Strategic Development Associated with Branding in the Tourism Sector: Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature between the Years 2000 to 2022
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Branding is a very important issue, but I have some methodological questions:
1. why were publications prior to 2017 not taken into account?
2. why was the search done only in one database?
3. was branding in areas of tourism such as hospitality taken into account?
Besides, please indicate what is the relationship of this systematic literature review to sustainability, what are the practical recommendations for branding in tourism?
Also, for what purpose was the PRISMA methodology modified? How should the strategic development related to branding in the title of the article be understood?
Also, elaborate on the discussion of the results and refer to other literature review publications on branding in tourism (e.g., hospitality)
Author Response
Before detailing the various modifications and improvements made to the previous version of this paper, we would like to sincerely thank the Reviewer for your comments and suggestions, which helped us to modify the work and make substantial improvements in the content and shape.
In the following attached document, as a response to proposals and comments made in the review process, we detail the changes and corrections from your comments.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the abstract, data information is missing, for example, the number of articles, countries, and percentage of their representation. I suggest that the authors rephrase the abstract to include motivation, data and sources, methods, results, conclusion, and implications.
In the introduction, it should be made clear what the authors are going to do, why, and the potential implications. What are the target groups of readers?
One of the reasons for carrying out a bibliometric is to identify knowledge gaps and this is not done here. The article just highlights the work of some authors, saying nothing about the underrepresented countries so that it can motivate other authors to do future studies on these countries. This gap is also present in future research.
Lines 43-47: the authors state that “research on brand management is important for the competitiveness of companies” but their analysis excludes for example
Santos, E., Lisboa, I., Crespo, C., Moreira, J., & Eugenio, T. (2022). Evaluating economic sustainability of nautical tourism through brand equity and corporate performance. In transcending borders in tourism through innovation and cultural heritage (pp. 105-118). Springer, call.
A bibliometric analysis must contain recent research on the topic.
The article has two objectives; to identify studies that focus on branding in tourism, and to identify branding strategies. Yet, the authors do not disclose their motivation for this article. Who is it going to benefit, and how and why?
The authors do not disclose the implications for science and economies because the most researched and cited articles are concentrated in a small number of countries (US, UK, Canada, and China).
In table 6, the column on branding strategies in tourism appears to be a copy of the results of the articles and not a description of the strategies used. This table links with the discussion and conclusions, but this link boils down to listing some strategies in general, not exemplifying the instruments to implement them, which is what really matters.
Line 356: explain how this happens.
Discussion and conclusion must have separate sections
The limitations section is very poor. Moreover, it does not make sense to say that SCOPUS was chosen because is a reliable data source and then point as a limitation the fact that SCOPUS leaves many studies out and declares that future works will include other sources. So why didn't the authors have these sources right away?
Author Response
Before detailing the various modifications and improvements made to the previous version of this paper, we would like to sincerely thank the Reviewer for your comments and suggestions, which helped us to modify the work and make substantial improvements in the content and shape.
In the following attached document, as a response to proposals and comments made in the review process, we detail the changes and corrections from your comments.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much having the chance to review this manuscript which is dealing with a very interesting topic. Before it can be considered to be accepted please help to take care of below comments:
1. In the Introduction section, authors should argue the research background and problem with a good “story” in real tourism sector. Then based on related theory basis, authors should add two important points that, one is that, how do authors propose the research questions? The 2nd is that, what is the contribution and novelty of your paper? Why the reader should expect to understand something of new by reading your paper? Currently we mainly notice more texts about background and literature review and we are confused by the current version of section organizations and texts.
2. We suggest that, authors should divide and re-write “Discussion and conclusion” section. We suggest use “Discussion section” and “Conclusion, Implications and Limitations section” respectively.
In the “5.Discussion” section, authors should interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the introduction; the discussion should always explain how your study has moved the reader's understanding of the research problem forward from where you left them at the end of the introduction.
In the “Conclusion, Implications and Limitations” section, authors should start with your main findings in sub-section as "Main findings": author’s original thoughts and evaluation of the obtained results. We suggest authors to add "Theoretical and Practical Implications" sub-section but using brief and concise expressions and logics. Lastly please then state your limitations and future directions.
Author Response
Before detailing the various modifications and improvements made to the previous version of this paper, we would like to sincerely thank the Reviewer for your comments and suggestions, which helped us to modify the work and make substantial improvements in the content and shape.
In the following attached document, as a response to proposals and comments made in the review process, we detail the changes and corrections from your comments.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
your manuscript has improved substancially. Congrats for the effort!
