Contexts of Networking and Travelling in the Light of Buddhist “Wisdom” and Life Philosophy—Management of Accessibility and Barrier Generation in Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all congratulations to the authors, the work is most original and provides a lot of knowledge.

In my opinion, the first thing to do is to reduce the summary, more than a summary it seems like a long introduction and to put in it the main conclusion reached by the work.

In the introduction it is not clearly stated what the main objective of the work is, it is intuited that it is derived from the first paragraph: "This document is a brief attempt to outline in general lines the philosophy of life and the frameworks of interpretation of the philosophy buddhism of networks and cooperations, and its connections with the science of travel and not with the latest problems of accessibility”. And on the other hand, speaking openly of Buddhist philosophy, I wonder if it would not have been appropriate to mention it in the title.

The authors should build a theoretical framework, there is no such section in the work as such, a review of the literature that explains everything they intend to do, it is launched in the introduction, but this point is not specified.

Nor is any research hypothesis clearly stated, which means that the results remain up in the air, and therefore cannot be taken for granted, they must state and list the research hypotheses, detailing them since they do not appear in the work, such as H,H2………..

Figure 1 is out of focus, you should put it so that it looks good and adjusted to the width of the page. Figure 2 has no authorship, they have to put it.

It jumps directly to the conclusions without a discussion of results, well in this case of the bibliographic reviews

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, let us thank you for the kind words of recognition. Below please find our reactions to the problems, issues mentioned.

The abstract that indeed was far too long has been substantially reduced, from 441 words to less than 200 words. The content of the abstract has been re-edited and integrated into the introductory chapter.

The source of Figure 2 has been inserted, with a clear indication to the piece of cited literature where it was taken from.

The explicit wording of classic hypothesis was avoided not due to negligence; it is explained in more details in the abstract: “The paper is definitely of theoretical focus, it is a research methodology mix of emptiness- and life philosophy, and also hermeneutics, meant to inspire a discussion, evoke thoughts.”. What should be remarked here is that the scrutiny method of the world of Buddha’s thoughts on selflessness, applied in the practical sense by the authors, is a justification in itself for the negligence of the rigid “hierarchical” structure of hypotheses ands conclusions.

The style, the English language of the paper has been refined, some misspellings corrected.

All changes in the paper have been marked with track changes function for an easier detection of the changes.

On behalf of all authors,

Yours sincerely

Zoltán Raffay

Correspondence author

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very interesting, but it needs restructuring and restoration. A scientific article requires a different information structure. The paper is not a research article.

I consider the size of the abstract too large. I recommend retaining from the abstract the objective of the research, the results and the recommendations.

For example, this paragraph from the abstract: "Albert-László Barabási in his book called Linked: The New 26 Science of Networks gives a detailed analysis of the birth and operation of networks that infiltrate all 27 areas of human life and are almost organically growing." I think it has nothing to look for in the abstract and should be moved to the literature review.

The abstract is incredibly poorly written. In the abstract, the following paragraph has nothing to do with it: „This paper is a phase of this joint work, written as a special case study (see the award winning scholarship in the acknowledgements), in order to prove, among other things, that tourism science and travel management in the practical sense can gain relevance and positive benefits from the integration of the intellectual toolbox of philosophical dimensions.”

Please rewrite the entire abstract according to the following recommendations:

The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.

Structure of the abstract:

1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study;

2) Methods: Briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied.

3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and

4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text.

Choose the most representative keywords for the article. We recommend that the keywords are specific to the article, yet reasonably common within the subject discipline.

Introduction: The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.

Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited.

Results: Provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

Data and methods used in the research need to be presented in sufficient detail in the paper, so that other researchers can replicate the work.

Plagiarism, data fabrication and image manipulation are not tolerated. Reuse of text that is copied from another source must be between quotes and the original source must be cited. If a study's design or the manuscript's structure or language has been inspired by previous works, these works must be explicitly cited.

Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses.

