Research on Popular Science Tourism Based on SWOT-AHP Model: A Case Study of Koktokay World Geopark in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors.

Following my previous comments about your paper, below you will find my comments regarding the changes made.

I believe that your paper is focused in a very interesting subject.

The introduction section improved a lot after the changes.

Despite the changes made in introduction section I still believe that you could provide a section focused on the background literature. 

Regarding to the remaining of your paper, I recommend you to change the heading “Discussion” at line 498 to one adequate with the followed text. Overall, you provide a few comments regarding the study limitations and future research. I recommend you to change the heading to “limitations and future research”. Furthermore, section “suggestions” seems much more a “Discussion” section.

The discussion section should discuss the obtained results and contrast them with previous literature.

As mentioned in previous comments, conclusion should incorporate the main theoretical and practical consequences of the obtained results.

 

Good luck with your work.

Author Response

On behalf of all the contributing authors, l would like to express our sincere appreciation for your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Research on popular science tourism based on SWOT-AHP model： A case study of Koktokay World Geopark in China". (Manuscript No.:1800456). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article.

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, several problems need to be addressed. According to your excellent suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

First of all, we sincerely appreciate that you affirmed our improvement regarding the article, which greatly encourages us.

 We have separated the Literature Review from the Introduction (We formerly deemed the Review could be a part of the Introduction and we illustrated the background related work of science tourism from its origin to date, methodology, and related field. )

We have rewritten and reorganized the last part of the manuscript: Discussion and conclusion, and changed the heading “Discussion” at line 498 to Limitations and lines of future research. (We have included the Suggestion part in the Discussion and put the Conclusion at the end ).

If there are any additional concerns or comments, please let us know. Much appreciated.

 

Best regards,

Cheng Long,

Song Lu,

Yiting Zhu.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is much improved, but is missing some important issues:

The method presented by the authors needs to be defended: either by justifying that is the best option and/or by presenting previous research with the same approach in similar situations

The description of the method done in lines 131-2 is clearly insufficient.

The discussion. First, I believe it must appear before the conclusions. The major problem is that the link with the theory is totally missing. The authors must clearly show where the their study aligns, or contradicts previous research or more important advance on existing knowledge.

Author Response

On behalf of all the contributing authors, l would like to express our sincere appreciation for your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Research on popular science tourism based on SWOT-AHP model： A case study of Koktokay World Geopark in China". (Manuscript No.:1800456). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article.

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, several problems need to be addressed. According to your excellent suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

First of all, we sincerely appreciate that you affirmed our improvement regarding the article, which greatly encourages us.

We have added the defense regarding the method we apply-- SOWT-AHP model

(By further illustrating that: Utilizing AHP inside a SWOT framework aims to systematically assess SWOT variables and proportionate their intensity. This is a reasonable starting point for studying the current, anticipated situation or a potential course of action in more detail. This method has been applied to the research of strategy making, ecotourism, and sustainability. )

 

We have rewritten and reorganized the last part of the manuscript: Discussion and conclusion, and changed the heading “Discussion” at line 498 to Limitations and lines of future research. In the Discussion part, we compared our findings with previous studies (the influencing factor, transportation, interpretation system, and resource conservation ) and made relevant suggestions.

 

If there are any additional concerns or comments, please let us know. Much appreciated.

 

Best regards,

Cheng Long,

Song Lu,

Yiting Zhu.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

First of all, congratulations for your work. However, manuscript should be modified following considerations described as follows:

Line 4. Remove capitals in research word.

Line 34. Remove “but” word.

Lines 109-110; lines 114-115; lines 235-236; lines 305-306; lines 313-314 Please follow MDPI citation style.

Line 117. Fig. 1 source citation required.

Line 121. Wrick 1980 citation required.

Line 208. Please remove hyphens and put word “named” or “called” instead.

Line 498. This is not a discussion section. Please remain at it is but change title for limitations and future lines of research. Please add a discussion section that must be after results and before conclusions, in current line 423 where you compare your results with the precedent literature.

Author Response

On behalf of all the contributing authors, l would like to express our sincere appreciation for your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Research on popular science tourism based on SWOT-AHP model： A case study of Koktokay World Geopark in China". (Manuscript No.:1800456). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article.

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, several problems need to be addressed. According to your excellent suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

First of all, we sincerely appreciate that you affirmed our improvement regarding the article, which greatly encourages us.

We have changed all the mentioned problems regarding the recital style, capital, and grammar.

( We have removed capitals in research word, Removed “but” word.

Lines 109-110; lines 114-115; lines 235-236; lines 305-306; lines 313-314 have been changed to the MDPI citation style.

Line 117. Fig. 1 source citation added, line 121. Wrick 1980 citation added.

Line 208. We have removed hyphens and put the word “named” instead.)

 

We have rewritten and reorganized the last part of the manuscript: Discussion and conclusion, and changed the heading “Discussion” at line 498 to Limitations and lines of future research. In the Discussion part, we compared our findings with previous studies (the influencing factor, transportation, interpretation system, and resource conservation ) and made relevant suggestions.

 

If there are any additional concerns or comments, please let us know. Much appreciated.

 

Best regards,

Cheng Long,

Song Lu,

Yiting Zhu.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congrats on the revision. Well done