Archaeological Parks in the Service of Tourism—A Comparative Analysis of Hungarian and Western-European Archaeological Parks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

"Archaeology is the most fun you can do...with your pants on" Kent Flannery (archaeologist).

Archaeology is one of the most powerful pull factors in the heritage tourist activity. The article just proves that particular point. I like the research project about how these thematic archaeological parks can be and are important elements for a community for many reasons (cultural, social, economic, etc.). I think the methodology use of social media and tourist apps is very useful to know the impact of those particular sites in the minds of the visitors. 

Now, as an archaeologist, I think not all archaeological sites can be archaeological team parks. First, not all sites are spectacular (in tourist terms) and there are not always the resources to do so. The research illustrates that if museums and archaeological sites had more interactive activities and recreations of the past and interactive use of technology, visitors seem to turn their attention to it. The latter is true, however, there is a fine line to converting the heritage/past in a scenography to satisfy a tourist market. I did not see any comment/argument about this in the article. I agree with the need to use modern technology, however...who is paying for that?  

In addition, there was little contextualization about what archaeology is. They make a description in "3. Results" section. However, that is only for a specific type of site (my guess is only for Roman sites), they need to make that distinction.

I think the article needs to add more research bibliography about this topic, there is plenty of new bibliography about the use and importance of archaeology in community construction (as a social element) and in tourist activity as a pull factor.

A minor critic, the author uses the term "ruin". A ruin is something with no value, no use, unprotected, or destroyed. We prefer the term "archaeological sites" or "past remains". When you visit an archeological site, this is clean, with educational use, with cultural value, and with a lot of effort to present the remains of a past society.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments on the manuscript, which have been used to revise the text. We agree with you that archaeology is a major attraction in the field of cultural tourism, and our article seeks to support this point. We acknowledge that not all archaeological sites can be converted into theme parks, given the constraints of the attractions and the resources available. Our research on the importance of interactive activities and reconstruction of the past in museums and archaeological sites highlights the importance of modern technology and interactivity in attracting visitors.

In response to your concerns, we have added to the research bibliography with new literature on the role of archaeology in community building and tourism. We have also clarified the description in section 'Results 3', emphasising that the findings presented there relate primarily to Roman sites.

Finally, we accept your comments of the use of the term 'ruin' and have replaced it with the terms 'archaeological sites' to better reflect the cultural value of these sites and the efforts made to present them.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which helped us to improve and clarify our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper mainly uses regression analysis, cluster analysis and other statistical knowledge to correlate the digital visibility of ancient park with the overall evaluation of tourists, and studies the complex relationship between them. This study helps to improve tourists' awareness of relevant cultural attractions and planners, and provides scientific basis for shaping urban culture. The logic of the paper is clear, the experimental method is appropriate, the results are logical, and the planning suggestions based on the experimental results meet the actual needs. It is recommended that the author mention in Chapter 4 the importance of the positive impact of the archaeological park on the international or neighbouring cities and proofread some illustrations.

The overall English language of the article is fluent.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Particular attention has been paid to expanding the fourth chapter on the importance of the positive impact of the archaeological park on international and neighbouring cities. In addition, we have carefully reviewed and improved the illustrations to more accurately reflect the results and conclusions of our research. We are grateful for the useful feedback that has helped us to further refine our research.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review an interesting article. Before publication, the article requires significant reconstruction, supplementation, and adaptation to the generally accepted schemes and standards of editing scientific papers.

For details, please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive comments. Based on these comments, we have made substantial revisions and additions to the article to conform to generally accepted schemas and editorial standards for scientific publications. We have paid particular attention to the areas you have suggested.

We have supplemented the introduction with observations on the pandemic impacts of archaeological parks and the importance of digital presence.

In the "Methodology" section, we have clarified the timing of the research and the geographical extent of the archaeological parks.  A brief description of the archaeological parks are remained in the results chapter, in order to put their significance and historical heritage in context with the research findings.

In the "Results" section we present the results of our research and avoid including information that is not directly related to the research, we have moved this to the literature review. The results of the analysis of all the researched parks are presented in the form of a summary table and a clear pattern has been followed in the analysis, which is the same for all websites.

The 'Discussion' chapter has also been revised and modified in the light of the revised 'Methodology' and 'Results' chapters.

References have been corrected and supplemented according to the journal's guidelines, including appropriate formatting of books and internet sources.

We thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has helped us to improve and clarify our article. We hope that with these changes, the article will further contribute to the knowledge of the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

This was a very well researched and well-written paper. I thought that the research methods matched the ultimate conclusions to the paper, especially the use of digital tools and online platforms. 

Some minor suggestions: the use of temples rather than churches on line 149.

Adding "Roman to the last word of sentence on line 260, 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments on our manuscript. We have used the term "temples" instead of "churches" in line 149 and added the adjective "Roman" to the last word of line 260 to clarify the context. These changes help to make the text more precise and understandable. We are grateful for your valuable criticism, which has helped us to further refine our research.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have revised the manuscript as suggested. In its present version it is suitable for publication.