Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper introdues a practical digitalization model for  tourism. It highlights significant digital diveides among Russian federal districts. The literature overview is deep enough, citations are correct. 

 

The weeknesses of the manuscript:

While equal weights were assigned to indicators in clustering, there is no explanation or sensitivity analysis to justify this assumption. Some indicators may have more impact on tourism digitalization than others.

The temporal limitations mean also problem, then the data primarily spans 2018-2021, with some projections for the future. It may not fully capture recent trends in digital adoption, particularly aftter global shifts like COVID-19.

Despite clustering, the study may oversimplify regional variations by grouping heterogeneous areas under broad clusters.

The proposed model for digitalization lacks cross-validation.

New resoults aims to link digitalization to sustainability, more concrete examples are needed (now it has limited focus on sustainability).

Many „new resoults” are based on forecasts without detailed methods for how these predictions were calculated which might reduce reliability.

The challenges of implementing advanced technologies like AI and blockchain in transition economies are underexplored.

Recommendations for Improvement

Enhance methodological rigor

Deepen sustainability analysis

Integrate stakeholder perspectives to validate and enrich the proposed model.

Visual aids like comparative graphs or maps for regional disparities could enhance reader engagement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Simplify long sentences!

 

Author Response

First, allow me to express our appreciation to the respected reviewer for the time he spent studying and analyzing our work.

Based on his remarks, we made a number of edits to our article, which allowed, in our opinion, to more clearly detail the results and the significance of our study.

At the same time, some of the reviewer's comments from us required an additional significant description of our methods and other elements of our study. In our response to the reviewer, we provide a number of additional materials that we could not insert into the article due to the fact that the size of the article already exceeds the required volume. We will try to take into account the comments during further research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title is good and the article is rich, but I feel it is long and I suggest that the author's shorten it some.

Author Response

The reviewer praised our study quite highly. We express our sincere gratitude to him for the high appreciation of the study and the results obtained.

The title is good and the article is rich, but I feel it is long and I suggest that the author's shorten it some.

We did our best to shorten some parts. At the same time, since other reviewers asked for additional explanation of methods, more deep results discussion, theoretical and practical implications, limitations, etc., the new version remains quite long.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors:

 

Dear authors, first I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review your article. After a thorough analysis of the manuscript, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

 

General comment: Although the study is innovative and relevant, the authors need to strengthen the introduction of the study, especially its justification, limiting the research gap. In addition, they should discuss the main results of the study and include its theoretical and practical implications, to improve its scientific contribution and thereby provide tourism businesses with relevant information on the importance of considering digital solutions in tourism. On the other hand, the authors need to strengthen the methodology, providing more information on the methodological process adopted. In addition, they should reinforce the study's conclusions with future lines of research and the study's limitations.

 

 

1. Introduction

 

“For example, low-cost airlines make all corners of the world accessible, global transport platforms combine transport and accommodation services, sharing services take accommodation to a new level for budget-conscious consumers, and offer aggregators make it easy to quickly compare prices, conditions and service ratings with other consumers.”

 

Reviewer: This type of statement needs to be cited. Furthermore, although the introduction highlights the importance of digitalization and sustainability in tourism, it does not clearly state the specific problem or gap that the research aims to address. It would be important to refer to studies that point to the need for digital solutions in tourism, such as recent studies like

https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.29.2.10 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101235, these studies reinforce the need for new research to find innovative digital solutions in tourism. Thus, the authors can clearly justify the need for the study. On the other hand, the introduction lacks a clear formulation of the study's specific objectives.

 

4. Research methodology

 

Reviewer: The authors need to provide more information on the methodology adopted. Although the section mentions the use of hierarchical cluster analysis and the k-means method, there is no clear explanation of why these specific methods were chosen. Furthermore, the description of the data provided by Rosstat is vague. Although it mentions that these are digital indicators of tourism infrastructure, it would be important to specify which indicators were analyzed (e.g. digital accessibility, use of online booking platforms, etc. In addition, the study uses Rosstat data from 2018 to 2021, but it is not explained why this data was selected or whether there are any limitations or significant changes in trends during this period. Although the authors state that the indicators were used with equal weight, there is no explanation of which indicators were selected and how the weighting may have impacted the results. The choice of indicators and the method of analysis should be more detailed to ensure transparency.

 

5. Results and discussion

 

Reviewer: Discussion of the results is lacking. Although the results are relevant, it is important that the authors discuss the main findings with the existing literature. This process will make it clear which contribution(s) this study makes to the literature. In addition, given the study's relevance and originality, the authors are expected to present the theoretical and practical implications of the study. It would be important for the authors to present some recommendations or guidelines for tourism companies, to encourage the adoption of digital solutions in tourism.

 

6. Conclusions

 

Reviewer: The conclusions offer a general analysis of the benefits of digitalization in tourism, but do not provide specific examples or concrete evidence of how these benefits have been observed in different contexts or regions, especially in economies in transition. The lack of practical detail on how these processes have occurred limits the application of the conclusions to other realities. Furthermore, although the section mentions the development of a digital ecosystem for federal districts with a low digital level, no details are provided on how this ecosystem would be implemented in practice, the costs involved, or the resources needed to overcome the difficulties encountered in these regions. Hence the importance of the authors creating a section for implications to delve deeper into these practical issues. On the other hand, the authors do not explicitly discuss the limitations of the study. This could include, for example, the limited data sample (only from regions in Russia), the use of data from a specific period (2018-2021), or the lack of comparisons with other regions or countries outside Russia. In addition, the authors should clearly present recommendations for future lines of research. To reinforce the originality and scientific contribution of the study, the authors should also mention which gap(s) in the literature were answered in this study and which of the initially proposed objectives were achieved.

Author Response

The reviewer did a lot of analytical work. I would like to express my gratitude to the respected reviewer for taking the time and reading carefully, reviewing our article in detail and making serious comments to us. However, we note that a number of comments made by the reviewer require additional materials. In our responses to the comments, we tried to answer in detail and provide additional research materials. But we also believe that including these additional materials, even as Appendices to the article - this increases the amount of work too much. However, thanks for the genuine interest shown in our study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The changes made have resulted in greater clarity in the scientific contribution of the manuscript. In general, the manuscript highlights the research gap and responds objectively to the study problem. After considering all the changes made to the manuscript, I believe it can now be accepted for publication.

Good luck!