Trends in Sustainable Tourism Paradigm: Resilience and Adaptation
Gerhard Jaritz
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
Dear editors
The abstract is poor and does not present the general objective and methodology used in the study.
The introduction states that, “The purpose of this article is to explore trends in the sustainable tourism paradigm with a focus on the growth of research, the growth of disciplinarity of knowledge, and the growth of alternatives.” However, this purpose is very broad, not making it clear to the reader what the submitted study is about.
The references used in the work, introduction and state of the art, are very old, the most recent being from 2018. This is a problem because the study seems to focus on trends, which presupposes a more up-to-date study with references from the last three years.
I recommend using WoS, the Scopus database, which is the largest scientific database in the world. What strings were searched in WoS? Why were these strings chosen? None of this is present in the research methodology.
Since the methodology lacks greater depth and the objective of the study also has focus issues, it is not possible to review the findings or the conclusion of the submitted work.
Moderate English language editing is required.
Author Response
Please see the attached file SUST R1 Author's Reply to the Review Report.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, the authors explore the evolving dimensions of the sustainable tourism paradigm, focusing on external factors, competing paradigms, resilience, and adaptation. And the paper emphasizes aligning theoretical contexts with actionable agendas to overcome conceptual ambiguity and policy ineffectiveness. Totally speaking, the results are interesting and convincing. I support its acceptance, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed before formal acceptance.
1. As the author noted in the limitations, the paper's data is incomplete and restricted to WOS. So the paper should consider more data sources for analysis?
2. Please explain in more detail why use Betweenness Centrality (BC) coefficient analysis. Are there other analysis methods available? What are the differences, advantages, and disadvantages of these different methods?
3. The concept of an established paradigm dominating or a paradigm shift is closely analogous to the shifts in dominant strategies in evolutionary game theory. Please read related literature to better introduce and describe the evolution of tourism paradigms.
Author Response
See the attached file SUST R1 Author's Reply to the Review Report.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Trends in Sustainable Tourism Paradigm: Resilience and Adaptation” discusses the issue of trends in the area of ​​sustainable tourism.
The article raises an important issue, based largely on literature from recent years. However, there are issues worth noting:
- the article presents 3 research questions. It would seem reasonable to attempt to formulate research hypotheses,
- different types of quotation marks were used in different places of work – it would be advisable to standardize them,
- in some places of work (e.g. lines 202, 262, 558) the quotation mark is closed after a period or comma,
- the author of the work is 1 person, while the phrase “we” is used in the work – what is the reason for this? It would also seem reasonable to use the third person form instead of the first person,
- in some places in the work there are several spaces between words (e.g. lines 276, 420, 472, 492),
- line 300 – the source should start on a new line,
- tables 1 and 2 – what is the source of the tables? It would be required to provide the source even if it is your own work,
- table 2 – row "#10 COVID-19" – in one place there is a comma instead of a semicolon,
- line 365 – a colon instead of a dash (after "ST"),
- line 389 – what does "p. x" mean?
- line 454 – shouldn't it be "et al."?
- line 500 – no period after "et al"
I encourage you to take the above comments into account before submitting the final version of the work.
Author Response
See the attached file SUST R1 Author's Reply to the Review Report.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the recent decades, publications on sustainable tourism have increased considerably. The reviewed article concentrates on the foundation and developments of this situation and offers remarkable results with regard to quantitative and qualitative aspects and, in particular, concerning theory and practice of research. Interdisciplinary approaches are seen as especially relevant. For an analysis of the structure of academic knowledge on sustainable tourism, the Web of Science bibliometric database (for 1991-2021) is used to trace the academic communication networks, that is, the co-citation contexts of the research results on the sustainable tourism paradigm. The analysis leads to the important result that influential knowledge communication is missing and "that the academic tourism community must revise its knowledge generation practices." Thus, scholars should collaborate more by co-citing each others' publications and concentrate more on multi- and interdisciplinary co-operation. In my opinion, the article is a relevant contribution for an advancement and improvement of sustainable tourism paradigms.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI do not see any major problems with regard to the quality of English language. It is, however, clear that copy editing of the paper is necessary to correct a number of problem cases (e.g., line 254: "Sicence"; lines 292-294: "The dual aspects of the sustainable tourism paradigm are presented in Figure 1 are integral to the discourse, ..."; lines 616-617: "... networks for economic development-cantered paradigms ..." ).
Author Response
See the attached file SUST R1 Author's Reply to the Review Report.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
After having carefully read the proposed manuscript, I am sharing the opinion that the issues raised for discussion by the author, have been addressed in the focus of their scientific importance.
The topic is relevant for the tourism industry, where the question of sustainable paradigm in the focus of development (as notion) is in front of all the stakeholders. On that note, I accept that the article contributes new content to the literature on the subject, although I would like to point out that there are many more titles and good research papers outside the scope of Web of Science that remain beyond the coverage of the presented analysis. I assume that the author is fully aware of this aspect and therefore, my overall recommendation about the manuscript is for publication with minor corrections.
However, I have a few minor suggestions as long as the content of the article matches its title and the text is presented clearly and coherently, following a complete logical concept: they refer to the Abstract and partly the Introduction, which, although I find adequate, would benefit from a tighter and more accurate presentation of the aim, the methods used and the achieved results.
In addition, I must point out that I accept the cited references as well-chosen and sufficient, again with the stipulation that they concern primarily the scope of Web of Science publications.
My assessment of the attached tables and graphs, which are well constructed and clear, is also positive.
Author Response
See the attached file SUST R1 Author's Reply to the Review Report.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
Thank you for your efforts in improving the paper, which has indeed improved in quality.
Your adjustments to the manuscript are appropriate, meeting my request in the first review. However, the objective of the study is still not clear enough for a quality scientific study.
In the manuscript, the objective is unclear, but in the cover letter it is clear. Therefore, I suggest that you transfer the objective from the cover letter to the manuscript, meeting this request that I made in the previous review.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Reviewer comment: In the manuscript, the objective is unclear, but in the cover letter it is clear. Therefore, I suggest that you transfer the objective from the cover letter to the manuscript, meeting this request that I made in the previous review.
Author's response: Done. The text has been improved: The primary aim of this study is to investigate how the sustainable tourism paradigm adapts and remains resilient in response to specific external factors, such as the SDGs and climate change agendas, as well as emerging tourism phenomena like smart tourism, cyber and astronaut travel, pandemics, and overtourism. The study focuses on analyzing how these factors challenge the existing theoretical and practical dimensions of the sustainable tourism paradigm (‘what’ and ‘how’ to sustain) and examines whether the current paradigm can accommodate these new challenges or if it requires expansion or modification. By doing so, the study seeks to provide insights into how the sustainable tourism paradigm can remain relevant and effective in the face of evolving global trends and issues.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
