Rural Tourism in Marginimea Sibiului Area—A Possibility of Capitalizing on Local Resources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the topic itself is interesting, however I feel there are some significant weaknesses with the paper as follows. One of the most significant weaknesses of this paper is its limited contribution. Theoretical contributions and managerial implications are not stated in the paper. The incremental contribution should be clearly stated to raise the value of this paper.

On the other hand the main objective is formulated throughout the text in such a way that it is not clearly specified. I think it should be focused and clarified (and unified).

 

En las líneas 108 en adelante, cuando indica que And the consequences of capitalizing the resources of the rural world through tour-108 ism activities can be beneficial on multiple levels: (see table 1) [38,39], creo que  se deberian reordenar estas consecuencias para  clarificarlas, diferenciando en beneficios para los turistas y beneficios para las comunidades locales. Tambien y en relacio n con el caso de beneficios para los turistas podria ser interesante justifica más el porque de los “bajos precios”.

 

In lines 108 onwards, when it indicates that And the consequences of capitalizing the resources of the rural world through tourism activities can be beneficial on multiple levels: (see table 1), I think that these consequences should be reordered to clarify them, differentiating between benefits for tourists and benefits for local communities. Also, in relation to the case of benefits for tourists, it could be interesting to further justify the reason for the "low prices".

 

In line 117, correct the  laast period

 

From lines 122 to 127, it is not easy for the reader to identify whether the advantages that tourist activities can bring to farms are being listed (see below). The fact that the bullets are on the same level causes confusion.

-The incomes go directly to the farmers' families without going through the tourism channels that drain the respective incomes outside the rural areas, so they are invested here;

- Farmers and their families gain a professional competence in the field of providing tourist services, which must be done in a professional way;

- Jobs can be provided for those unemployed from rural areas;

- There will be facilities with modern elements of the accommodation space.

 

In general in all the text from line 108 to 136, it should be clarified with a proper organization and positioning of the bullets.

 

Throughout the text, the "accentuated character of originality" is repeated on several occasions to justify the choice of the area under study. I think it would be interesting to accompany it not only with location data (very complete, really) but also with data related to the number of tourists visiting the destination, their profile, and a comparison with tourism in Romania. In short, I think it is necessary to reflect the tourist importance in figures.

From line 182 to line 209 there is duplication in the bullets, which creates a bad impression regarding the style of the text.

The text on lines 306 and 307 needs to be clarified. There seems to be a stylistic problem.

Table 8 is incomplete. The columns do not have the complete texts.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all thank you for time, spend to review our paper, then for your kind observation and proper suggestions. Your proper suggestions were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.   So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes, highlighted with red color in the paper:

• Regarding first remark about one of the most significant weaknesses of this paper, meaning paper contribution clearly stated to raise the value of this paper, so we improve this aspect, in abstract part, and in the aim of the paper part, lines 113-139, 315-323;
• Concerning your remark about the main objective which should be clarified (and unified), we made the corrections and unified them in text, abstract, lines 113-139, 286-314;
• We took in consideration your suggestion about lines 108 which indicates the consequences of capitalizing the resources of the rural world through tourism activities can be beneficial on multiple levels. You recommend us to reorder these consequences so as to clarify them, differentiating between benefits for tourists and benefits for local communities, lines 188-236. We implement your request split in two parts, we highlight and improve the benefits of rural tourist activities for tourists, in lines 192-212. We also improve detailing the benefits for local communities, lines 213-236;
• As far as concerning the comment about justifying the reason for the "low prices", as benefits for tourists, we try to explain and detail a little bit to what this aspect means, lines 206-2012;
• We apologize for the translation error from the line 117, ”laast period”, we made the correction, line 204;
• As far as concerning the kind warning from lines 122 to 127, and the text from line 108 to 136 indeed it is not easy for the reader to identify the advantages that tourist activities can bring to tourist, and communities, because the bullets are on the same level and this causes confusion. Thus we rearranged the whole paragraph, lines 188-236;
• We took in consideration your suggestion about lines line 182 to line 209, where indeed was a duplication in the bullets, which creates a bad impression, regarding the style of the text. We apologize, and make the changes, so we have 4 main objectives, each of this objective was pursued through several aspects, lines 292-315;
• Indeed when we state about an area that is original, numbers are necessary and helpful to sustain the words, so thank you for suggestion, we improve the justification for choosing the Marginimea Sibiului area as research area through a comparison with tourism in other significant areas from Romania, table 2, lines 261-271;
• You have a proper indication regarding Table 8 which in the version you receive is incomplete, we fixed the problem now, the columns of this table has the complete texts, table 9.

 

So in the end we hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

 

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The document has very important structural defects:

• Section 2 of the “literature review” is not such. At no time does the literature work on the central objective of the work: re-imagining Rural Tourism. In fact. contains a succinct explanation of what rural tourism is as a tourism concept.

• The Figures presented (1, 2, and 3) lack research meaning, rather they have a teaching focus. • Section 3 “Data and Methodology” is insufficient in terms of its development. In addition to being confusing, it talks about the survey as a qualitative technique and then presents its development numbers. • On the other hand, proposing theoretical/research as a research design phase is simple. Another thing would be to distinguish between exploratory research and descriptive research.

• Section 3.2. "Research objectives of study" is a simple accumulation of points, lacking structure. And above, absent working hypothesis.

• Section 4.1 is highly developed, showing a strong local vision of the work. Again, a teaching rather than a research perspective seems to be evident.  There are incomprehensible figures like No. 4.

• Variables such as gender (male/female) and age are no longer usually considered in current literature.

• The analyzes carried out are extraordinarily simple, little more than chi-square tables, a clear example of the analytical weakness of the work. • I do not understand the inclusion of a table (nº 9) in section 5 (Discussion and recommendation), much less the reiteration of data (percentages of results) in section 6 (Conclusions).

• The bibliography must be urgently reviewed, going to the one that interests the work: re-imagining Rural Tourism, with a greater focus on specific tourism journals.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all thank you for time, spend to review our paper, then for your kind observation and proper suggestions. Your proper suggestions were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.   So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes, highlighted with red color in the paper:

• We consider valuable your suggestion regarding the Section 2 of the “literature review”. The main purpose of our research is to achieve a case study regarding the way of capitalizing local resources through rural tourism activities from Marginimea Sibiului area, and the extent in which rural tourism activity is seen by the owners of tourist structures from the studied area a development possibility, so starting from this objective we arranged the bibliographic part: we address rural environment as the location where the rural tourism phenomenon "manifests”, lines 141-156 analyzing its particular problems, specific resources, table 1 and underlying the fact that for these problems and with its special resources rural tourism can be a solution rural environment development, lines 161-184. We try to argue as best as we could the necessity of sustainable development of the rural environment through tourism, figure 1, and its main benefits, for some of the categories involved in it, lines 188-236;
• As far as concerning your remark about figures, we did give up at figure 1, we keep the figure 2, hoping you are agree, because it justify very easy why sustainable development of the rural environment through tourism is a necessity. We improve figure 3 and keep it because it illustrate where geographically the researched area is situated;
• We appreciate favorable your suggestion regarding Section 3 “Data and Methodology”, so we correct and improve this part. In order to fulfill the established purpose of this research and determine the success of this field of activity in the researched area the case study method was used as a research method, starting from the intention to carry out a study regarding capitalization of rural resources through rural tourism. The research method used, is considered suitable for large area, to carry out exploratory and explanatory, interpretive, or descriptive research, starting from the specific situation of life in the analyzed rural environment. In this type of research, the focus is on the case study analyzed, not necessarily on the methodology used, lines 238-324;
• Regarding Section 3.2. "Research objectives of study", we define the purpose of this research, lines 286-290, and starting from it we improve the objectives/working hypothesis, lines 291-315;
• As far as concerning Section 4.1, indeed it shows a local vision, because we want to underline the current situation and specific resources in terms of rurality and current infrastructural situation of the researched area. Indeed the figure 4 is a little bit hard to be seen, so we decide to keep only the table, because it is more easy to be understood, table 3;
• Regarding your comment about variables such as gender (male/female) which are no longer usually considered in current literature, we took it in consideration and we don’t mentioned it in the research, see table 5;
• We appreciate favorable your suggestion about section 5 (Discussion and recommendation-table 9), we try to reorganize a little bit this part. Thus we synthetize the findings splitting them in two parts (positive and negative), and based on highlighted aspects we issued some proposals, lines 661-705, table 10; We introduce the table in this section because we consider it is easier to connect the findings with future proposals and consequences; As far as concerning the Conclusion section, we took in consideration your suggestion and don’t reiterate the data (percentages of results) but introduce the information:

- about identifying what we have learned from the analysis, lines 726-747;

- also the limitations of the article, which were mentioned at lines 717-725;

- and we take in consideration the future lines of future research, lines 764-769.

• As far as concerning The bibliography part, we introduce some new titles, lines 845-859, 870-872, 912, 914, 917, and keep the old ones, which are appropriate for our purpose, to achieve a case study regarding the way of capitalizing local resources through rural tourism activities.

 

So in the end we hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

 

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is very interesting. But, you should revise the paper to improve the clarity and to provide better structure.

-       Please rewrite the Abstract in a more coherent and accurate way.  You can display briefly the gist and the innovative of the manuscript. The missing key points in the abstract are: when and where was the research done, and what are the key contributions of the research.

-       There is little to none theoretical foundation in supporting the research. You should re-adjust the introduction to start with the general issues but somehow address the topics. Furthermore, the paper’s introduction should be strengthened to emphasize its importance in relation to existing research gaps that the present study aims.

-       Additionally, the introduction mentions a limited set of recent sources. Authors may find useful the following papers:

o   Soare, I., Dobrea, N. C. R. C., & Nastase, M. (2017). The Rural Tourist Entrepreneurship–New Opportunities of Capitalizing the Rural Tourist Potential in the Context of Durable Development. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(3), 231-231.

o   Ramona, C. (2020). Agritourism-A Possibility of Capitalizing the Resources of the Rural Community. Agricultural Management/Lucrari Stiintifice Seria I, Management Agricol, 22(3).

o   Coroș, M. M., Privitera, D., Păunescu, L. M., Nedelcu, A., Lupu, C., & Ganușceac, A. (2021). Mărginimea Sibiului tells its story: Sustainability, cultural heritage and rural tourism—A supply-side perspective. Sustainability, 13(9), 5309.

 

Lines 169-171: “The two-week period of information collection coincided with the period of August, meaning the peak of the tourist season, and the period when it was possible to travel”. What year?

The aim of the paper is weak and vague: “Because the area is one with a high degree of originality, from the point of view of the existing resources, the purpose of this study is to identify the way of capitalizing, or "mixing" the resources through rural tourist activities, as a "presentation modality" / (lines 58-61). Hypotheses are missing.

Authors show some results, but some points of the work are still missing as the answers to the research questions for the improving the quality of the manuscript.

The analysis is very simple. The authors should consider new ways of expanding the research and providing a more thorough analysis.

Moreover, in discussing the results, the findings should be compared to previous studies’ outcomes. The results are not compared to existing studies. This is the most important part to address the novelty in the literature and compare your findings with the existing literature.

However, the original contributions of the study need to be addressed (in relation to clearly established research objectives).

