How Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Functional Relationships in Activities between Members in a Tourism Organization? A Case Study of Regional Tourism Organizations in Poland
, Mariusz Sołtysik 1, Justyna Bagińska 2,*, Mateusz Ziemba 3, Małgorzata Kołodziej 4 and Jacek Borzyszkowski 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The topic of the article is a topical one. The methodological approach is appropriate. Discussions and Conclusions are supported by Results.
Some constructive requests and comments:
1. Please clearly state the research objectives and hypotheses in the Introduction.
2. In relation to this, please highlight in the Discussion and Conclusions how the research results contribute to the achievement of these objectives.
3. Two observations about form:
-A larger font would make the texts in figures 1, 3 and 3 more readable (in the current version it is hard to read)
- The bibliographic references are not written according to the indications of the journal, they must be reformulated.
Congratulations on the article, good luck!
Author Response
Reviewed Article
How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect functional relationships in activities between members in a tourism organization? A case study of Regional Tourism Organizations in Poland
Review #1
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for reviewing our paper.
We thank the Reviewers for noticing the positive aspects of our article, highlighting its validity and relevance, and confirming the value of the research idea. We also appreciate your accurate observations and comments indicated in the reviews. We agree with all your remarks.
Addressing your suggestions, we have implemented appropriate corrections and amendments as follows:
Reviewer’s comment
Please clearly state the research objectives and hypotheses in the Introduction.
Reply
The main and secondary goals were included in the study, and the hypotheses were placed after the “Literature review” section, as a more suitable place in the light of the paper’s assumptions.
Reviewer’s comment
In relation to this, please highlight in the Discussion and Conclusions how the research results contribute to the achievement of these objectives.
Reply
The section “Discussion and Conclusions” has been supplemented in order to show how the research results contributes to the achievement the main and secondary goals.
Reviewer’s comment
A larger font would make the texts in figures 1, 3 and 3 more readable (in the current version it is hard to read)
Reply
Figures were corrected accordingly.
Reviewer’s comment
The bibliographic references are not written according to the indications of the journal, they must be reformulated.
Reply
The bibliography was supplemented with additional publications resulting from the opinions of other Reviewers. Furthermore, the bibliography was prepared with the use of the Mendeley system (acceptable in the Journal) and will be additionally adjusted based on the comments of the Technical Editorial Board after the final positive reviews, at the stage of preparation for publication. The journal gives the freedom to use bibliographic styles, which are finally corrected after the text has been approved.
We would like to once again thank you for your positive review and ensure that we have verified all the shortcomings identified in our article. We hope that you will find our reply to the review complete and satisfactory.
With best regards,
the authors
28.09.2022
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
At the beginning of the abstract, it is necessary to ask a question that is dealt with in a wider context and highlight the exact purpose of the study, as well as state the exact goals of the study in the abstract itself.
Introduction
The introduction is very short and confusing, nothing about the work can be learned from it.
It is necessary to put the study in a wider context and highlight why it is important. Has similar research been done so far? If so, compare why this study is essential and why it stands out. What is the current state of the researched topic, and can it be compared to any research?
Define a clear purpose and clear goals of the work, as well as clearly formulate hypotheses that can be followed through the work and that can be verified. Nowhere in the paper are the exact goals specified, so that they could be followed chronologically. It is necessary to state the main objectives and highlight the key conclusions.
It should be understandable to scientists who are not familiar with the subject.
Literature review
The literature review should be summarized, and the introduction should be expanded. Is it necessary for the research to describe the roles of tourist organizations at all levels?
Materials
Where was the questionnaire taken from (from which authors and from which research)?
If the authors designed it themselves, what were the questions based on?
Results and conclusion
Compare the results with previous similar research if they were done.
Pay attention to the references (lines 461-463).
Author Response
Review #2
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for reviewing our paper.
We thank the Reviewers for noticing the positive aspects of our article, highlighting its validity and relevance, and confirming the value of the research idea. We also appreciate your accurate observations and comments indicated in the reviews. We agree with all your remarks.
