Erbil Citadel as a Brand for the City, the Role of Residents Awareness and Perceptions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article touches on a very interesting and topical issue (city branding), especially in the context of the potential generated by a historic city with a very long and rich history, listed by UNESCO. I therefore started to read the article with great interest. Unfortunately, in the course of reading it, I noticed a number of shortcomings that need to be carefully addressed before the article can be recommended for publication. 

First of all, it should be noted that the introduction should contain more detailed information on the subject under study and on the city chosen as a case study. The information provided in lines 50-90 is very general and repetitive, and the reader is not given the opportunity to learn about the specificity of this city and its uniqueness from a heritage point of view. The bibliographical references to the city and its heritage, which appear from line 161 onwards, should have been included in the introductory section. Moreover, they are inadequate due to their general nature. 

Lines 91-100 contain some promising research questions (e.g. "the intersection of city branding and heritage sites" or "how cities like Erbil can capitalise on their cultural assets to enhance their global visibility etc."), but these (as I will explain below) are not properly reflected in the design of the research conducted and its discussion.

The literature review offered in lines 114-160 is very sketchy, especially in relation to heritage cities, and deserves much more elaboration and nuance. 

The methodology used is fairly straightforward, but I find no shortcomings in it, including the sampling strategy. It would certainly have been worthwhile to describe the sampling structure in more detail, not only in relation to gender. 

I see more problems in the discussion of the results. In fact, for the most part, it has been quite sympathetically presented how the perception of the surveyed city differs according to the gender or age of the respondents (although I do not know why the authors avoid explaining which gender gave which answers (lines 298-322). There seems to be some inconsistency between the information in the above lines that the differences in the answers given by the different sexes are statistically significant and the statement in lines 393-395.

The questionnaire at the end of the article shows that the respondents were asked many interesting questions, which were however used very superficially in the discussion section, making this section of very limited exploratory value, particularly in relation to the research questions posed by the authors as I mentioned above. This should have been developed much more carefully. As a result of this shortcoming, the conclusions formulated at the end of the article are very superficial and do not allow the reader to understand in any way the role of residents' awareness and perceptions in the branding of the city in question, as indicated in the title of the article. 

There also seems to have been an erroneous sentence in lines 359-360. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would like to point out that in some places there are problems with punctuation (e.g. the absence of a full stop at the end of a sentence and a capital letter at the beginning of the next).

Author Response

Thanks very much the comments was very deep and help full to improve the articles.

here the responses which addressed to the manuscript:

comment 1: First of all, it should be noted that the introduction should contain more detailed information on the subject under study and on the city chosen as a case study. The information provided in lines 50-90 is very general and repetitive, and the reader is not given the opportunity to learn about the specificity of this city and its uniqueness from a heritage point of view..

Response 1: the Introduction part improved and its colored in red in lines 50-100

 comment 2:The bibliographical references to the city and its heritage, which appear from line 161 onwards, should have been included in the introductory section. Moreover, they are inadequate due to their general nature. 

Response 2:  this part has been arranged and improved and some part removed.

comment 3: Lines 91-100 contain some promising research questions (e.g. "the intersection of city branding and heritage sites" or "how cities like Erbil can capitalise on their cultural assets to enhance their global visibility etc."), but these (as I will explain below) are not properly reflected in the design of the research conducted and its discussion.

Response 3:  Research question as been rearranged and more clerified that can be matched and reflected with the discussion parts in the line 102 and forward.

comment 4: The literature review offered in lines 114-160 is very sketchy, especially in relation to heritage cities, and deserves much more elaboration and nuance. 

Response 4:  the literature review has been improved and divided into sub-titles in order to be more detailed ( in line 131-232) 

comment 5:The methodology used is fairly straightforward, but I find no shortcomings in it, including the sampling strategy. It would certainly have been worthwhile to describe the sampling structure in more detail, not only in relation to gender. 

Response 5:  the methodology the sampling strategy described more in detail in lines 263 and forward.

comment 6:I see more problems in the discussion of the results. In fact, for the most part, it has been quite sympathetically presented how the perception of the surveyed city differs according to the gender or age of the respondents (although I do not know why the authors avoid explaining which gender gave which answers (lines 298-322).

Response 6:  the results analysed and the comments of the reviewer taked into consideration adress to the lines 357 and forward. 

 comment 7: There seems to be some inconsistency between the information in the above lines that the differences in the answers given by the different sexes are statistically significant and the statement in lines 393-395.

