Sustainability in the Airports Ecosystem: A Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper has discussed intensively the literature relating to sustainability insights in the aviation industry. However, there are some issues in the article that need to be addressed in order to improve the quality of the paper. Please see the attachment to find out the reviewer's comments in detail.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The article needs a minor correction regarding the quality of English language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate the reviewer's input and suggestions. At points 1 and 2, we agree with your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In Table 3, it would be beneficial if the quartiles were presented by area for each journal. This additional information could enhance the clarity of the distribution of journal classifications across different fields, offering valuable insights into the diversity of research publications.
2. Regarding subsection 4.1., it would be highly beneficial if the authors could provide more comprehensive details about the DEA models used in those studies.
3. Considering the content in section 4, incorporating a summary table would greatly enhance the clarity and efficiency of information presentation for readers. A well-structured table could effectively consolidate the key points from section 4, providing readers with a quick and comprehensive overview of the research findings.
4. Authors need to show more details about the parameters a comprehensive list of the parameters used in each subsection, along with details on how they were utilized
5. In the discussion of the paper, it would be valuable for readers if the authors could present a list of research perspectives. Providing such a list would offer insights into potential future directions and areas of exploration, enhancing the significance and impact of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviwer,
- In Table 3, it would be beneficial if the quartiles were presented by area for each journal. This additional information could enhance the clarity of the distribution of journal classifications across different fields, offering valuable insights into the diversity of research publications. - We have made the suggested change
2. Regarding subsection 4.1., it would be highly beneficial if the authors could provide more comprehensive details about the DEA models used in those studies.
We have made the suggested change
3. Considering the content in section 4, incorporating a summary table would greatly enhance the clarity and efficiency of information presentation for readers. A well-structured table could effectively consolidate the key points from section 4, providing readers with a quick and comprehensive overview of the research findings.
We have made the suggested change
4. Authors need to show more details about the parameters a comprehensive list of the parameters used in each subsection, along with details on how they were utilized
We have made the suggested change
5. In the discussion of the paper, it would be valuable for readers if the authors could present a list of research perspectives. Providing such a list would offer insights into potential future directions and areas of exploration, enhancing the significance and impact of the study.
We have made the suggested change
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to review your paper SME's sustainability in the Airports Ecosystem: a literature review. The paper deals with very interesting problems.
Suggestions are below:
· The abstract is not well written. More information about methods, findings, results, contributions must be emphasized.
· Keywords should include review, literature review, or SLR.
· Figure 1 is not well designed. The font is also unreadable.
· Green commas (for example 104-108).
· The separate section Practical and theoretical implications is missing.
· Conclusion section is not on a satisfactory level
o Limitations of your research must be emphasized
o Contributions of your research are missing.
.
Author Response
Dear reviwer
We appreciate the reviewer's input and suggestions.
- Keywords should include review, literature review, or SLR. - Done
- Figure 1 is not well designed. The font is also unreadable.- Done
- Green commas (for example 104-108). Done
- The separate section Practical and theoretical implications is missing. Done
- Conclusion section is not on a satisfactory level - Done
o Limitations of your research must be emphasized - Done
o Contributions of your research are missing. - Done
