A Literature Review on Networks and Sustainable Development in Sea Tourism Entrepreneurship
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have carefully read the manuscript. I find it original in its problematics and of interest both to the specialist audience and to a wider range of readers. In general, there is a complement to the theory and, above all, the literature analysis in the field of Networks (social) and Sustainable Development in Sea Tourism Entrepreneurship.
However, I must specify that in terms of its direction, the research is not so much related to the emphasis on Covid-19 laid down in the title, as to the management of crises in sea tourism. This is also evident from the time period, which is set to 2010-2020 (line 58).
Perhaps it would be good to think about refocusing the emphasis on Covid in the title?
There are also some additional notes on the manuscript. Some of them are described as comments to the text (see the attached file). However, I also have some additions, namely:
- in the Abstract – to consider the comments regarding the anti-crisis management (here, above) and to bring out more clearly the research focus;
- in the introduction - it would be good to expand the text by clarifying the purpose and the object of research;
- the Methodology – this part should definitely be expanded: essential moments describing the methodological approach, as well as the justification for the choice of specific research methods, are missing;
- the Discussion – here again the link with Covid becomes unclear;
- Conclusion - it would be good to more clearly state the connection with the title and the specifics of the study; the link with Covid is missing again.
Therefore, at the very beginning of my comments, I specified that necessity to rethink the title of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
1st Reviewer comment
Reviewer: I have carefully read the manuscript. I find it original in its problematics and of interest both to the specialist audience and to a wider range of readers. In general, there is a complement to the theory and, above all, the literature analysis in the field of Networks (social) and Sustainable Development in Sea Tourism Entrepreneurship.
However, I must specify that in terms of its direction, the research is not so much related to the emphasis on Covid-19 laid down in the title, as to the management of crises in sea tourism. This is also evident from the time period, which is set to 2010-2020 (line 58).
Perhaps it would be good to think about refocusing the emphasis on Covid in the title?
Authors: We justified the period selected for the review in the introduction, and the reference to Covid-19 in the title was eliminated since it was, in fact, not the focus of our research.
Reviewer: In the Abstract – to consider the comments regarding the anti-crisis management (here, above) and to bring out more clearly the research focus. In the introduction - it would be good to expand the text by clarifying the purpose and the object of research;
Authors: The focus of the study is Networks, Stakeholders, Governance and Entrepreneurship in sea tourism. In order to clarify our purpose and object, we have eliminated the word Covid-19 from the title. Also, the purpose and object were clarified.
Reviewer: The Methodology – this part should definitely be expanded: essential moments describing the methodological approach, as well as the justification for the choice of specific research methods, are missing;
Authors: The methodology was significantly improved by describing moments/phases, and the research methods were justified.
Reviewer: The Discussion – here again the link with Covid becomes unclear;
Authors: As explained above, the reference to COVID-19 was eliminated from the title. Along the same line, the discussion was improved, focusing on Networks, Stakeholders and Governance.
Reviewer: Conclusion - it would be good to more clearly state the connection with the title and the specifics of the study; the link with Covid is missing again.
Authors: As explained above, the reference to COVID-19 was eliminated from the title. Along the same line, the conclusion was improved, focusing on Networks, Stakeholders and Governance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The delimitation of the temporal factor in the period of analysis from 2010 to 2020 should be justified and explained properly. In addition, although the summary and the introductory part of the article allude to that period, the tables and figures include the year 2021. What is this due to? Is it a bug? It would have to be corrected.Although the Covid 19 situation is highlighted in the title, its influence and inclusion in the study is very ambiguous, confusing and residual as it is not a determining and decisive element either in the content or in the number of articles identified. Of a total of 404 only 4 (table 2 – WoS) and of a total of 349 only 5 (table 3 – Scopus). In addition, of the 30 useful articles for the final analysis, only 1 explicitly mentions the pandemic (Table 8).
The short time that has elapsed since the pandemic prevents relevant research from being carried out, which will perhaps increase when it is possible to assess its effects.
The general approach of the thematic area and the objectives pursued are somewhat ambiguous, requiring greater precision, coherence and specification when theoretically addressing the concepts and their relationship. The context of Covid 19 may have meant a reinforcement of networks, governance and sustainability in maritime tourism companies. However, it is not evidenced by the bibliometric review. Likewise, the application of public policies, aid and incentives by the States has been fundamental in overcoming the socioeconomic crisis, especially in the tourism sector.
