Spatial–Temporal Evolution Characteristics and Economic Effects of China’s Cultural and Tourism Industries’ Collaborative Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors explore the spatial-temporal characteristics and economic effects of China’s Cultural and Tourism Industry’s Collaborative Agglomeration. The argumentation process is not rigorous enough, there are still some areas for improvement in the paper.
1. A lot of language needs to be streamlined throughout the paper. Please optimize the language throughout the paper.
2.This paper explores the impact of cultural expenses, domestic tourism revenue, proportion of tourism revenue in GDP, and per capita daily 29 tourism foreign exchange revenue. However, the article needs to further elaborate on why these four factors were chosen and how they have a positive impact.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Dear Editor,
The authors proposed an interesting study “Spatial-Temporal Characteristics and Economic Effects of China’s Cultural and Tourism Industry’s Collaborative Agglomeration”. The paper is well-structured and conveys a deal of information. I want to suggest a few suggestions to improve the manuscript quality and better readability.
1. The author(s) should carefully read their manuscript for grammatical errors and use more neutral language, there are an example of inconsistencies and typos throughout the manuscript. They need to ensure that the paper has been professionally edited and proofread before submission.
2. The abstract does not flow very well. As is, it looks primarily like a result-reporting exercise rather than conveying the central idea(s) canvassed in the paper and the contribution it makes to the existing body of scientific knowledge.
3. The introduction must include the importance of this work can be highlighted at the end of the introduction. You can refer the following papers: doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124169
4. The novelty of this paper should be further justified by highlighting main contributions to the existing literature.
5. The result and discussion sections are well-written. However, there is sufficient room to improve it even further. When discussing the outcomes, the author should cite from the recent literature to show that his findings are comparable. Please try to incorporate the recent progress in the literature in your discussion section.
6. Conclusions of the study should be improved, where it is necessary to suggest the real policy recommendations and constructive solutions for the possible problems which were found.
In sum, this paper is handicapped by unclear contribution and insufficient research details. I hope the comments and suggestions made above will help the author(s) to improve the manuscript. Good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The paper is very interesting about the structure of the research and the assumptions it investigates on the link between economic development, tourism industry and culture in China. The models are correct and also the evidence on the limits of the application and on future developments is appreciable. However, there are still many aspects (including restitution of results) that need to be improved to highlight the innovative aspects of the research. In this sense, I would like to point out a major review. I have reported directly on the text all my analytical observations, in comment and note format
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
I agree the relationship between cultural, tourism and economic development should be analysed and discussed, and this academic discussion fits well in the sustainable development approach. However, the conclusions and recommendations sections present China-centric conclusions. As far as Sustainability is a global journal, the authors should provide the international audience with the paper's contribution more comprehensively.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The article has been substantially improved, but further improvements are still needed. Continue to enhance the language and logic, and to deepen the significance of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors welcomed the observations and significantly supplemented the paper. In addition, they also replied on issues that were "not" accepted. It can be published in present form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of co-authors, we thank you for your valuable comments and recognition of this paper. We are very grateful to the editors and reviewers for their positive comments on our manuscript entitled "Spatial and Temporal Evolutionary Characteristics and Economic Effects of the Synergistic Cluster of Chinese Culture and Tourism Industries" (manuscript ID: Sustainability-1980442).
Your constructive suggestions contribute a lot to the modification of our paper, so please allow us to express our appreciation once again.
Yours sincerely,
Yihan Chi (on behalf of all co-authors)
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
1. Introduction does a poor job stating the research issues and their significance.
2. If the paper only uses D, as shown in Table 1, both C and T are unnecessary, because D=(xy)^1/4. Also, the symbols C and T are confusing in the paper because they are used to indicate the cultural and tourism industries (in Table 2).
3. The paper needs to give a much more detailed description about the data and calculations of indexes. Only showing Table 2 is inadequate. More explanations are necessary.
4. In Line 261, what is the selected study area?
5. The explanations on results are not convincing.
6. The section of "Discussion" is not appropriate.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article analyzes the coordination and aggregation relationship between Chinese culture and tourism from the perspective of time and space, and gives its influencing factors. In general, the method and logic of the article are clear and the content is rich. Here are some of my questions and suggestions:
1. In Section 2.2, this article establishes a set of indicators for evaluating tourism and cultural aggregation. I think the author should give a more detailed explanation. Why should we choose these indicators? Secondly, table 2 can be better adjusted, for example, it can be adjusted into three columns, and adding another column to explain the meaning of each indicator.
2. Which year's results are shown in Figure 2? In fact, from the perspective of cartography, figure 2 and figure 3 lack the basic elements of cartography, including scale, compass, etc. From the expression effect of this article, I think the horizontal map can better express the results of this article than the vertical map. More importantly，the author should be more rigorous when selecting spatial map data to express the whole China.
3. GMI results are shown in Table 4. Have these results passed the significance test? At which significance level do they pass the test? 0.01, 0.05 or other level?
4. In the last paragraph of the article, the author gives some countermeasures and suggestions for culture and tourism industry. I think these suggestions are too general. The author should give some more targeted suggestions based on the results of this paper. After all, this is the main goal of this paper.
