Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent paper, I recommend to publish this after native English correction.

Author Response

”Please see the attachement.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, I have read your manuscript with a great interest. Indeed, this study is important methodologically, and, thus, it is suitable to the journal. However, the manuscript needs some important improvements before it can be considered for publication. Three principal recommendations are as follows.

• The title tells about capacity, but carrying capacity (how many people can be accommodated comfortably at a tourist attraction) is not considered in this paper. This is a bold direction in tourism research, and you need to check the related literature. What you have done in fact is evaluation of potential/attractiveness of geomorphosites. So, you need to decide yourself what do you write about and to be consistent in all parts of the manuscript.
• The methods you have employed are good to test, but these are not the only existing methods. The approaches proposed in the works by Dr. Anna Mikhailenko would be even more suitable (check what she writes about accessibility and aesthetics). There are also fresh developments by Dr. Lucie Kubalikova. I also think you need to consider the idea of viewpoint geosites by Prof. Piotr Migon, as well as the criteria for tourist judgments of beauty by Dr. Ksenia Kirillova. Please, work with Scopus for finding more sources. Note, please, that the methods you try to employ are rather "old". The modern understanding of geotourism is significantly more advanced that it was in the pioneering works you have used.
• The writing needs to be more logical, and it also requires linguistic polishing. Please, use proper and consistent terminology.

Author Response

”Please see the attachement.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Your paper is interesting, but still needs significant improvements.

• Abstract: The Abstract is OK. On lines 20-21 following sentence: «and comparing these threm» must be corrected to ««and comparing them».  
• Introduction: In the second paragraph of the Introduction you try to present the aim of the research: «The aim of this study is that based on the application of three established methods for assessing the geological-geomorphological characteristics of geomorphosites, the transfer of concrete and thematic geodiversity knowledge at the local-regional scale to practitioners, public administration and scientists is possible». Besides being unclear and confusing, this aim is completely different from the one presented in the Abstract «to determine the most suitable geomorphosites for better sustainable tourism planning using three methods of evaluating the geotourism of Pereira, Pralong and Reynard and comparing them». The aim presented in the Abstract is clear. On the other hand, the aim should be stated at the end of the Introduction and not in the beginning.
• Lines 90-91. The sentence: «it has potential capabilities which exploitation of them requires a coherent and systematic planning» must be improved. 
• Research background: line 101: «For the first time, Panizza (2001) first used the term geomorphosite...». This sentence must be improved. Maybe: «Panizza (2001) used for the first time the term geomorphosite».
• Lines 150-152: The sentence «In the Pereira method, geomorphosites are examined in two general aspects and they are studied from different such as protection, management, scientific, infrastructural and complementary» must be improved. Maybe: «In the Pereira method, geomorphosites are examined in two general aspects and they are studied from different viewpoints, such as protection, management, scientific, infrastructural and complementary».
• Some subjective statements should be avoided. Lines 239-243: «The deserts of Iran, especially the Lut Desert (Lut Plain) contain a large number of geological and geomorphological phenomena that every tourist would like to see [45]. As a result, if more attention is paid to Lut Plain, it can be turned into the most important tourist attraction for those interested in the desert and help the country's economy». A suggestion: «The deserts of Iran, especially the Lut Desert (Lut Plain) contain a large number of geological and geomorphological phenomena that have high potential for geotourism [45]. As a result, if more attention is paid to Lut Plain, it can be turned into an important tourist attraction for those interested in the desert and help the country's economy».
• On page 12 you use the same word in 3 different ways. Line 247 «Peralong»; Line 253 «Paralong»; Line 260 «Pralong». This must be made uniform throughout the paper. 
• Text of lines 262-263 must be improved: «in attracting tourists with the approach to observe stars and science education. It has astronomy.»
• The text of lines 318-321 must be improved or deleted: «There is a lot of research in European country, Asia mainly in Iran, North America and New Zeeland, discussing geotourism. South American geotourism research is concentrated in Brazil. Geotourists are scarce in Africa with journal articles.»
• The whole text of the article must be professionally proofread as it has a very low level, with many mistakes and confusing sentences.

Author Response

”Please see the attachement.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, I appreciate your revision – the manuscript looks better now. However, some improvements are still necessary.

• Title: the word "potential" would be better to put after "geomorphosites".
• Discussion: the last passages (Lines 391-429) should bear not only statements of what did the others do, but also links to your findings.
• I asked you initially to cite works of more specialists than you have taken into account. Of course, this is your right, but I encourage you to check the literature once again.
• When you indicate the authors' names or the works – you must put citations everywhere.
• The text (also on figures and in tables) still needs linguistic and stylistic polishing. All details should be checked with attention.
• I do not understand why badlands are capitalized.
• Figure 1: what is the source of the map?
• Figure 6: why the first letter in Pralong is not capitalized. Nebka -> Nebkha.

Author Response

”Please see the attachement.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

As the revised version of your paper came as pdf and the track changes were mixed with the old text, I had difficulties in reviewing the new version. However, it was clear that you addressed all my previous concerns. I would ask you to check carefully the whole text to make sure that the whole text is in correct English.

Best regards

Author Response

”Please see the attachement.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx