A Bibliometric and Content Analysis of Sustainability and Smart Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Greetings,

The paper is well written. It is necessary to make certain corrections. As such, the paper is a scientific review because the authors used a review of 104 scientific papers. They identified key words such as: Sustainability, Smart Tourism, Smart Cities, Innovation ... which they searched in these papers. The introduction is well written and contains all the elements from the objectives, the questions that this paper addresses, and to the contributions. The following selection, 2. Theoretical Framework, is well written, I suggest that these sub-selections be expanded with more papers, however, this is a review paper. Selection 3 should not be 3. Results but 3 Methodology. There are two selections in the paper called Results. The graphics with the results are also well done. It is necessary to further explain these figures that are listed in the paper. Make the tables unified, some use colors, some don't, it is necessary to unify the tables. Figure 5 needs further explanation. Everything else was well done, only in the conclusion should we give guidelines for future research because this paper review has given conclusions and it is necessary to say what needs to be done additionally in future papers.

All the best.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author/s,

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled A bibliometric and content analysis in sustainability and smart tourism. I found this paper interesting. The topic of this paper is interesting but some improvements would be appreciated.

Abstract - The abstract is very nicely written. It tells about an interesting article and lures the reader to read it. Great job authors!

Introduction - The introduction section has everything needed. The research aim and research questions are clearly stated.

Metodology - It is clear and easlily understood even for someone who is not in this topic. 

Results - The results are nicely presented with tables and diagrams. 

3.3 Content analysis - Isn't it supposed to be 4.3? Please correct it and the following chapters as well.

4. Future research directions - 5?

Once again thank you very much for the opportunity to read this interesting article.

Wish you all the best!

Sincerely,

Reviewer 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper includes a review of the literature on sustainable and SMART tourism.

Some improvements are necessary:

Are sustainability and smart tourism (as complementary concepts) clearly outlined in scientific literature?

 

Author(s) insist on some new perspectives on the future development of these areas within the social sciences' academic literature. So, the paper can be supplemented by short systematization of sustainable and smart tourism impacts/challenges researched in scientific papers in order to clearly point out future perspectives.

 

 

Table 7 needs to be separated (too many pages in the main text).

Figure 6 and table 6 are listed one after the other without explanation. At the same time, the chapter 3.2. ends with table 6. It is not appropriate (methodological framework. it is the same in chapter 3.1.). The appearance of the tables should be uniformed (colors, margins).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf