Special Interest Tourism (SIT) in Murmansk (Arctic NE Scandinavia): Touristic Route around the City to Explore the Oldest Rocks in Europe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very good article, there are big informations which are interesting for readers.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your positive feedback. We are very grateful to you for reading our text and providing us with this information.We will correct language errors.
Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

I reviewed the manuscript "Special Interest Tourism (SIT) in Murmansk (Arctic Scandinavia): tourist itinerary around the city to explore the oldest rocks in Europe."

In my opinion, your idea of planning urban tourist itineraries, which allow tourists to familiarize themselves with the historical, urban and cultural values of the city of Murmansk, as well as its nature and the appearance of the area for both tourists and residents, is particularly interesting.

In the introduction, you provide a good generalized background of the subject, which is clearly presented and makes the reader appreciate the experience carried out.

The "Materials and Methods" paragraph is also well structured and clearly describes the examination methods adopted in this study.

In my opinion, the "Results" paragraph appears a bit confusing. First of all, there are two subsections 3.2, "Flora and fauna" and "Historical view," respectively; secondly, I suggest that you summarize subsections from 3.1 to 3.3 more in order to focus the readers' attention on the focus of the manuscript, subsection 3.5, "Proposed routes and objects."

The discussion and conclusions of this manuscript are well supported by appropriate evidence and provide good answers to the objectives of the study.

The references cited in the paper are recent and relevant, properly organized, and support the conclusions.

I think this is a good manuscript, rationally presented, but in need of revisions, mostly in the third paragraph.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for taking the time to read our work and for your positive review.
We have corrected the numbering of subsections in our text. As for chapters 3.1.-3.3. their shortening is insignificant, there are few works devoted to the description of tourist attractions of Murmansk, and we wish that our text could present to the reader, at least in this abbreviated form, information about this place of interest according to us.
In addition, they allow you to better understand the choice of individual points of the proposed route. 
We hope that our answers are satisfactory to the reviewer.
Thank you again, the manuscript will be sent soon.
Authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the comments/suggestions attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your insightful evaluation of our text and your time.
We also thank you for your kind words of review.
We have, of course, corrected the numbering and technical errors (breakdown of rows in the table).
The spacing between the lines we hope will be formatted by Heritage's editors.
We have also corrected the conclusions and the discussion.
We hope you will find our new revised text satisfactory.
We kindly thank you for your review.

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for reading the text and the corrections reported.
The manuscript has been returned. We have corrected as we were asked.
With best regards - the authors.