Response 7: in line 493 the address the missing information and may be due language expressions and now has been solved.

comment 8: The questionnaire at the end of the article shows that the respondents were asked many interesting questions, which were however used very superficially in the discussion section, making this section of very limited exploratory value, particularly in relation to the research questions posed by the authors as I mentioned above. This should have been developed much more carefully. As a result of this shortcoming, the conclusions formulated at the end of the article are very superficial and do not allow the reader to understand in any way the role of residents' awareness and perceptions in the branding of the city in question, as indicated in the title of the article. 

Response 8: the discussion and conclusion has been improved to address this shortcoming in line 441

comment 9: There also seems to have been an erroneous sentence in lines 359-360.

Response 9:   this part was mistake and has been removed

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have a few comments and suggestions on your paper:

1. Please mention clearly in the text (for the benefit of the readers), Erbil, Iraq. You have not mentioned it anywhere, and for international readers, it is not such a wellknown name.

2. From line 262 and table 1: your sums do not add to 100%, because there is an error of 0,2%. Please correct the table, even though it does not change the results.

3. Table 3: The title is FAMILIAR. What does it mean? Please change the title and the discussion.

4. Line 323 onwards: Your discussion is based on age groups. There is no table for age groups nor statistical analysis on age groups. Please do the analysis and add a new table.

5. You must add a MANAGERIAL APPLICATIONS section before the CONCLUSIONS and a LIMITATIONS section after the conclusions.

6. References: Please use APA style and mention the Journal name, edition, pages, DOI (if available) for all the references. Some of them have none.

7. In the discussion, before the statistical analysis, you ought to include the HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY, and then the discussion must be based on the hypotheses and not only on the table results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine and minor edition may be needed after adding the suggestions of the reviewers.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the valuable comments:

Comment 1: Please mention clearly in the text (for the benefit of the readers), Erbil, Iraq. You have not mentioned it anywhere, and for international readers, it is not such a wellknown name.

Response 1:  this has been adressed in Line 57 and forward.

Comment 2: From line 262 and table 1: your sums do not add to 100%, because there is an error of 0,2%. Please correct the table, even though it does not change the results.

Response 2:  the table has been corrected

 

Comment 3:  Table 3: The title is FAMILIAR. What does it mean? Please change the title and the discussion.

Response 2:  the title and discussion has been improved due to the comment.

Comment 4:  Line 323 onwards: Your discussion is based on age groups. There is no table for age groups nor statistical analysis on age groups. Please do the analysis and add a new table.

Response 4:  the comment was not clear for me, do we have ad frequency table for age or the derscription.

Comment 5:  You must add a MANAGERIAL APPLICATIONS section before the CONCLUSIONS and a LIMITATIONS section after the conclusions.

Response 5:  in the manuscript in line 464 MANAGERIAL APPLICATIONS and in line 509 LIMITATIONS section was added.

Comment 6:  References: Please use APA style and mention the Journal name, edition, pages, DOI (if available) for all the references. Some of them have none.

Response 6: the template of the Sustainability jurnal was used so according to the template.

Comment 7:  In the discussion, before the statistical analysis, you ought to include the HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY, and then the discussion must be based on the hypotheses and not only on the table results.

Response 7: the hypothesis is discussed and the results are discussed accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

City branding is an important topic, especially for the sustainable development of a destination. Overall, the manuscript has a clear content. I would suggest the authors to improve the following aspects:

The authors should better justify the sampling technique and the rationale behind the chosen analytical methods. Especially in-person data and online data collections were both used. It was mentioned that "The sampling strategy aimed to ensure a diverse representation of the Erbil population." However, the different data collection methods could bring some bias. For example, the difference in context between in-person and online environments can affect how participants interpret and respond to survey questions.

Although the manuscript discusses various theoretical concepts related to city branding and cultural heritage, it could be strengthened by connecting these theories to the study's research design and findings. The methodology is relatively simple - ANOVA analysis. 

Some external factors that may influence residents' perceptions of Erbil Citadel should be considered, such as political, economic, or social changes in the region. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are minor language and grammar issues throughout the manuscript. I would suggest that the authors proofread this manuscript to improve the quality. 

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments that helped to improve the manuscript:

comment 1: The authors should better justify the sampling technique and the rationale behind the chosen analytical methods. Especially in-person data and online data collections were both used. It was mentioned that "The sampling strategy aimed to ensure a diverse representation of the Erbil population." However, the different data collection methods could bring some bias. For example, the difference in context between in-person and online environments can affect how participants interpret and respond to survey questions.

Response 1: that is one of the limitations of the research that has been addressed in limitation section of the manuscript

comment 2: Although the manuscript discusses various theoretical concepts related to city branding and cultural heritage, it could be strengthened by connecting these theories to the study's research design and findings.

