A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Using CiteSpace: The Perspective of China
, Zhen Guo 1,†, Shaogui Xu 1,2, Rob Law 3,4, Chenmei Liao 1, Wenqin He 5 and Mu Zhang 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposal about “A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Using CiteSpace: A perspective of China” sounds well. Nevertheless, to optimize, you have to improve the next topics:
-Title. It is right.
-Abstract. It is right.
-Theoretical framework. Check if some references can be updated. To be prudent, try to update some new references if you find.
-Methods. The used Method is right, thanks to CiteSpace 6.1 software, used to carry out scientific quantitative analysis and visual display of the literature from the aspects of publication volume analysis, network analysis, keyword analysis, and clustering analysis. Moreover, I suggest to complete the paper with other qualitative sources, for example in-deep interviews or a Delphi. It means it is positive to do a triangulation to support the obtained data. Perhaps in-deep interviews are not possible in this moment, but expert brief interviews (a Delphi) can allow an added value. It is a recommendation.
-Results. Results are improvable for the explained reasons.
-Conclusion and discussion. Try to enlarge it if you include another method.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I found this paper interesting and it is a useful contribution to the field.
I note the focus on literature -- especially international literature -- is upon publications in journals, but this may not be as representative (especially for non-Chinese publications) as the authors suggest: outside China -- and especially in the Anglophone context -- works on ICH are as likely to appear in books as they are in journals. Nonetheless, I believe the paper has identified clear trends which can be justified.
The authors write from a Chinese perspective, and as they point out in that context ICH is seen very much as a tourist resource. This is far less the case elsewhere (see e.g. Fig 4 which makes the point elegantly) and more could be made of this difference, if indeed the purpose is to persuade Chinese scholars and policy-makers to consider ICH issues more deeply.
I have no particular comments about the methodology and I do like the way the data analysis is presented.
Overall I am very happy to see this paper published as it stands.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract
Comment 1
The abstract should be modified. You should give the impression of an interesting article; the abstract should make the reader curious to read the whole article. Also, it should be short, a maximum of 200 words, this is too long.
Introduction
Comment 2
Lines 70-72 Which few? References for this?
Also “the majority of them use qualitative analysis ” you should cite them.
Conclusion and Future Research
Comment 3
What are the limitations of your article? Theoretical contribution? These segments are missing.
Once again thank you very much for the opportunity to read this interesting article. The manuscript has interesting results, but improvements would be appreciated.
Wish you all the best!
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has improved a lot. Review formal aspects and go ahead!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