In fact, you needed to dig more deeply. This would not only broaden your database, but also strengthen your discussion as well as the paper’s theoretical contribution. Though, this would require an enormous additional workload to the authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all thank you for time, spend to review our paper, then for your kind observation and proper suggestions. Your proper suggestions were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.   So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes, highlighted with red color in the paper:

1. We took in consideration your suggestion about abstract part, so we rephrase it, we hope we did manage in a good manner to describe the essence of the paper. We did added the missing key points indicated by you, see the abstract part;
2. Regarding your request to improve the theoretical foundation in supporting the research, meaning the paper’s introduction to be strengthened to emphasize its importance in relation to existing research gaps, we make the changes so as to support the objective and need of this research in the introduction part, changes being made at lines 68-112;
3. As far as concerning your suggestion about introduction recent sources in the introduction part, we implement it, we introduce the specified ones, lines 69,85, 104 and in reference part to, lines 845-859;
4. As far as concerning the comment about the information period, we specified the year and the location, so thank you for identifying a quite important minus and draw us attention about it, lines 279-281;
5. We consider valuable your suggestion regarding the quality and vagueness of the aim of the paper, so we implement your suggestion to rephrase this sections, hopping in a good manner so as to be easy to understand, lines 113-139; The purpose of this research is to achieve a case study regarding the way of capitalizing local resources through rural tourism activities from Marginimea Sibiului area, and the extent in which rural tourism activity is seen by the owners of tourist structures a development possibility. According to this purpose are established its main objectives/hypothesis, lines 285-315;
6. As far as concerning the comment about the results part, we double check the tables so as to contain all the information and in the final to improve the quality of the manuscript, lines 464-658;
7. Indeed the analysis part looks simple, because we consider that important is to be readable and understandable, but in reality was a complex research, but we reconsider this suggestion for the future research, as being a proper one, so thank you for suggestion;
8. Regarding your suggestion to compare the findings with previous studies’ outcome, we mention that yes indeed there are other studies, and we did mention some of them, but they are not oriented on the same direction. We did make a short comparison in terms of potential, line, 663, table 2 in terms of tourist indicators. Actually this is the added‐value of the study, the fact that we collect the information directly from the owners of rural tourism structures, lines 99-112, 126-139;
9. We appreciate favorable your suggestion about rephrase the contribution of the research in relation to clearly established research objectives, so we have implement it, in section 3.2, first we rephrase the objective of the research, lines 285-315, and then the contribution of the research, lines 316-324;
10. Indeed we improve the discussion and recommendation part, we try to reorganize a little bit this part. Thus we synthetize the findings splitting them in two parts (positive and negative), and based on highlighted aspects we issued some proposals, lines 661-705, table 10; We introduce the table in this section because we consider it is easier to connect the findings with future proposals and consequences; As far as concerning the Conclusion section, we introduce information:

- about identifying what we have learned from the analysis, lines 726-747;

- also the limitations of the article, which were mentioned at lines 717-725;

- and we take in consideration the future lines of future research, lines 764-769.

         So in the end we hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

 

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

The concept is good and very helpful in the development of rural tourisms as well as rural development. 

The objectives is not clear to understand and some times it looks like activities.

The discussion is too elaborative and quite difficult to keep attention.

In most of the tables maybe you used some local term, need to generalize.

Figures and Tables need to precise

Also need some formative corrections.

  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all thank you for time, spend to review our paper, then for your kind observation and proper suggestions. Your proper suggestions were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.   So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes, highlighted with red color in the paper:

1. We consider valuable your suggestion regarding the objectives being not clear mentioned, so we implement your suggestion to rephrase this sections, hopping in a good manner so as to be easy to understand, in section 3.2, first we rephrase the objective of the research, lines 285-289, and working hypothesis, lines 292-315, then the contribution of the research, lines 316-324;
2. As far as concerning your suggestion regarding the discussion part, you sad is too elaborative and quite difficult to keep attention, thus we try as much as we can to simplify this part, splitting the findings in two parts (positive and negative), lines 661-705; and based on highlighted aspects we issued some proposals, table 10; We introduce the table in this section because we consider it is easier to connect the findings with future proposals and consequences;
3. We consider valuable your suggestion regarding the tables we try as much as we can to simplify the terms, tables 5,6,7,8,9;
4. We appreciate favorable your suggestion about the figures and tables to be precise, and we make some changes, so as to be as clear as we can, see figure 3, tables 2-9;
5. Formative or translation corrections were made during the entire work.

