Strategic Analysis of Sustainable Tourism in Baja California against COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
This research paper describes the important and actual topic – Strategic analysis of sustainable tourism in Baja California against COVID-19. Thus, authors notice that their study is developed through the implementation of four strategic models (SWOT Method, Competitive Advantage Matrix, BCG Matrix and The Eric Matrix), which allow entrepreneurs in the tourism sector of the state of Baja California to face the consequences that the pandemic has generated in detriment of its competitiveness, in turn that will allow them to design competitive strategies that directly support the tourism sector of the entity, which facilitates decision-making to achieve the sustainable development of regional tourism.
And I would like to share with authors some doubts and remarks too: it seems important to notice that it would be needed to concentrate on the Conclusions of the study and to rediscuss and rewrite them trying to make them shorter and more clear (Table 5 should find another place in the article, not putting it to the Conclusions section). As well, when developing the discussion it would be needed to include to the debate more theoretical implications, thus accessing deeper insights. It is important to notice too, that the abstract should contain more concise information on the purpose, methods used and results, - in this form, it is too general.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: it would be necessary to focus on the conclusions of the study and re-discuss and rewrite them trying to make them shorter and clearer.
Response 1: The conclusions were restated and abbreviated as much as possible
Point 2: Table 5 should look elsewhere in the article, not put it in the Conclusions section
Response 2: The Table 5 was relocated to the introductory section, making it Table 1
Point 3: Likewise, when developing the discussion, it would be necessary to include more theoretical implications in the debate, thus accessing deeper insights.
Response 3: In the development of the discussions, theoretical implications were included that would promote a superior debate; as well as a deeper vision of the topic addressed.
Point 4: the summary should contain more concise information about the purpose, the methods used and the results; in this way, it is too general.
Response 4: Regarding the purpose, the need to carry out a strategic analysis is established to propose competitive strategies for entrepreneurs in the tourism sector. The methods used are mentioned and explained later in the full document. The main conclusion of the study is included in red color.
We sincerely appreciate your very appropriate recommendations we hope we have fulfilled your expectations.
The changes are in red for their best location.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read and reflect on this interesting paper. I do see the merit in investigating cross-framework applications and the context of Baja and COVID is novel. However, the connections within the paper are difficult to discern. The models, beyond being presented in the Introduction with adequate context, should be thoroughly discussed in relationship to each other and in relationship to the context and data sources. This is done briefly in the Conclusions, but only with brief mention and little connection back to the impact of the work. For example, the meso/mid/macro discussion in the Conclusion could be a very interesting way to preface the paper in discussing the applicability of frameworks at different scales of regional tourism consideration and with the injection of a disruption (COVID). However, even with this, the presentation of the data would need considerable work to flow logically among the frameworks. The authors have been ambitious in their selection of so many frameworks (and introduction of yet another in the Conclusions). This speaks to the need for a unified presentation of the frameworks early on and making the connections explicit about why these were chosen and how they are employed (alongside the empirical data). Once the frameworks are assembled and discussed early on, the authors can provide research questions and results that flow more coherently. As-is, the paper is difficult to understand in its entirety.
The work is an interesting start and with strong scientific merit, but much more synthesis needs to occur for it to be publishable. The English in the article is also at a level that detracts from the main message and requires substantial work. However, I provide my review on the merits of the overall presentation and quality of the work, independent from the language issues that can be addressed in further iterations of the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The models, beyond being presented in the Introduction with the appropriate context, should be thoroughly discussed in relation to each other and in relation to the context and data sources.
Response 1: A connection was made between the data found and each of the models, and how they complement each other to strengthen the Gastro-Touristic Cluster. (in red)
Point 2: Veo el mérito de investigar aplicaciones entre marcos y el contexto de Baja y COVID es novedoso. Sin embargo, las conexiones dentro del papel son difíciles de discernir.
Response 2: The authors' initial intention was not to perform a systemic competitiveness analysis, which is why it was decided to eliminate the micro, macro and meso levels for a better understanding of the study. We hope to comply with your request.
Point 3: Once the frameworks are assembled and discussed at the outset, authors can provide research questions and results that flow more coherently.
Response 3: Since the frameworks were eliminated and this is not an applied research but a strategic analysis reinforced with the opinion of the businessmen of the sector studied, no research questions are contemplated, since there are no hypotheses to test or reject.
Point 4: The English translation has grammatical errors.
Response 4: The translation of the document was reviewed and corrected, thanks for the recommendation.
We sincerely appreciate your very appropriate recommendations we hope we have fulfilled your expectations.
The changes are in red for their best location.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations for your efforts to review the article. It's seems better now.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors adequately responded to my concerns in the first round of this work. Beyond another careful read for flow and grammar, it seems ready to be a publishable contribution.
