A Bibliometric Analysis of Integrating Tourism Development into Urban Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting, it approaches a bibliometric analysis of integrating tourism development into Urban Planning and it is my pleasure to review it.

However, I would have some considerations and suggestions for improving the quality of the article.

The research is in line with a fashionable trend of bibliometric studies, the analysis is detailed, but the scientific contribution is relatively modest.

A sometimes-excessive detailing of the methodology (see Appendices A and B) which, beyond the disclosure of some algorithms, does not contribute much to the knowledge in the field.

In general, a bibliometric analysis risks, sometimes, exaggerating the importance of some works, collaborations, impact/citations, topics and contextual trends, putting in the background the real content of the mentioned contributions, implicitly ignoring valuable contributions, disadvantaged by a limited exposure. Moreover, the overestimation of the "ranking" character of scientific production is not always consistent with its purpose and objectives. In other words, the articles are cited, but are they also read?

The practical implications are treated somewhat superficially, as a cliché contextually inserted there (see ... Policymakers can use the knowledge generated from this analysis to inform policy decisions related to tourism, urban planning, and economic growth. (?). We recommend revising the paragraph and looking for deeper implications.

Formal issues

Misspelled words (see figures 2 and 4)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions on our paper. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

In response to your comments:

1. We agree that while the detailed methodology in Appendices A and B offers transparency, it may not significantly contribute to the overall knowledge in the field. However, we believe that presenting these tables provides some additional tools to the international literature.

2. We understand your concern regarding the practical implications, and for this reason, we have modified section 4 of the conclusions (lines 426-476).

3. We have made the necessary corrections, addressing the misspelled words in Figure 2 and Figure 4 for clarity (lines 264-265, 272-273, 322-323, 358-359).

Your feedback has been invaluable in improving our paper. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thanks for submitting your manuscript. The paper is well-developed and organized, it aims to study an important issue of Integrating Tourism Development into Urban Planning. 

Introduction: The importance and need of this analysis is explained and supported by references. The main research questions are listed.

Methodology and data: the used methods are explained in detail. the data collection approach and its steps are presented.

Results: results of each type of analysis are provided, and where possible the results are illustrated with figures.

Conclusions: conclusions of the analysis are presented, implementations of obtained results are explained; limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies are mentioned.

Thus, this paper contributes greatly to the relevant field and can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper in question is a bibliometric analysis with a conventional structure and quite well carried out. It is clear and well structured (the use of clusters is a good way to summarize a large amount of data in an easy to understand way). The bibliography used is not excessively extensive but is common in this type of studies. Provite the code in the appendix is a magnificent contribution to allow this type of analysis to be replicated in the future.

There would only be some details that would be good to review:

- Tables 2 and 3 are not cited in the text. Now they are a little disconnected from the content of the paper.

- I don't know if a table could be provided with the main publications (academic journals in this case) where the most has been published.

- The conclusions section makes somewhat abusive use of the subsections. Would it be possible to reduce this number of subsections and leave, for example, only implications and limitations?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our paper. We greatly appreciate your positive feedback and constructive suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving our manuscript.

Regarding your comments:

1. We have addressed the issue you pointed out about Tables 2 and 3 not being cited in the text. Text referencing for these tables has been included in lines 149-160.
2. We have συμπληρώσει τον Table 3, which lists the main publications (academic journals) where the most relevant research has been published.
3. We have revised the conclusions section.

Thank you once again for your assistance.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your paper and found it to be relevant and generally aligned with scientific writing norms. However, I recommend some minor revisions to enhance its overall quality. Below, I have outlined my observations and recommendations:

Abstract: The abstract is well-structured. However, I encourage the authors to provide a brief description of the methodology used and highlight the database, which is Scopus.

Introduction: The introduction should be more robust and well-justified. I recommend that the authors clearly articulate the research gap they intend to address.

Literature Review: There is currently no literature review in the paper. I suggest either extending the introduction by referencing relevant previous studies or creating a dedicated section (Heading 2) for the literature review and research background.

Methodology: While the research method is relevant to the paper's objectives, it lacks sufficient description. I encourage the authors to justify the techniques and approaches used and explain their suitability within the research context. (You can refer to studies that have performed bibliometric analysis in tourism research)

Results: The results are well-presented. However, a discussion section is missing. I recommend including a discussion that relates to the obtained results, with necessary comparisons.

Conclusion: The conclusion doesn't contain sub-headings; it should summarize the main contributions of the research in advancing knowledge in the field and highlight the main limitations.

References: There appear to be too few references for such a hot topic. I suggest adding more pertinent and recent papers to enhance the overall quality of the paper. (Please refer to sustainability author guidelines for the suitable format).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to express our gratitude for taking the time to review our paper and providing valuable feedback. Your insights and recommendations are greatly appreciated and have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Here are the specific actions we've taken in response to your comments:

1. Abstract: We have included that Scopus is the database employed (lines 12-13).
2. Introduction: We have revised and expanded the introduction (lines 43-50) to provide a more robust and well-justified rationale for the study.
3. Methodology: We have included references to relevant studies that have performed bibliometric analysis in tourism research to better justify our chosen techniques and approaches within the research context.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion section has been revised to summarize the main contributions of our research in advancing knowledge in the field and highlighting the main limitations.
5. References: We have added more pertinent and recent papers.

Your feedback has been invaluable in improving our paper. We thank you once again for your assistance.