Perspectives for Tourism Development in the Post-Pandemic Period in the Opinions of University Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
This research paper describes the actual topic – Young People’s Post-pandemic Perspectives on Trends in Contemporary Tourism. In their article authors notice, that the pandemic has not only affected tourism through movement restrictions and the associated difficulties faced by the tourism industry, but it has also changed people’s tourism preferences (mass tourism has been replaced by more sustained tourism) as well as motivations for undertaking tourism. Thus, authors seek to identify motivations and trends in tourism as well as opinions among young students on the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in shaping their experience of tourism.
And I would like to share with authors some doubts and remarks too: it seems important to notice, that it would be needed to concentrate on the methodology of the study. Authors notice, that: "The questionnaire interview is one of the most popular social research methods. A special feature of this technique is the use of direct communication between the researcher, acting simultaneously as interviewer, and the respondent. The questions in this questionnaire were in closed form", from this description we could understand that the survey was used for the study, but not the interview, thus it is not needed to call it as interview. And it would be important to suggest to focus more on qualitative research willing to know deeper knowledge about young people’s post-pandemic perspectives on trends in contemporary tourism in future studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are grateful for the positive reception of our manuscript. We thank you for your constructive comments, which encouraged us to improve its substantive value.
Below are our responses to your comments.
With kind regards,
Dariusz Jacek Olszewski-Strzyżowski
We have made necessary changes in selected places in the manuscript by introducing a description of the survey in place of the interview. In the final words of the Discussion section, we suggested that future research should focus more on qualitative research in order to gain more accurate information about knowledge of post-pandemic perspectives on young people's participation in contemporary tourism.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors. The paper in general is interesting to read but the structure of the paper is not fine. My main concern is about all the sections.
a. Abstract
I suggest the authors that they must introduce the topic in the abstract and also in the introduction section by adding the following information. What the author(s) want to know? (Purpose), Why do they want to know? (gap), How do they want to know? (Methodology), What are the outcomes? (Results),What are the developments of the study? (Contribution), What are the limitations of the study? (Future research direction). In the introduction section in the second last paragraph this information should be in more detail.
b. Introduction Section
The introduction section is too short and it’s not fulfill the right of such kind of topic. Except this, it fails to state the potential research gaps and research objectives and outline the main research questions. Please take help from the paper of “Students’ key determinant structure towards educational technology acceptance at universities, during COVID 19 lockdown”.
c. Literature Review
In my opinion this section needs to be developed a bit. The authors have not critically reviewed the existing works. Although, this is one of the main limitations of this study. Also the work is not linked with the theories.
d. Materials and method
Methodology should be explained properly so that the readers can understand easily.
e. Discussion
A discussion section should be added; first compare and contrast the study with the previous studies, second theoretical contribution and practical implication should be added. Third, future research direction should be moved from the introduction section to the discussion section.
f. Conclusion
Conclusion should be short and should look like conclusion.
The paper, as I mentioned above, is interesting to read. Yet, the overall contribution is average. The paper in general does not provide a sound review, presentation, analysis, and discussion of the main issues. Yet, I believe it still can be improved if the author(s) follow my instructions above. I did not feel that the paper should be rejected as there are space for improvements. Yet, these improvements should provide in-depth insight, critical analysis, and future dimensions. The paper currently focuses to a great extent on the findings primarily. The author(s) should draw an equal attention to all the sections of the paper. Most of the paragraphs are hard to follow. Therefore, you need to get help from an expert. Finally, if the author(s) are willing to amend the paper, I will be happy to review it again.
Good Luck
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are grateful for the positive reception of our manuscript. We thank you for your constructive comments, which encouraged us to improve its substantive value.
Below are our responses to your comments.
With kind regards,
Dariusz Jacek Olszewski-Strzyżowski
- Abstract
I suggest the authors that they must introduce the topic in the abstract and also in the introduction section by adding the following information. What the author(s) want to know? (Purpose), Why do they want to know? (gap), How do they want to know? (Methodology), What are the outcomes? (Results),What are the developments of the study? (Contribution), What are the limitations of the study? (Future research direction). In the introduction section in the second last paragraph this information should be in more detail.
We have taken all your suggestions into account by completely changing the structure of Abstact.
- Introduction Section
The introduction section is too short and it’s not fulfill the right of such kind of topic. Except this, it fails to state the potential research gaps and research objectives and outline the main research questions. Please take help from the paper of “Students’ key determinant structure towards educational technology acceptance at universities, during COVID 19 lockdown”.
We have taken into account all your suggestions by significantly changing the structure of the Introduction section.
- Literature Review
In my opinion this section needs to be developed a bit. The authors have not critically reviewed the existing works. Although, this is one of the main limitations of this study. Also the work is not linked with the theories.
