Augmented Reality and Tourism: A Bibliometric Analysis of New Technological Bets in the Post-COVID Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is the contribution of the authors to a systematic review of scientific research on a certain issue - the use of augmented reality technologies in tourism. Despite the significant improvement, some points need to be clarified and supplemented:

1. In the title of the article the authors mention "Sustainable Tourism", but the study of the publications concerns general tourism. The authors do not focus on Sustainable Tourism. I suggest either not to mention the word "Sustainable" in the title, or to conduct research using the keyword "Sustainable Tourism" instead of "Tourism".

2. At the end of the article, there are several references to virtual reality. It is appropriate to provide an explanation of why the authors limited themselves to Augmented Reality and how these technologies relate to each other.

3. It is necessary to indicate the purpose of the study, as well as the research questions or hypotheses in the introduction.

4. It is advisable to supplement the article with an analysis of previous publications and to indicate whether other authors have used a sentiometric analysis for tourism research and which areas were studied.

5. What is the practical significance of the article? Must be indicated in the conclusions. Also, add limitations and state the research results obtained by the authors in more detail in the conclusions. Specify the author's contribution to science.

6. The "Discussion" section is missing.

7. Error in table 1 - instead of 405 should be 795.

8. In Table 4, the explanation of the asterisk next to "Total Articles" is missing. Is this the total number of all posts? Is it the number of publications on the researched topic?

9. Explain the picture in detail 6. What do the elements of the picture mean? What does 2300 posts mean? Table 1 lists a total of 1,200 publications.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the corrections, they helped a lot to strengthen the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

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:

Title: I suggest replacing "scientometric analysis" with "bibliometric analysis" in the title.

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

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 reference similar studies that used bibliometric analysis in tourism research, such as: [El Archi, Y.; Benbba, B.; Kabil, M.; Dávid, L.D. Digital Technologies for Sustainable Tourism Destinations: State of the Art and Research Agenda. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13080184 ; El Archi, Y.; Benbba, B.; Zhu, K.; El Andaloussi, Z.; Pataki, L.; Dávid, L.D. Mapping the Nexus between Sustainability and Digitalization in Tourist Destinations: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129717].

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: It would be beneficial for the authors to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria they applied to select relevant research.

Software Version: Please specify the version of R software used for the analysis.

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 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.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the corrections, they helped a lot to strengthen the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is current and very relevant.

The methodology is clear.

Line 47, 583 - The punctuation is incorrect

Table 1 – The results are not coherent with the text  (“…which allowed us to obtain 795 documents in Scopus and 405 in WoS…”

Lack of coherence in the use of terms. For example, it uses both VR and virtual reality or even VR (virtual reality)

Unclear figures. Must be replaced.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the corrections, they helped a lot to strengthen the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors! Thanks for your correction comments.