Recreational Factors Influencing the Choice of Destination of Hungarian Tourists in the Case of Bulgaria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Bulgaria is not one of the most researched countries in the international tourism literature. Therefore, the manuscript is both a valuable contribution and a great responsibility for the authors. The focus of the manuscript is on the attitudes of Hungarians towards travelling to Bulgaria. On this basis, the authors segment the Hungarian market and make recommendations for professionals responsible for the development of tourism in Bulgaria. The following improvements are suggested by reviewer before the manuscript is accepted:

It is necessary to clarify the context of the manuscript, why the authors think that the development of tourism in Bulgaria should be planned and implemented based on the needs of Hungarians.

A much broader historical and geographical basis is needed for a better understanding of the topic, it is not enough to assess the last years of Bulgaria's tourism (a monthly breakdown [see table 1] is completely unnecessary). The milestones of development since the change of regime (1), responses to major global crises (2), market position in the Balkans (3), competitiveness factors (4) should be briefly presented. The change in Hungarian inbound tourism should be presented in a longer time series (1990, 2000, 2010, 2015, 2019), compared to demand of other Central and Eastern European countries (e.g. V4+Romania).

The Introduction needs to be rewritten, identify the gap the authors have identified that they would like to fill with this manuscript, formulate a research question, and generate interest in the topic (the context and the research objective should be clarified shortly also in the abstract).

Short, one-two sentences paragraphs should be expanded.

It is necessary to clarify the real theoretical background of the study (brand, image, competitiveness, consumer behaviour???) and to go into it in much more detail, taking paragraphs of ideas from an author or organisation is unnecessary (Svetla Rakadjiska, Bulgarian Ministry of Tourism).

The methodology should be more theoretical, describe the exact circumstances of the creation of the database, clarify what the 952 or what is the basis of the calculation (for individual analyses, the total is not 100%, e.g. "Out of the sample, 284 respondents (29.8%) already have been to Bulgaria, and 263 (27.6%) 261 said that they had not yet been to the country, but would like to go.)

The source of Figure 1 must be acknowledged and the authors must have the owner's permission to publish it or the figure will be deleted.

Discussion (5) refers to interviews in the Suggestion, but there is no mention of this in the methodology or in the results. Why it breaks down the Discussion in 5.1 – is unnecessary. The suggestions follow only partly from the results.

Conclusion (5) is numbered (correctly 6). There is no comparison at all between the result obtained and other results published on similar topics.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article suggests a current and attractive topic for the academy. The effort made is evident, but it needs many adjustments since the first paragraph.
Since the introduction, the authors cannot explain the purpose and importance of this research. The author needs to regulate the writing flow in each chapter so that there is always a conclusion to each idea.
Additionally, the author makes little attempt to describe the steps of the methodology, making it challenging for other researchers to comprehend and replicate.
Thus, the stages' unclear methodology makes it difficult to convey the results with a logical chain of reasoning. This makes it difficult for the reader to concentrate on the researchers' work. Furthermore, it is to be predicted that researchers will struggle to articulate the concepts and hypotheses derived from their study findings throughout the discussion.

Additionally, 1 paragraph with just 1 sentence -a common technique utilized by the authors- is rather unsettling when considering the overall flow of the work. The authors also did not explain what variables were studied along with their justification. In addition, using respondents under the age of 18 in this research will raise question marks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction must be improved - hypothesis are missed. 

Line 126 - number of page should remove.

After the table 7 it will be useful to put the Cattellov (Scree plot) diagram

Cronbach coefficient missing

It's unusual in factor analysis that factor consist only from one statement. When you have just one statement it's logical that you have so high valeu.

Path Diagram is missed.

References should be improved - remove the unnecesessery page nubmers. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am very grateful to the authors for accepting my suggestions. The manuscript has improved enormously. I would, however, suggest a few minor changes. Table 1 is still completely redundant. In such a broad overview, the monthly breakdown of Hungarian tourists is meaningless. However, if the authors consider it important to highlight seasonality, it can remain. The numbering of tables and figure is slipped and their in-text references are missing in many places. Should be % instead of writing percent.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please put your research questions/hypotheses/ or purposes in the last paragraph of the INTRODUCTION chapter. Please don't put it in the middle of the INTRODUCTION chapter or in the METHODOLOGY Chapter.

2. In the METHODOLOGY Chapter you never stated about Varimax rotation, KMO and Bartlett’s Test. However, you put it in the RESULTS chapter. In my opinion, the RESULTS chapter is the manifestation of what we have written in the METHODOLOGY chapter. I will give you an example:

Method: In this research, first I will do A. Secondly, I will do X and finally, I will do A+X.

Results: From the A, I found hot coffee. From the X, I found a chocolate cake. Finally, by adding A+X, I bought coffee and chocolate cake.

From the example, You can see how the results and method work in a symmetrical idea so everyone understands where the result's sentences come from. Please rewrite your flow of ideas in the METHODOLOGY and RESULTS chapters.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

good job

Author Response

thank you for your comments