We have introduced over a dozen new literature items that complement the Introduction and Discussion sections but also appear in other sections of the manuscript. They link the research idea to the theoretical background of the article in a more important way than before.
- Materials and method
Methodology should be explained properly so that the readers can understand easily.
We have substantially modified the structure of this section of the manuscript in full agreement with your comments.
- Discussion
A discussion section should be added; first compare and contrast the study with the previous studies, second theoretical contribution and practical implication should be added. Third, future research direction should be moved from the introduction section to the discussion section.
This much-needed suggestion was taken into account during the detailed revisions of this part of the manuscript.
- Conclusion
Conclusion should be short and should look like conclusion.
The summary is stripped of a piece of content and prepared in a new version according to your suggestion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
REVIEW STATEMENT
JOURNAL: Sustainability
PAPER TITLE: Young People’s Post-pandemic Perspectives on Trends in Con-2 temporary Tourism
This is an informative topic and an intersting piece of work
Abstract and Key words: Some key words could be added, such as "trends, perspectives and "contemporary tourism." I recommend including the case study as part of the key words.
Introduction: this section needs to be broadened
There is no literature review subheading, "Youth Tourism and Tourism During the COVID-19 Pandemic’’ could be considered the literature review, explaining why youth tourism has been chosen as the topic of the literature. It does not go with the title; you need to adjust the title of the paper or part of the literature, and explaining why there is no subheading for tourist perspectives and trends in contemporary tourism.
Methodology: This section is well detailed; however, the analysis needs more clarification—what is a diagnostic survey?—and the overall section needs reorganization and standardizing terms such as questionnaire, survey, and interview.
and a cafeteria, what is this
Tourist Trends in the Post-pandemic Era According to University Students – Our 297 study
This section is descriptive
Discussion: The first two paragraphs have nothing to see here; it is better to replace them in the literature subsections. The discussion is mostly descriptive; more discussion should be provided.
Tables are fine
Summary statement: a very worthy subject. It needs to be thoroughly reorganized using the suggestions provided. I recommend the publication of this manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are grateful for the positive reception of our manuscript. We thank you for your constructive comments, which encouraged us to improve its substantive value.
Below are our responses to your comments.
With kind regards,
Dariusz Jacek Olszewski-Strzyżowski
- Some key words could be added, such as "trends, perspectives and "contemporary tourism." I recommend including the case study as part of the key words.
We have completed the keywords section for a fuller announcement of the content of the manuscript.
- Introduction: this section needs to be broadened
We have taken into account all your suggestions by significantly changing the structure of the Introduction section.
- There is no literature review subheading, "Youth Tourism and Tourism During the COVID-19 Pandemic’’ could be considered the literature review, explaining why youth tourism has been chosen as the topic of the literature. It does not go with the title; you need to adjust the title of the paper or part of the literature, and explaining why there is no subheading for tourist perspectives and trends in contemporary tourism.
We have made changes to the structure of the title of the manuscript and the chapter on youth tourism.
- Methodology: This section is well detailed; however, the analysis needs more clarification—what is a diagnostic survey?—and the overall section needs reorganization and standardizing terms such as questionnaire, survey, and interview. And a cafeteria, what is this?
We have substantially modified the structure of this section of the manuscript in full agreement with your comments. There is a term cafeteria questions, which means a closed number of options for answering a given question. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have finally dropped this term.
- Discussion: The first two paragraphs have nothing to see here; it is better to replace them in the literature subsections. The discussion is mostly descriptive; more discussion should be provided.
This much-needed suggestion was taken into account during the detailed revisions of this part of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations for your efforts to review the article. It's seems better now.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your positive review. We know that the corrections you suggested have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
With deep respect,
Dariusz Jacek Olszewski-Strzyżowski
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your positive review. We know that the corrections you suggested have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
With deep respect,
Dariusz Jacek Olszewski-Strzyżowski
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your positive review. We know that the corrections you suggested have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
With deep respect,
Dariusz Jacek Olszewski-Strzyżowski
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
My Comments
Dear Authors, I would like to congratulate you on revising the paper significantly and presenting a detailed revision. I am happy to see the efforts put in by the authors. After reading the paper, I believe that the paper needs some more work in the next revision:
Again the introduction is quite comprehensive. For this please read and cite ““Students’ key determinant structure towards educational technology acceptance at universities, during COVID 19 lockdown”. It will improve the quality of your manuscript.
The literature review section is the same as before. The discussion section is also very weak. At last but not the least the manuscript needs extensive English editing.
Good Luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your further relevant comments, which undoubtedly improve the quality of our manuscript. We have filled in the gaps in the literature you pointed out and added important information in the Introduction and especially in the Discussion section.
Best regards,
Dariusz Jacek Olszewski-Strzyżowski
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