The methodology may be appropriate, although more detail is needed in the criteria applied in phase 4 (selection) and greater coding and systematization in phase 5 and 6. Specifically, the drastic decrease in the number of articles is striking. used in the research sample (30). What is the reason for this, beyond the statement that the bibliography on the maritime tourism sector is scarce? What do the authors mean when they state that the 23 WoS and 28 Scopus articles have been crossed to obtain the final 30 articles? Nor is the passage from 30 to 14 articles clear in the last part of the article. The authors affirm that the themes affect the main concepts analyzed, but the justification is not very convincing or clear.
The conclusions reached are of relative interest because they can be obtained by applying common sense when they are obvious or superficial. In a way, there is a certain determinism and the quantitative aspect is affected by a reduced sample: 30 articles in a whole decade.
Finally, a systematization is suggested in the typology of companies in the tourism sector of the sea (types of activity or businesses), as well as the definition of the characteristics of the destinations to which the articles refer and their geographical location (country).
Author Response
2sd Reviewer comment
Reviewer: The delimitation of the temporal factor in the period of analysis from 2010 to 2020 should be justified and explained properly. In addition, although the summary and the introductory part of the article allude to that period, the tables and figures include the year 2021. What is this due to? Is it a bug? It would have to be corrected.
Authors: Corrections were made, and the study's analysis period was justified in the introduction.
Reviewer: Although the Covid 19 situation is highlighted in the title, its influence and inclusion in the study is very ambiguous, confusing and residual as it is not a determining and decisive element either in the content or in the number of articles identified. Of a total of 404 only 4 (table 2 – WoS) and of a total of 349 only 5 (table 3 – Scopus). In addition, of the 30 useful articles for the final analysis, only 1 explicitly mentions the pandemic (Table 8).
The short time that has elapsed since the pandemic prevents relevant research from being carried out, which will perhaps increase when it is possible to assess its effects.
Authors: The focus of the study is Networks, Stakeholders, Governance and Entrepreneurship in sea tourism. In order to clarify our purpose and object, we have eliminated the word Covid-19 from the title. Also, the purpose and object were clarified.
Reviewer: The general approach of the thematic area and the objectives pursued are somewhat ambiguous, requiring greater precision, coherence and specification when theoretically addressing the concepts and their relationship. The context of Covid 19 may have meant a reinforcement of networks, governance and sustainability in maritime tourism companies. However, it is not evidenced by the bibliometric review. Likewise, the application of public policies, aid and incentives by the States has been fundamental in overcoming the socioeconomic crisis, especially in the tourism sector.
Authors: As referred to previously, the purpose and objectives were clarified in the introduction. In order to clarify our purpose and object, we have eliminated the word Covid-19 from the title.
Reviewer: The methodology may be appropriate, although more detail is needed in the criteria applied in phase 4 (selection) and greater coding and systematization in phase 5 and 6. Specifically, the drastic decrease in the number of articles is striking. used in the research sample (30). What is the reason for this, beyond the statement that the bibliography on the maritime tourism sector is scarce? What do the authors mean when they state that the 23 WoS and 28 Scopus articles have been crossed to obtain the final 30 articles? Nor is the passage from 30 to 14 articles clear in the last part of the article. The authors affirm that the themes affect the main concepts analyzed, but the justification is not very convincing or clear.
Authors: The methodology was significantly improved by describing moments/phases, and the research methods were justified.
Reviewer: The conclusions reached are of relative interest because they can be obtained by applying common sense when they are obvious or superficial. In a way, there is a certain determinism and the quantitative aspect is affected by a reduced sample: 30 articles in a whole decade.
Finally, a systematization is suggested in the typology of companies in the tourism sector of the sea (types of activity or businesses), as well as the definition of the characteristics of the destinations to which the articles refer and their geographical location (country).
Authors: The discussion and conclusion sections were improved to clarify our rationale.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Certainly, the topic is original and enriches the existing literature.
There are two questions for the authors whose answers should be integrated into the text.
- Why the choice of the range 2010-2020? (as indicated in the comment in the attached file)
- Motivate the selection of articles on page 4 (as indicated in the comment in the attached file)
Furthermore, the paper should indicate the limits of the research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
3rd Reviewer comment
Reviewer: Certainly, the topic is original and enriches the existing literature. There are two questions for the authors whose answers should be integrated into the text.
- Why the choice of the range 2010-2020? (as indicated in the comment in the attached file)
Authors: Corrections were made, and the study's analysis period was justified in the introduction.
- Motivate the selection of articles on page 4 (as indicated in the comment in the attached file)
Authors: The methodology was significantly improved by describing moments/phases, and the research methods were justified.
Furthermore, the paper should indicate the limits of the research.
Authors: Limitations were added.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The modifications included by the authors after the first review have generally improved the article,conveniently defining the object of study, the methodological elements and the results offered.
In the same way, the conclusions have been completed and possible errors have been corrected.
Author Response
thanks
