In Search of Innovation Barriers to Tourist Destinations—Indications for Organizations Managing Destinations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The aim of the article is clear and the title is informative and relevant.
The Introduction and Literature review sections are well documented. It is not clear why the ” Innovative processes are territorially rooted [15] and each destination builds…” text from the end of first page is underlined. The same observation/question is about the underline on the following text: ” It can be a barrier (e.g. by…” from the last paragraph from the page 3.
Almost all the article is well structured and the references are relevant.
The main issue that the author should address is the explanation of the Table 2 - The scale of novelty of implemented innovations. The scale of novelty is not explained. Is it a totally new concept introduced by the author or it can be found in the literature?
I tried to look inside the literature on this topic and I found only these quite relevant sources:
Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2005). Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing firms: evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada innovation survey. Technovation, 25(3), 245-259.
Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28(7), 450-463.
Therrien, P., Doloreux, D., & Chamberlin, T. (2011). Innovation novelty and (commercial) performance in the service sector: A Canadian firm-level analysis. Technovation, 31(12), 655-665.
Maybe there are other sources of inspiration or the Table 2 is a new scale proposed by the author, but a discussion about measuring novelty in tourism or services cannot be avoided.
The results from Table 5. The scale of novelty of implemented innovations are very difficult to be followed.
As the entire article is based on the research among 218 enterprises, the conclusions are relevant not only in Polish context. The Discussion section is very rich in interpreting the results in parallel with results from other relevant studies. However, the study does not state if there are limitations.
Another limitation of the paper is the lack of discussion about sustainability issues or framing the results into a sustainable development perspective.
I consider that all the observations raised can be easily addressed. The major revision recommendation verdict is only because these observations should be addressed, but the overall merit of the article is more closed to the acceptance for the publication.
Author Response
Reply to the review
I would like to thank all the reviewers for their valuable comments, which significantly increased the final value of the article. In addition, the guidelines pertaining to the possibility of extending this study are an important contribution to further research, in particular, addressing the issue of the impact of information used by enterprises on the scale of novelty of implemented innovations.
The author made additions to the article. The introduction was supplemented with two following hypotheses:
H1: The environment of destinations in large urban agglomerations, where there is high competition, is a stimulus for innovative activities
H2: The low rate of novelty of implemented innovations in tourist services is influenced by the low level of use of highly specialized knowledge.
These hypotheses were positively verified, as stated in the summary of the research results. The explanation regarding the adopted numerical scale of the categories of implemented innovations was described in the methodology section. It was noted: 2. The values of the innovation novelty scale, defined in words, were transformed into a numerical scale, where the value 5 was assigned to a radical innovation, and the value 1 to an innovation consisting in improving the existing solution in the enterprise.
Research limitations are listed at the end of the article.
Eugenia Panfiluk
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author!
The manuscript provides a contribution to the research area regarding on the study of the search of innovation barriers to tourist destinations.
The title of the manuscript is appropriate. The title reflects the content of the manuscript.
There is a balanced relationship between the objective and content.
The manuscript is precise and well-written.
However, the conclusions can be strengthened by citing certain mathematical calculations as evidence.
Best regards,
Author Response
Reply to the review
I would like to thank all the reviewers for their valuable comments, which significantly increased the final value of the article. In addition, the guidelines pertaining to the possibility of extending this study are an important contribution to further research, in particular, addressing the issue of the impact of information used by enterprises on the scale of novelty of implemented innovations.
The author made additions to the article. The introduction was supplemented with two following hypotheses:
H1: The environment of destinations in large urban agglomerations, where there is high competition, is a stimulus for innovative activities
H2: The low rate of novelty of implemented innovations in tourist services is influenced by the low level of use of highly specialized knowledge.
These hypotheses were positively verified, as stated in the summary of the research results. The explanation regarding the adopted numerical scale of the categories of implemented innovations was described in the methodology section. It was noted: 2. The values of the innovation novelty scale, defined in words, were transformed into a numerical scale, where the value 5 was assigned to a radical innovation, and the value 1 to an innovation consisting in improving the existing solution in the enterprise.
Research limitations are listed at the end of the article.
Eugenia Panfiluk
Reviewer 3 Report
The main aim of this study was to evaluate the innovation processes of tourist destinations using the Quadruple Helix model and to develop guidelines for building innovation management strategies in the tourism sector for destination management organizations (DMO). Regarding the author, I would like to congratulate and thank for the effort and motivation involved in this research study. The presentation of the research is well documented, with a scientific basis and respects the latest standards regarding the highest level scientific publications. The methodology was chosen correctly. The conclusions support and result from the research and open new directions for future research. The submitted work is interesting and essentially exhausts the subject under discussion. I would only kindly ask to add what the research hypotheses for the study were. Did the study confirm them? Were these results expected? This should be further elaborated at the end of the introduction. Once this information is completed, the article will be highly suitable for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Reply to the review
I would like to thank all the reviewers for their valuable comments, which significantly increased the final value of the article. In addition, the guidelines pertaining to the possibility of extending this study are an important contribution to further research, in particular, addressing the issue of the impact of information used by enterprises on the scale of novelty of implemented innovations.
The author made additions to the article. The introduction was supplemented with two following hypotheses:
H1: The environment of destinations in large urban agglomerations, where there is high competition, is a stimulus for innovative activities
H2: The low rate of novelty of implemented innovations in tourist services is influenced by the low level of use of highly specialized knowledge.
These hypotheses were positively verified, as stated in the summary of the research results. The explanation regarding the adopted numerical scale of the categories of implemented innovations was described in the methodology section. It was noted: 2. The values of the innovation novelty scale, defined in words, were transformed into a numerical scale, where the value 5 was assigned to a radical innovation, and the value 1 to an innovation consisting in improving the existing solution in the enterprise.
Research limitations are listed at the end of the article.
Eugenia Panfiluk
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments and suggestions were addressed in the second variant of the paper.