Addressing your suggestions, we have implemented appropriate corrections and amendments as follows:
Reviewer’s comment
Introduction
The introduction is very short and confusing, nothing about the work can be learned from it.
It is necessary to put the study in a wider context and highlight why it is important. Has similar research been done so far? If so, compare why this study is essential and why it stands out. What is the current state of the researched topic, and can it be compared to any research? Define a clear purpose and clear goals of the work, as well as clearly formulate hypotheses that can be followed through the work and that can be verified. Nowhere in the paper are the exact goals specified, so that they could be followed chronologically. It is necessary to state the main objectives and highlight the key conclusions.
It should be understandable to scientists who are not familiar with the subject.
Reply
The Introduction was corrected, indicating the significance of the study and its relationship with the current research topic including DMOs and the key knowledge gaps that this analysis eliminates to a certain extent. The main and secondary goals are highlighted in the study, and the hypotheses were placed after the “Literature review” section, which seems to be a more suitable place in the light of the paper’s assumptions.
Reviewer’s comment
Literature review
The literature review should be summarized, and the introduction should be expanded. Is it necessary for the research to describe the roles of tourist organizations at all levels?
Reply
An aggregated summary of the literature review was made, indicating the importance of the study in question in the light of current research areas. The introduction was expanded as indicated above. Additionally, the need to describe the role of tourism organizations at all levels of their operation was substantively justified.
Reviewer’s comment
Materials
Where was the questionnaire taken from (from which authors and from which research)?
If the authors designed it themselves, what were the questions based on?
Reply
The description of the research methodology was developed, also recalling the scientific background for the content of the questionnaire adopted in the survey. The description of the research methodology was developed, also recalling the scientific background for the adopted content of the questionnaire in the survey.
Reviewer’s comment
Results and conclusion
Compare the results with previous similar research if they were done. Pay attention to the references (lines 461-463).
Reply
References to other, previously conducted studies were introduced into the text, indicating the convergence and purposefulness of the analyses as well as the complementarity of the results and observations of the authors.
We would like to once again thank you for your positive review and ensure that we have verified all the shortcomings identified in our article. We hope that you will find our reply to the review complete and satisfactory.
With best regards,
the authors
28.09.2022
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The aim of the submitted paper is to identify the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the relationships between members of RTOs in Poland. Such research is helpful in building the effectiveness of the organization at the regional level in crisis situations and can help us to see the nature of the relationship between COVID-19 pandemic and tourism industry from another perspective.
Point 1, in the introduction, more details should be added to explain how the supply and demand of the tourism market are affected by the COVID-19 epidemic and explain the relationship between them, then the necessity of this research is introduced. Or add to this section from 2.2 to condense related points.
Point 2, Paage 1 line13-14. The Abstract said the study consisted of three stages: desk research, diagnostic survey, as well as qualitative and statistical analyses, but it seemed not clear? Can you depict or point out them?
Point 3. The content of the conclusions in the abstract is not clear
Point 4, Page 6 line265-266. Why choose question no.2,5,6,8,10-13,15 from the supplementary materials to analysis and achieve the set aim of the research? What's the connection between them?
Point 5, the 4.Results part can be divided into two parts according to the time of COVID-19’s outbreaking , and the conclusions should be sorted out by main sentences, rather than all the paragraphs are stacked together.
Point 6, the first four paragraphs(from line299-347) of 4.Results have some percentage data. The Table 1 doesn’t contain them. Where are they derived from? Meanwhile, what level the P value be significant should be added below Table.1.
Point 7. in Figure 3, why are some bar graphs and scatter graphs labeled while others are not? Please standardize them uniformly.
Author Response
Review #3
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for reviewing our paper.
We thank the Reviewers for noticing the positive aspects of our article, highlighting its validity and relevance, and confirming the value of the research idea. We also appreciate your accurate observations and comments indicated in the reviews. We agree with all your remarks.
Addressing your suggestions, we have implemented appropriate corrections and amendments as follows:
Reviewer’s comment
Point 1, in the introduction, more details should be added to explain how the supply and demand of the tourism market are affected by the COVID-19 epidemic and explain the relationship between them, then the necessity of this research is introduced. Or add to this section from 2.2 to condense related points.