 

So in the end we hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

 

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors deal with a recent topic of great importance in the tourism sector. In general, the research is well structured: the introduction correctly narrates the importance and the objectives, the theoretical framework is very complete with a large number of current bibliography and even with explanatory graphs, the methodology is correctly developed. However, a Discussion section is missing. In addition, the Conclusion section is not correctly developed, the authors only present the data obtained in the research without identifying what they have learned from their analysis, nor do they present the limitations of the article or future lines of research. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all thank you for time, spend to review our paper, then for your kind observation and proper suggestions. Your proper suggestions were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.   So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes, highlighted with red color in the paper:

 

• We appreciate favorable your suggestion about the Discussion section, we synthetize the findings splitting them in two parts (positive and negative), lines 661-705 and based on highlighted aspects we issued some proposals, table 10; We introduce the table in this section because we consider it is easier to connect the findings with future proposals and consequences;
• As far as concerning the Conclusion section, we took in consideration your suggestion

- about identifying what we have learned from the analysis, lines 726-747;

- also the limitations of the article, which were mentioned at lines 717-725;

- and we take in consideration the future lines of future research, lines 764-769.

So in the end we hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

 

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The work does not reach the quality appropriate to an academic paper, for several reasons:

1. The fundamentals are overly conceptual. It is focused more on a teaching "lesson" on Rural Tourism than a bibliographical review of the state of the art.

2. There is no methodological scheme, nor specific hypotheses.

3. The sample size is too small to be able to apply statistics with a minimum of rigor.

4. The analyzes carried out are very basic, and lacking in meetings of interest.

5. Your contribution is exclusively local.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all thank you for time, spend to review our paper, then for your kind observation and proper suggestions. Your proper suggestions were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.   So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us. We kept the changes made at the previous review stage and we added some new ones, in the following we will mention the main changes, highlighted with blue color in the paper:

 

