references" point, we would like to explain again that this is a systematic literature review from 2015-2020, and this list of references are what is found in that. This article is about interdisciplinarity and SDD, not just to "to approach the SDD from many points of view" which could be many more things, but we limit ourselves to interdisciplinarity specifically. That’s why the list of references looks as it does.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author(s), thank you for your interesting paper.
I liked it very much.
Just a few comments:
The abstract should be improved focusing more on your findings and research oportunities.
Improve you contribution to science.
Good work.
Author Response
Comment1: I liked it very much.
Just a few comments:
The abstract should be improved focusing more on your findings and research opportunities.
Improve you contribution to science.
Good work.
Reply1:
Thanks very much for your advice. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the abstract part and emphasized our findings and research contributions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is now to be published
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript.