Reply
The text of sub-chapter 2.2 was supplemented with an element indicating changes of demand and supply in tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic and the attitude of DMOs towards this phenomenon
Reviewer’s comment
Point 2, Page 1 line 13-14. The Abstract said the study consisted of three stages: desk research, diagnostic survey, as well as qualitative and statistical analyses, but it seemed not clear? Can you depict or point out them?
Reply
Due to the limitation of the word number in the Abstract, the detailed description of the performed statistical analyzes has been included in the methodological chapter (last paragraph). The content of the article was supplemented with additional figures 1 and 2, presenting the research process and relationships between the areas of the studied variables (background of the research).
Reviewer’s comment
Point 3. The content of the conclusions in the abstract is not clear.
Reply
For the sake of clarity, the Abstract has been revised by referring to the objectives of the study and the key conclusions related to the hypotheses.
Reviewer’s comment
Point 4, Page 6 line265-266. Why choose question no.2,5,6,8,10-13,15 from the supplementary materials to analysis and achieve the set aim of the research? What's the connection between them?
Reply
The article was supplemented, including diagrams no. 1 and 2.
Only a few variables from the questionnaire were selected for the study due to their substantive connections with the purpose of the study and the posed hypotheses. The analysis of responses to selected questions helped to assess the relationship between the limitations in RTOs observed during the pandemic (question 8) and changes in the importance of the basic forms of the organization's activities (questions 5-6) and their relationship with the environment (questions 11-13) and helped to establish whether ROTs (in view of the above) have taken (question 10) or planned (question 15) actions (and what) to reduce the effects of the pandemic (which were assessed on the basis of questions 8, 5-6, 11-13).
The survey scope was broader because some of the other variables from the questionnaire were used in another study.
Reviewer’s comment
Point 5, the 4. Results part can be divided into two parts according to the time of COVID-19’s outbreaking , and the conclusions should be sorted out by main sentences, rather than all the paragraphs are stacked together.
Reply
The content was supplemented with additional explanations as to the simultaneous presentation of research results and conclusions for both studied periods (before and during the COVID-19 pandemic) as inextricably linked elements, interacting with each other, as well as allowing for comparative analyses.
The course of analyses adopted by the authors made it possible to take into account and emphasize the changes taking place in the BP and DP period. Such a layout is also crucial for the substantive content of the study, as it allows for capturing the trends occurring in the analysed period in terms of activities undertaken by organizations. The part of the text concerning conclusions has been divided into additional paragraphs, which allow to distinguish the main ideas of the text. As a result, this part of the study is clearer and is also a reflection of the Results section.
Reviewer’s comment
Point 6, the first four paragraphs (from line 299-347) of 4. Results have some percentage data. The Table 1 doesn’t contain them. Where are they derived from? Meanwhile, what level the P value be significant should be added below Table.1.
Reply
The explanatory description to the Table has been supplemented.
The percentage values were assumed to define the strength (power) of individual indications in terms of points. However, their size and diversity turned out to be of little importance. Hence, they were removed according to the Reviewer's comment.
Reviewer’s comment
Point 7. in Figure 3, why are some bar graphs and scatter graphs labeled while others are not? Please standardize them uniformly.
Reply
Figure 3 shows the distribution of values for 4 variables (bar charts) and correlation plots between these 4 variables (scatter plots). Only scatterplots showing significant correlations were marked (and only for them the Rho and p were reported). The remaining correlations were not significant.
The explanatory content under Figure 3 has been supplemented, and thus it is not necessary to correct the figure itself, as introducing further descriptions (for non-significant variables) would result in a decrease in the legibility of the key results.
We would like to once again thank you for your positive review and ensure that we have verified all the shortcomings identified in our article. We hope that you will find our reply to the review complete and satisfactory.
With best regards,
the authors
28.09.2022
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is interesting and based on a broad literature review about stakeholders, impacts and regional tourism structures.
