Digital Entrepreneurship and Creative Industries in Tourism: A Research Agenda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing your interesting manuscript. The paper addresses an important topic and presents a theoretical review of the investigated literature. The authors identify relevant research topics, by employing bibliometric analysis. However, the paper is underdeveloped and more investigations are needed. The results are limited, and the discussion is weak. The two topics investigated in Tabel 1 and Table 2 seem unrelated, it looks like puting them together in a forced way. Moreover, there is only a presentation of the methods, findings and key words, but you can use the software to produce more insights on the topic. Good luck!
Author Response
I hereby express my profound gratitude to the editorial Board of the Economies for giving me the opportunity to improve my manuscript and thus enhance the chances of its publication in this prestigious Journal. Furthermore, I thank the reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. Find my answer to the comments highlighted in yellow in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The title of the paper sounds quite attractive. Overall, I liked the paper but I found that the paper in its current form is far from publication. Although it can potentially contribute to the domain, I think there is still much room for amendments and improvement. In this regard, I have some comments as follows.
1- My main concern is about the soundness of the review process to collect relevant articles. The search protocol is not clear, including search string (what keywords), date slot, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. We do not know how the authors have reached those 20 articles. Please clarify this section in more detail.
2- What the authors have named “bibliometric review” is quite different. This is not a bibliometric review. For more information about a bibliometric review you can simply search on the web. Please revisit this issue and replace it with another word, such as “critical review” or even just “literature review”.
3- The discussion section is not quite insightful. I expected to see more than this. I recommend the authors revisit this section and try to include a more critical discussion of the results, comparing the results with the previous studies, and challenging the potential opportunities.
4- The last section regarding the research agenda for future research is very poor. The authors have failed to carefully formulate, describe, and present the potential opportunities for future research in this section. It sounds like just a general overview without any challenge. It is not acceptable at all and I expect the authors to significantly revise this section since this part is the most important part of this research.
Author Response
I hereby express my profound gratitude to the editorial Board of the Economies for giving me the opportunity to improve my manuscript and thus enhance the chances of its publication in this prestigious Journal. Furthermore, I thank the reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. Please find my response to the comments highlighted in yellow color in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for providing the revised version of your manuscript. The paper has been improved and gained clarity.my comments were addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for addressing my concerns and comments. They have properly revised the manuscript and I can recommend it for publication. A proofreading is essential before publication.
