Tourism and Conservation Empowered by Augmented Reality: A Scientometric Analysis Based on the Science Tree Metaphor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      The topic is potentially important and this was an interesting and enjoyable read. 

2.      The work is well carried out, especially the analysis part is rigor, but the work is not well presented. Some details of the research design should be specified.

3.      The introduction part is too long to play the intro role in the manuscript. Some details can be put in the part of research area.

4.      The discussion and implications are not clear. This section needs to be revisited.  Some words need to be capitalized when they are at the beginning of the sentence.

5. I strongly encourage the author(s) to develop further how this study contributes to literature and how this study is different from, or similar, to previous studies. Thus, the theoretical implications need to be strengthened.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations that helped a lot to strengthen the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for your manuscript that I read with interest. I have only one bigger recommendation and several smallish points. It is an interesting paper and I think it is almost ready to be published. These are just my ideas how to make it a bit more smooth.

 

·      This is the bigger point: Sections 3.2-3.4 have very nice visualisations of the data that are presented in a clear and aggregated way. However, the texts in these sections are rather descriptive and mechanical and I would like to recommend the authors to make them a bit more “aggregated”, to make these parts more analytical by providing a bigger picture, not just to list results. Section 3.1 is done in such a way – it finds main developments in the dataset (three different periods) and explains them.

 

Smaller issues

·      It seems that you are not very systematic regarding the bibliometric approach/tree metaphor. Especially in the introduction you are claiming that you did the former first and the latter second and then the other way round and then section 2 Methods claims that the former was first. Please tidy this up for better readability.

·      Please explain why you used also conference proceedings and other types of writings (Erratum, Letter, etc.) that were not peer-reviewed.

·      It is not clear what Table 2 actually means – those are countries that are being covered by examined texts, those are countries of authors’ affiliations, etc.? Please explain a bit.

·      I am not sure if a rather long discussion in Section 3.2 cannot be shortened by adding one-two small tables – for example, the info about individual quartiles and other quantitative data in this section.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations that helped a lot to strengthen the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript, despite its many advantages, there are a number of disadvantages that I recommend you pay attention to.

1. Arguments about the relevance of the topic in the introduction are very weak, it need to be expanded a bit. It is also important to add the research objective and research questions, which research gap is intended to be closed.

2. I think that a theoretical part should appear after the introduction because now the literature list cites a number of sources, but it is not very clear what kind of theory access is being developed. For inspiration, authors can use: Burksiene,V., Dvorak,J. & Burbulyte-Tsiskarishvili, G. (2018). Sustainability and Sustainability Marketing in Competing for the Title of European Capital of Culture. Organization, 51(1) 66-78. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2018-0005 and Burksiene, V., & Dvorak, J. (2020). Performance management in protected areas: Localizing governance of the Curonian Spit National Park, Lithuania. Public Administration, 5, 105-24.

3. The methods section describes the selected methods, but it is not clear what methods were considered as potential for such a study and why other methods were not suitable.

4. There are minor errors, such as the dot approaching section 3 or the font in line 121, table 2 - Usa

5. Maybe Table 2 can be named a little differently because now straight Countries do not say much.

6. Sometimes it is not very clear what is intended to be proved in table 2. Are there more authors from China or more written about China as a tourist destination and the like?

7. I would also recommend you to review the text, because maybe some parts are not necessary, because I don't really understand the list of authors provided, how much does it help the research???

8. The discussion section is missing.

9. Conclusions lack policy implications. Are there any limitations?

10. The list of references must be arranged in accordance with the requirements.

All the best

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations that helped a lot to strengthen the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for updates. 

I think that one point which was mentioned you understood in different way.

 Your manuscript is titled 'Sustainable Tourism and Conservation Empowered through Augmented Reality: A Scientometric Analysis Based on the Science Tree Metaphor' but in fact in the theory you are doing nothing that to explain what is sustainabile tourism. 

That is why I pointed out that you For inspiration, authors can use: Burksiene,V., Dvorak,J. & Burbulyte-Tsiskarishvili, G. (2018). Sustainability and Sustainability Marketing in Competing for the Title of European Capital of Culture. Organization, 51(1) 66-78. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2018-0005 and Burksiene, V., & Dvorak, J. (2020). Performance management in protected areas: Localizing governance of the Curonian Spit National Park, Lithuania. Public Administration, 5, 105-24

Your theory is focused on Augmented Reality and it means either you must to add theory on sustainable tourimsm or make some changes in your title and other parts as sustainable tourism is not main part of your work.

Kind regars

Author Response

Considering the reviewer's observations, the title and the parts of the article have been carefully edited in the use of the term sustainability. Thank you very much for the observations.