In order to improve the article, I suggest the following comments and remarks:
- the authors formulated a specific purpose of the study but did not present clearly the research hypothesis
- the literature review section is interesting and presents a clear sequence of its subsections
- In section 3 - "Materials and Methods", due to the research problem, it is important to highlight who the respondants were. Authors say: 16 Polish RTOs (Regional DMOs) with a total of 1,584 members (line 253). Please clarify, for instance: How many respondants did answer the questionnaire? Answer rate? professional categories of the representatives of DMOs? Head of DMOs or others?
- Authors consider 19 variables (line 255) associated to the questionnaire. Then, they point out some forms, impacts, type of activities, etc (lines 255-280). In order to a better understanding of the paper, my suggestion is: authors should present a synthesis of the questionnaire design process, in table or figure. A table or figure enhances a better vizualisation of the analyzed items and their respective sequence and interrelationship.
- In the section "Results" and regarding the questionnaire, authors point out that it has "both closed and open questions" (line 249). How did they analyse the open questions? (For instane questions 14, 17 and 20?) Once the answer was not obligatory, did the respondants give enough information? If yes, similar or opposite perspectives?
- regarding section titled "Discussion and conclusions" it highlights relevant theoretical and practical issues
Author Response
Review #4
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for reviewing our paper.
We thank the Reviewers for noticing the positive aspects of our article, highlighting its validity and relevance, and confirming the value of the research idea. We also appreciate your accurate observations and comments indicated in the reviews. We agree with all your remarks.
Addressing your suggestions, we have implemented appropriate corrections and amendments as follows:
Reviewer’s comment
- the authors formulated a specific purpose of the study but did not present clearly the research hypothesis
Reply
The study was supplemented with hypotheses, including their verification in the “Discussion and Conclusions” section.
Reviewer’s comment
- In section 3 - "Materials and Methods", due to the research problem, it is important to highlight who the respondents were. Authors say: 16 Polish RTOs (Regional DMOs) with a total of 1,584 members (line 253). Please clarify, for instance: How many respondents did answer the questionnaire? Answer rate? professional categories of the representatives of DMOs? Head of DMOs or others?
Reply
The paper was supplemented with relevant descriptions of the respondents.
The survey was addressed to all 16 Polish DMO Offices and Management Boards, and 16 sets of aggregated data from all DMOs from administrative provinces of Poland were obtained. They were mainly prepared by the Presidents of organizations and Office Directors, as people most familiar with the surveyed issues. All 16 fully completed questionnaires were qualified for the study.
Reviewer’s comment
- Authors consider 19 variables (line 255) associated to the questionnaire. Then, they point out some forms, impacts, type of activities, etc (lines 255-280). In order to a better understanding of the paper, my suggestion is: authors should present a synthesis of the questionnaire design process, in table or figure. A table or figure enhances a better visualization of the analysed items and their respective sequence and interrelationship.
Reply
The description of questionnaire composition was supplemented, with reference to the literature. The paper was supplemented with a diagram of the assessment process of the studied phenomenon (here, the relationships between the areas of the surveyed variables from the survey), showing the relationship between the selected Covid-19 pandemic effects and the type of actions taken/planned by RTOs for the benefit of members (see Figure 2).
Reviewer’s comment
- In the section "Results" and regarding the questionnaire, authors point out that it has "both closed and open questions" (line 249). How did they analyse the open questions? (For instance questions 14, 17 and 20?) Once the answer was not obligatory, did the respondents give enough information? If yes, similar or opposite perspectives?
Reply
The paper was supplemented with appropriate explanations regarding the analysis of the respondents' answers to open-ended questions. With regard to the obtained responses, a standard solution for aggregating individual responses into groups of synthetic indications was adopted, and then the grouped indications were subjected to statistical calculations.
We would like to once again thank you for your positive review and ensure that we have verified all the shortcomings identified in our article. We hope that you will find our reply to the review complete and satisfactory.
With best regards,
the authors
28.09.2022
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
With the changes already made, I believe the article can be considered for publication. Success!