Response 2: the improvement has been done to the manuscript to match this comment the improved parts are highlighted in Red.

 comment 3:The methodology is relatively simple - ANOVA analysis.  Some external factors that may influence residents' perceptions of Erbil Citadel should be considered, such as political, economic, or social changes in the region. 

Response 3:  the research focused on the cultural awareness and the political and economic factor are recomended for future studies in LIMITATION section

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of the comments I highlighted in the first review, resulting in a noticeable improvement in the article's explanatory power. However, it remains difficult to discern the article's concrete contribution to scholarship, as the discussion of the results is still at a relatively superficial level, and the conclusions are rather generic, applicable to most historic cities. The managerial applications added to the article are also quite generic. The specific potential (strengths and opportunities) of the particular heritage site studied in branding the city is not sufficiently highlighted.

I have a few additional concerns: The authors have expanded the "Review of Studies on Heritage Sites as a Brand for the City" section, but although they frequently use phrases like "numerous studies," these are often followed by only two bibliographic entries.

From line 368 onwards, the problematic phrase "one gender perceives something more distinctly than the other" still appears. Additionally, from line 386 onwards, there is an unusual sentence containing a promise to address this issue—criticized in the first review—in a "revised discussion." First, such a statement belongs in the response to the reviewer, not in the academic paper itself, and second, this promise was not fulfilled in the discussion section.

In conclusion, despite the positive changes made to the article, I cannot fully recommend it for publication in its current form.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: as the discussion of the results is still at a relatively superficial level, and the conclusions are rather generic, applicable to most historic cities.

Response1: The results and discussions has been improved within adding new tables and analysis according to the valuable comments before, and more details and depth analysis done.

Comment 2; The managerial applications added to the article are also quite generic.

Response2: The managerial application which was asked by other reviewers now has been improved and more detailed according to the results analysis and findings.

Comment 3: The specific potential (strengths and opportunities) of the particular heritage site studied in branding the city is not sufficiently highlighted.

Response3:  Strength point of the Erbil citadel has been added and highlighted in Red in the end of the literature review part on line 230 and forward.

Comment 4: I have a few additional concerns: The authors have expanded the "Review of Studies on Heritage Sites as a Brand for the City" section, but although they frequently use phrases like "numerous studies," these are often followed by only two bibliographic entries.

Response4: the comment taken into consideration and the citations added with slight improvements.

Comment5: From line 368 onwards, the problematic phrase "one gender perceives something more distinctly than the other" still appears. Additionally, from line 386 onwards, there is an unusual sentence containing a promise to address this issue—criticized in the first review—in a "revised discussion." First, such a statement belongs in the response to the reviewer, not in the academic paper itself, and second, this promise was not fulfilled in the discussion section.

Response5: the statements ahs been removed and the paragraph has been improved within the results

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

My comment 7: You must add the hypotheses to be studied before your tables and then discuss and analyze them. You can do that in the methodology section, based on the analysis of your tables. e.g.: hypothesis 1: Visits to Erbil citadel are not gender based... and so on. Or you can use the questions you put on table 6 to create your hypotheses of study.

Your discussion and conclusions is fine, but you should mention: as per hypothesis 1, ....

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English language review is required

Author Response

Comment1: 

You must add the hypotheses to be studied before your tables and then discuss and analyze them. You can do that in the methodology section, based on the analysis of your tables. e.g.: hypothesis 1: Visits to Erbil citadel are not gender based... and so on. Or you can use the questions you put on table 6 to create your hypotheses of study.

Response1:  Hypothesis has been added and the conclusion has been revised based on hypothesis and table 6 has been updated and analysed again in order to meet your valuable comments and the comments of other reviewers.

Comment 2: Your discussion and conclusions is fine, but you should mention: as per hypothesis 1, ....

Response 2:  the results and  discussions has been updated and improved to meet this comment.

Note: some other improvements has been done specially in the results part that new tables added according to the comments of the reviewers.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This time the authors took into account all my recommendations and made changes/amendments to the article with much more care and precision than before. This increased its cognitive value and helped to improve its structure and quality.

The only (not insignificant) reservation that remains is how much the research conducted by the authors actually contributes to the state of knowledge regarding the case study under investigation and the topic: 'Brand for the City and the Role of Residents, Awareness and Perceptions', as the composition of the questions asked within the research conducted hardly allowed for more meaningful or groundbreaking conclusions to be drawn.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have recommended the Editors to accept your paper. However, acceptance depends on their decision.