PONE-D-20-37799

Stakeholders engagement for solving mobility problems in touristic remote areas from the Baltic Sea Region

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ryciuk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fernando Almeida-García, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. In particular, the reviewers note that additional clarity is needed concerning some aspects of the model and included variables, as well as further discussion of implications and limitations of the research.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Interesting article with an additional application dimension. The use of case studies in the implementation of the research problem and investigations in various locations in terms of the level of socio-economic development is worth emphasis. However the text of the article needs to be supplemented. The lack of a more precise method of obtaining the source material on the basis of which further analyzes were carried out is particularly visible. Similarly, there is no information on the stakeholder population covered by the research and no statistical reliability of the source material obtained. Were theese investigated stakeholders populations statistically representative ? It seems necessary to supplement the text of the article with basic data on the number of stakeholders participating in the research, taking into account their origin, type of stakeholders, and statistical credibility of the research sample used.

It is also advisable to define the share of individual stakeholder groups subject to the research in the total population of the relevant stakeholder population.

It also seems justified to supplement the text with basic indicators of the level of economic development of individual areas of research implementation and indicators of transport accessibility of the areas in which the research locations are located. The above-mentioned additions should be useful in better understanding and clarifying of stakeholders perception of solving transport problems in choosen touristic remote areas.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript present recent tourism studies not only concerning stakeholders engagement but also highlight the issue of mobility in remote regions.

When its regards the statistical analisys, its noted that the investigation is part of a major research that has beeing developed in the Baltic Region. More additional informational about how the research was conducted and data collection may be a plus.

The findings are clearly portraited in a standard academic way, with a proper english, well presenting all the information that regards the issues of stakeholders and mobility across the region, advancing theoretical concepts recently studied on tourism literature.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Victor Hugo da Silva

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-20-37799R1

Stakeholders engagement for solving mobility problems in touristic remote areas from the Baltic Sea Region

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ryciuk,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The 11 points proposed for improvement are important and must be answered, especially those related to the methodology, since it is very poorly explained. The connection of the research questions is important and must be clearly demonstrated.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fernando Almeida-García, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments:

In general, we would expect qualitative studies to include the following:

1) Defined objectives or research questions. It is important to include research questions that are some of the contributions. These questions should be addressed in the discussion or in conclusions.

2) Description of the sampling strategy, including rationale for the recruitment method, participant inclusion / exclusion criteria and the number of participants recruited; Reference authors used to create questionnaires for interviews, pilot testing and validation of interview questionnaires.

3) Detailed reporting of the data collection procedures; data collection team, dates, problems, etc.

4) Data analysis procedures described in sufficient detail to enable replication;

5) Content analysis, categories used in the analysis, explanation of the content analysis process and categories, justification of the method.

6) A discussion of potential sources of bias;

7) A discussion of limitations and practical implications.

8) Identification of the case studies, justification of the cases and location map of the case studies.

9) Transcription of the stakeholder interviews (model of interviews in annex and link to the transcription of the interviews)

10) Justification of the identification process of the five stakeholders

11) Results linked to specific statements from stakeholder interviews

In the next submission of the article, I would like you to include an individual file with a document in which each of the points is answered.

Best regards,

Fernando Almeida

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-20-37799R2

Stakeholders engagement for solving mobility problems in touristic remote areas from the Baltic Sea Region

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Urszula Ryciuk, 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear authors,

Take the time that is necessary to answer all the questions appropriately. The review of the whole indicated aspects has not been satisfactory, so they should carefully review your research. I would like you answer the mentioned points in the next revision.

1) Regarding the research problems, they are not clearly debated in the discussion section. This section needs more depth of analysis. They should also explain why these three research questions have been chosen.

2) "Reference authors used to create questionnaires for interviews, pilot testing and validation of interview questionnaires". This question is not answered, these aspects are important to give credibility to your research. 

3) They must answer all aspects requested in section 3. "Detailed reporting of the data collection procedures; data collection team, dates, problems, etc." Qualitative research studies should be reported in accordance to the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist or Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) checklist. Further reporting guidelines can be found in the Equator Network's Guidelines for reporting qualitative research.

4) Explain what methods of analysis have been used to achieve the results. Not only the choice of the stakeholders, but the analysis methods used to extract information from the questionnaires.

5) Content analysis, categories used in the analysis, explanation of the content analysis process and categories, justification of the method. Where are the analysis categories of your questionnaires and research? They need a read on the categories in qualitative analysis.

6)  A discussion of potential sources of bias. Some mention is made in the limitations.

7) In relation to the research title and research questions, there should be some more practical implication.

9) Transcription of the stakeholder interviews (model of interviews in annex and link to the transcription of the interviews). Interview transcripts should be included in an attached file. Some of the stakeholder opinions should be integrated into the text to support the discussion, and the research questions; also identify the main stakeholder profiles in relation to the level of influence or engagement.

11) Results linked to specific statements from stakeholder interviews. There are no comments from the interviews that provide greater richness to the analysis and plausibility.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 30.05.2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fernando Almeida-García, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-20-37799R3

Stakeholders engagement for solving mobility problems in touristic remote areas from the Baltic Sea Region

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ryciuk, 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The article has improved substantially and I think it can be published with some minor changes. You have worked on the aspect that was the most confusing, which was the methodology.

I am going to request the following minor aspects:

- Clearly explain the contribution of the research (in Introduction).

- Include as a secondary objective the practical implication of the research, so that the objectives are connected with the conclusions.

- Methodology. You mention that some workshops were held from which information was obtained. Explain the function of these workshops (number, dates, places, information gathering process, etc.), including photographs, if any, are included in the annex.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 05.06.2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fernando Almeida-García, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Stakeholders engagement for solving mobility problems in touristic remote areas from the Baltic Sea Region

PONE-D-20-37799R4

Dear Dr. Ryciuk,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fernando Almeida-García, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have resolved the doubts and problems that the article presented, I thank you for your perseverance and work, I am sure that your research has improved.