The conclusions of the article are not well made. The citations have nothing to do there, they are done in the literature review section. Future research directions may also be mentioned. Provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

 I recommend a restructuring of the work and its transformation from an essay with an interesting discussion into a research paper.

``The aim of the paper is simply to raise the interest of the readers, following the path along the concept-origination defined by Heidegger [59] and the topic of travelling...''

I don't think it's right to end a research paper in such a way.

It would be interesting if the authors could turn their ingenious idea into a research article with a research objective, research hypotheses, research results and research discussions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

first of all, let us thank you for your effort and valuable recommendations. Below please find our reactions to the problems, issues mentioned.

The paper is basically a review paper and not a research paper, which explains some deficiencies you mentioned and which made the authors not follow rigidly the methodology applied at research papers.

The abstract that indeed was far too long has been substantially reduced, from 441 words to less than 200 words. The content of the abstract has been re-edited and integrated into the introductory chapter.

The source of Figure 2 has been inserted, with a clear indication to the piece of cited literature where it was taken from.

Keywords have been revisited and corrected.

We have considered from among the most recent trends in international education the renaissance of the application of scrutiny methods with philosophical character, which has become one of the engines of interdisciplinary research practices and methods. This is why we chose the form of review paper for our essay. The opinion you wrote, however, gives us an inspiration to write a research paper that you recommended, built on the foundations of this research article hopefully published soon in the periodical Sustainability.

The style, the English language of the paper has been refined, some misspellings corrected.

All changes in the paper have been marked with track changes function for an easier detection of the changes.

On behalf of all authors,

Yours sincerely

Zoltán Raffay

Correspondence author

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the current research is interesting and provides the good research gap in the context of research. 

In the literature review, the author needs to explain more about Buddhism or Buddhist philosophy interpretation. 

Furthermore, it is not clear what is the theoretical contribution of the study. Even though the paper is about philosophical dimension of the study. The author should address the better conclusion regarding what exactly the study has achieved. 

In addition, the author should highlight the practical implications from the study since the author touched on the current situation of COVID-19. Therefore, the author should offer more details in this part. 

From the topic of "Contexts of networking and travelling in the light of life philosophy – management of accessibility and barrier generation in tourism". In the conclusion, it is not clear how the author delivers the contents suitable to the topic.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

first of all, let us thank you for the kind words of recognition. Below please find our reactions to the problems, issues mentioned.

Both in the corrected title and in the content, thoughts referring to Buddhist philosophy are now included, also, the list of references has been enlarged with pieces of literature on this topic. This is served, among other things, by the train of thoughts on emptiness philosophy.

The theoretical contribution of the study is more precisely featured in the paper, in lines 74-77: “The authors’ goal then is clearly to make a contribution – however modest this may be –, by the specific philosophical scrutiny “methodology” of the paper, to the never-ending and self-fertilising discourses of scholasticism and the academic community.”

The relevance of the COVID-19 pandemic has been more emphasised in the new version, supported with new pieces of literature cited. We must remark that we are thinking about elaborating this issue in the future in the form of a more classic research paper, applying the philosophy scrutiny methods briefly outlined in this paper.

The style, the English language of the paper has been refined, some misspellings corrected.

All changes in the paper have been marked with track changes function for an easier detection of the changes.

On behalf of all authors,

Yours sincerely

Zoltán Raffay

Correspondence author

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Scientific work is improved. However, I recommend that the last paragraph of conclusions be redone and not to put ... for the end of the scientific paper.

Here

``The aim of the paper is simply to raise the 568 interest of the readers, following the path along the concept-origination defined by Heidegger [62] and 569 the topic of travelling…``

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

first of all, let us repeatedly thank you for your effort and valuable recommendations. Following your kind advice, the paper is now finished with a new sentence and the “…” at the end is now avoided.

All changes, including this one, in the paper have been marked with track changes function for an easier detection of the changes.

On behalf of all authors,

thanking for your effort to make the review paper more valuable,

yours sincerely

Zoltán Raffay

Correspondence author