1. Regarding your statement about the fundamentals being focused more on a teaching "lesson" on Rural Tourism than a bibliographical review of the state of the art, we improved the theoretical foundation in supporting the research, during the introduction part and the literature review part, lines 15-51, 131-132, 141-149, 152-170, 180-191, 213-214. We did give up to figure 1, indeed this figure has a more teaching "lesson" aspects than bibliographical one. We can say that we did make a bibliographical review during this two parts of the paper, because from the 68 bibliographic titles, 53 of them are found in this two parts, but we did try to implement your request as better as we could, rephrasing the sentences so as to review of the state of this particular subject. To improve the theoretical foundation in supporting the research, meaning the paper’s introduction to be strengthened to emphasize its importance in relation to existing research gaps, lines 15-51, 75-88, we make the changes so as to support the literature part and need of this research, changes being made at 15-19, 152-170,180-191;
2. We appreciate favorable your suggestion about methodological scheme, from the data and methodology part, so we implemented the suggestion, figure 1. As far as concerning specific hypotheses, we define the main research specific hypothesis,  lines 300-303, in the paper being defined also the main steps to achieve the purpose declared, lines 305-333; In the end of the research the findings of this particular study, starting from the research hypothesis, were synthesized, on positive and negative ones, lines 696-730;
3. As far as concerning your remark about the sample size being too small, we mention that we have used as research tool the questionnaires/interviews, because they are suitable for social sciences [60]. This research tool is not usually conducted on any kind of representative sample, and according to Smith [61] does not require the application to a certain representative sample and, as such, the results cannot be generalized, but if the interviews are carried out carefully, representative information can be obtained about a certain subject pursued, ensuring the possibility of a narrative study supported by the discoveries in the territory, thus interpretive, qualitative, interview research methodology is suitable, lines 278-287. The research method used, is considered suitable to carry out exploratory and explanatory, interpretive, or descriptive research, starting from the specific situation of life in the analyzed rural environment. In this type of research, the focus is on the case study analyzed, not necessarily on the methodology used, lines 248-253; In the researched area are 75 rural tourist units in total. From this 75 units 64 (meaning those with complete answers) were included in the final study meaning 85.33% from the existing ones, table 4, lines 483-485;
4. Indeed the analysis part looks simple, because we consider that important is to be readable and understandable, but in reality was a complex research, but we reconsider this suggestion for the future research, as being a proper one, so thank you for suggestion; The paper comes with an increased added‐value given by the research applied through questionnaire/interview directly to the owners of rural tourism structures, the information being able to provide the basis of multiple future researches, lines 112-116. The main contribution and implication of this research to the field is highlighted through its main findings: analysis of the current infrastructural situation, identification of the motivations of the tourist structures owners to carry out the activity, the development degree of agritourism activity, aspects concerning the operation and management part, lines 121-126; The enchanting geographical setting, the purity of nature and people, the accessibility of places, the richness and diversity of the cultural heritage, the quality of gastronomic products make Marginimea Sibiului an area with great resources and great tourist potential. Supporting the future development of rural tourism in the studied area comes, based on some findings directly from the field and from stakeholders, comes as an innovation and with the possibility of ensuring the long-term "health"/"sustainability" of the villages from here. So this is the meaning of the study, to make an x-ray of the current problems/situation and make some proposals for future development through tourism, table 11. We try to synthetize and improve the research results on the working hypotheses followed, lines 663-686, table 10;
5. Regarding your statement about the contribution exclusively local we mention that the original contribution of the study comes from the area selected for research, being one of the representative areas for Romania’s rural tourism, lines 254-256, table 2, and from research objectives. The current study aim is to evaluate the current infrastructural situation of rural tourism sector from Marginimea Sibiului area, and bring added‐value through a case study analysis applied to the owners of rural tourism structures so as to determine the development degree of agritourism activity and its managerial features. In perspective the information obtain can be used as base for future research directions and proposals so as to improve and sustain local sustainable development of the area, lines 334-342;

 

Dear Reviewer we kindly thank you for your time dedicated to us, and for your valuable suggestions. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line. We did try to implement all your requirements as best as we could, so we hope we've been able to implement all of it.

 

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made a sincere effort to improve the text. However, there are points, mainly methodological, that have not been improved. Particularly, regarding the statistical analysis of the results, it remains almost insufficient.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all thank you for time, spend to review our paper, then for your kind observation and proper suggestions. Your proper suggestions were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.   So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us. We kept the changes made at the previous review stage and we added some new ones, in the following we will mention the main changes, highlighted with blue color in the paper

1. We appreciate favorable your suggestion about methodological improvement, so we implemented the suggestion, figure 1. As far as concerning specific hypotheses, we define the main research specific hypothesis, lines 300-303, in the paper being defined also the main steps to achieve the purpose declared, lines 305-333; In the end of the research the findings of this particular study, starting from the research hypothesis, were synthesized, on positive and negative ones, lines 674-677;
2. We improved the theoretical foundation in supporting the research, during the introduction part and the literature review part, lines 15-51, 131-132, 141-149, 152-170, 180-191, 213-214. We did give up to figure 1. To improve the theoretical foundation in supporting the research, meaning the paper’s introduction to be strengthened to emphasize its importance in relation to existing research gaps, lines 15-51, 75-88, we make the changes so as to support the literature part and need of this research, changes being made at 15-19, 152-170,180-191;
3. As far as concerning the statistical analysis of the results we try to synthetize and improve the research results on the working hypotheses followed, lines 663-686, table 10.

 

Dear Reviewer we kindly thank you for your time dedicated to us, and for your valuable suggestions. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line. We did try to implement all your requirements as best as we could, so we hope we've been able to implement all of it.

 

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf