The Role of Sports Policing and Tourism Safety at the Summer Olympics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found that the authors have improved their article based on my previous comments. 

Author Response

Cover Letter

 

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Gödöllő

5/4/2022

 

We hereby re-submit our manuscript titled “The role of sports policing and tourism safety at the summer Olympics.” for consideration in the Sustainability Journal. Manuscript ID Sustainability-1706866.

Reviewer 1 has confirmed that the issues raised have been addressed. We appreciate the time taken to help us improve of the manuscript.

Regards,

Adol Gogo Fredrick Collins.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors
Changes to the manuscript have been made as requested.

However, I recommend a short review in English before publishing the paper.

Author Response

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Gödöllő

5/4/2022

 

We hereby re-submit our manuscript titled “The role of sports policing and tourism safety at the summer Olympics.” for consideration in the Sustainability Journal. Manuscript ID Sustainability-1706866.

Suggestion from Reviewer 2 about proof reading have been executed.

Regards,

Adol Gogo Fredrick Collins.

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting, but the work presented needs some improvements.
1) It is necessary to define whether we will work with "safety" or "security". Otherwise, indicate the differences between the two concepts and show how they relate to each other for the set of cases studied.
2) The authors state that "The study mainly looked for correlations between safety, the amount spent on safety and the number of protection personnel alive". But there is no methodological approach to the correlations study. Nor is tourism included in this objective.
3) Regarding the tables:
3.1) Table 1. Should standardize the presentation of data on "Number of tickets sold" and "Budget". Explain in each case who collects the sales, who finances this "budget", how it is related and whether it is appropriate to account for ratios between the two.
3.2) Table 2. Should standardize the order of the ratios (numerator / denominator) for spectators and competitors.
3.3) Table 3. Should explain the logic of showing ratios that do not correspond to the year of the Olympics. If you do not have data, I suggest you use the FSI of each country for the corresponding year (https://fragilestatesindex.org/).
3.4) You must clarify how table 4 contributes to your objectives.
4) The results should be in accordance with the objectives and present the correlations indicated above.
5) A general conclusion is presented and there is no discussion section that can contrast this manuscript with the existing literature and report the scientific contribution.

Author Response

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Gödöllő

5/4/2022

 

We hereby re-submit our manuscript titled “The role of sports policing and tourism safety at the summer Olympics.” for consideration in the Sustainability Journal. Manuscript ID Sustainability-1706866.

Concerns raised by the third reviewer about safety and security have been clarified. The corrections linking tourism to safety issues as well. Table 1 has been edited and financing explained. Table 2 has explained the ratios at the headline. The contribution of table 4 to the objective is explained.  The study has discussion section and the results linked to the objectives

Regards,

Adol Gogo Fredrick Collins.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

There have been improvements in the manuscript, there are issues that should be corrected in the final edition. For example, this idea of joining results and discussion in a single section (it is something unusual), and also checking all the citations and their numbering.
Regarding tables 3 and 4, I still think it would be better to make their connection more explicit (between the final right column of both tables, e.g. 0.25/5.026=4.97% ... etc.).
It is difficult, in the absence of more initial information, that the authors claim to have more conclusive results, but it does open a space for discussion between Olympic security, host country security and mass tourism around the event.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the topic of this paper is interesting, up-to-date, the results are well presented with an adequate methodology and the content is well described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic.

Nevertheless I have minor suggestions in order to improve the text and the content:

• I suggest to use much more references/citations in the introduction section and also in the literature background chapters. 
• I think the abstract should contain one sentence about the methodology and the implications of the study.
• In the Materials and methods chapter I would not emphasize the Hungarian scopes of the methodology - e.g. I quote "The theoretical foundations of the study are based on previous Hungarian and inter-national literature on sports policing and tourism safety. Due to the nature of the topic, the proportion of reports obtained from Hungarian and international journals, databases and news agencies is significant." I do not think that Hungarian literature should be mentioned here, you definitely need international literature (including Hungarian of course) for your research. 
• I would suggest a more detailed argument on why exactly you chose the last 20 years' Summer Olympics locations for your research period.
• I think sub-chapters 2.1. and 2.2. do not belong to the Methodology section but they cover separate Literature background topics. Hereby I would advise to use a much more extended literature survey on the topic of the article.  
• I think the conclusions section should contain the research implications, the limitations of the research and the future research directions as well. 

Over all the language of this paper is clear and the paper is written well but some corrections are needed. Addressing the above issues will definitely enhance your work. I am looking forward to reading your revised paper. Good luck to your work and after these minor corrections I support the manuscript to be published.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The entire introduction needs to be supported by the literature — in this section only a single author appears, who is actually a 2016 website. This means that the information is already out of date.
Keywords - only "Summer Olympics" appears. Where are the keywords referring to the theory of study? Does just an outdated reference support the entire intro?

I also did not find the literature review section to support the research methods, results and conclusion. Without literature review, how can the study be conducted? In the method section, there is a text with authors, but this section is not the literature review section. The manuscript, unfortunately, does not have the standard of a scientific document. This even jeopardizes the work of the evaluator in the review of the manuscript. The minimum for an evaluation to begin is that the manuscript has a scientific document structure with the basic elements: introduction, literature review, methods, results and discussions, conclusion, references. This needs to be in separate sections and not in the reviewed manuscript.

The method section lacks scientific rigor. It is unclear which method was used, which research techniques were used, and how the data analyzed the data. The method section only has a short paragraph without further information on how the study was conducted in detail. The detail is only in relation to the interviews, but this is not enough to form an adequate methodology for a scientific document. The study cannot be replicated by other researchers in the form it is submitted. In this sense, there is no way to assess whether the results and conclusion are adequate because they cannot be scientifically verified. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic may be interesting, but the work presented does NOT correspond to the standards of a JCR-WoS journal.
1) The introduction should contain a background literature, but it contains only one citation [1]. A citation that is NOT an article published in a mainstream journal.
2) It states "The study primarily looked for correlations between security, the amount spent on security, and the number of live protection personnel". There is no methodological approach to the study of correlations.
3) There is a section called "Materials and Methods". But it does not propose any methodology, method or material.
4) The results are a simple description of general information, without any type of standardized analysis. Figures and tables are presented without precise references or at most sources corresponding to web pages.
5) A general conclusion is presented and there is no discussion section that could contrast this manuscript with the existing literature and give an account of its scientific contribution.
6) The 35 references are mainly news web sites or institutions named in the text. Journal articles are scarce and mainstream discussion seems to be absent or non-existent for this paper.