Next Article in Journal
Barriers to the Development of Art Tourism in Jingdezhen—The Perspective of the ‘Jingpiao’ Community
Previous Article in Journal
Bergamot Pomace Flour: From Byproduct to Bioactive Ingredient for Pasta Production
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Sustainable Tourism on Resident and Visitor Satisfaction—The Case of the Special Nature Reserve “Titelski Breg”, Vojvodina
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Inventory and Evaluation of Geosites: Case Studies of the Slovak Karst as a Potential Geopark in Slovakia

Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7783; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177783
by Miroslav Kudla 1, Miriama Javorská 2,*, Jana Vašková 3, Vladimír Čech 3 and Dana Tometzová 2
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7783; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177783
Submission received: 8 August 2024 / Revised: 2 September 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 6 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development of Ecotourism)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract should be rewritten, as there is too much introduction in the background section, which does not highlight the importance of the research and lacks conclusions.

2. The literature review is too outdated, with few literature in the past five years.

3. The paragraph distribution is unreasonable, such as lines 63 and 64, which can be merged with other paragraphs.

4. Lack of discussion, which should include at least three parts: the marginal contribution of the research, the shortcomings of the research, and the future research direction or areas for improvement.

5.Figure 13 is not aesthetically pleasing enough, it is recommended to further optimize it.

6.Is it necessary to list Table 1-5? If it is listed, it needs to be explained in text.

7.Table 6 does not provide sufficient depth of explanation and requires further analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop