PONE-D-23-08262Tourist Distribution In Northern Mediterranean Basin Countries: 2004-2020PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ertemel,

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.

Reviewer #1: It is a complete manuscript and fits the aims and scope of the journal’s topic.

Therefore, at least a ‘’Major Revision’’ is required to substantially improve this

manuscript. Specifically, the reviewer has the following comments:

POINT 1: The authors should include a bibliometric analysis in the title of the paper.

POINT 2: Abstract: you might try to better clarify the theoretical gap you intend to contribute to. A bit more info could have been added in terms of the used methodology and how do you analyze the data.

POINT 3: Keywords: The authors should avoid the syntax keywords, for example: ‘’distribution in tourism’’ should be divided to two keywords ‘’Tourism’’, ‘’Distribution’’.

POINT 4: A check to eliminate some typos is needed.

POINT 5: The introduction is not solid; it lacks crucial information. An introduction should be insightful and robust, providing readers with a clear understanding of the entire paper.

POINT 6: It is recommended to state the search structure in the last paragraph of the introduction.

POINT 7: The literature review is not clear.

POINT 8: The authors should justify why choosing WOS rather than Scopus for bibliometric analysis.

POINT 9: The authors have neglected many studies conducted in distribution in tourism by using these keywords.

POINT 10: The layout is missed in Figures 2 and 3.

POINT 11: The methodology is not well described and justified.

POINT 12: The format of references is not adequate with PlOS ONE requirement.

Reviewer #2: Innovation potential is very limited

Research hypothesis is not clearly formulated

What authors aim to analyze and conclude is not convincingly demonstrated and formulated

The paper although emphasis in Tourist sector does not provide and useful information and the state of the art (introduction) does not highlight the importance of hospitality industry. There are too many references highlighting the importance of Mediterranean area and why is chosen from other destinations and this is not explained

In addition, methodological approach does not include several elements e.g how the data were collected, how the review was performed, etc. Hence, i couldn't find any statistical analysis or wasn't so clear

results provide typical numbers without any explanation of the importance of the specific KPIs that Authors used.

The paper lack discussion section in depth

Reviewer #3: The paper topic is interesting. I have some comments, which must be addreesed before the paper is considered for publication.

1- the authors used WoS and a Turkish database. However, it's worth noting that the adequacy of resources for a bibliometric analysis depends on the specific research question, scope, and objectives of your study. In some cases, researchers may also consider other databases like Scopus, Google Scholar, or specific subject-specific databases to ensure a more comprehensive analysis. It's essential to choose the most appropriate databases and sources based on your research needs and disciplinary context. Please justify why you relied only on these databases.

2- the authors mentioned that "This study contributes to the literature by conducting a distribution analysis of annual

tourist gains and analyzing the distribution of incoming tourists based on the country's area

using inequality indices"

However, what does that mean to the existing literature is not discussed.

3- There are no theoretical or empirical implications sections to discuss what the findings means to the literature or practitioners. How the findings will benefit other than helping in developing global network analysis index.

4- in the scope section:

There should be more discussion tot he existing literature to know the conceptual background of the topic.

5- There should be either a research context to show data about the northern mideternian countries tourists or include these data in the introduction to make this context familiar to reader from outside the area. Check the below reference for guidance on the research context:

Mahrous, A. A. (2016). Implications of the use of social media for pre-purchase information searches for automobiles. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(3), 254-275.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2023 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: https://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,

Wilmer Carvache-Franco, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

2. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

     1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].

    2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3.  Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, please make the corrections provided by your reviewers.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: It is a complete manuscript and fits the aims and scope of the journal’s topic.

Therefore, at least a ‘’Major Revision’’ is required to substantially improve this

manuscript. Specifically, the reviewer has the following comments:

POINT 1: The authors should include a bibliometric analysis in the title of the paper.

POINT 2: Abstract: you might try to better clarify the theoretical gap you intend to contribute to. A bit more info could have been added in terms of the used methodology and how do you analyze the data.

POINT 3: Keywords: The authors should avoid the syntax keywords, for example: ‘’distribution in tourism’’ should be divided to two keywords ‘’Tourism’’, ‘’Distribution’’.

POINT 4: A check to eliminate some typos is needed.

POINT 5: The introduction is not solid; it lacks crucial information. An introduction should be insightful and robust, providing readers with a clear understanding of the entire paper.

POINT 6: It is recommended to state the search structure in the last paragraph of the introduction.

POINT 7: The literature review is not clear.

POINT 8: The authors should justify why choosing WOS rather than Scopus for bibliometric analysis.

POINT 9: The authors have neglected many studies conducted in distribution in tourism by using these keywords.

POINT 10: The layout is missed in Figures 2 and 3.

POINT 11: The methodology is not well described and justified.

POINT 12: The format of references is not adequate with PlOS ONE requirement.

Reviewer #2: Innovation potential is very limited

Research hypothesis is not clearly formulated

What authors aim to analyze and conclude is not convincingly demonstrated and formulated

The paper although emphasis in Tourist sector does not provide and useful information and the state of the art (introduction) does not highlight the importance of hospitality industry. There are too many references highlighting the importance of Mediterranean area and why is chosen from other destinations and this is not explained

In addition, methodological approach does not include several elements e.g how the data were collected, how the review was performed, etc. Hence, i couldn't find any statistical analysis or wasn't so clear

results provide typical numbers without any explanation of the importance of the specific KPIs that Authors used.

The paper lack discussion section in depth

Reviewer #3: The paper topic is interesting. I have some comments, which must be addreesed before the paper is considered for publication.

1- the authors used WoS and a Turkish database. However, it's worth noting that the adequacy of resources for a bibliometric analysis depends on the specific research question, scope, and objectives of your study. In some cases, researchers may also consider other databases like Scopus, Google Scholar, or specific subject-specific databases to ensure a more comprehensive analysis. It's essential to choose the most appropriate databases and sources based on your research needs and disciplinary context. Please justify why you relied only on these databases.

2- the authors mentioned that "This study contributes to the literature by conducting a distribution analysis of annual

tourist gains and analyzing the distribution of incoming tourists based on the country's area

using inequality indices"

However, what does that mean to the existing literature is not discussed.

3- There are no theoretical or empirical implications sections to discuss what the findings means to the literature or practitioners. How the findings will benefit other than helping in developing global network analysis index.

4- in the scope section:

There should be more discussion tot he existing literature to know the conceptual background of the topic.

5- There should be either a research context to show data about the northern mideternian countries tourists or include these data in the introduction to make this context familiar to reader from outside the area. Check the below reference for guidance on the research context:

Mahrous, A. A. (2016). Implications of the use of social media for pre-purchase information searches for automobiles. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(3), 254-275.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[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.

Tourist Distribution In Northern Mediterranean Basin Countries: 2004-2020

PONE-D-23-08262R1

Dear Dr. Ertemel,

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,

Wilmer Carvache-Franco, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: The paper, as it exists in its present form, has met the necessary criteria and standards for publication, indicating that it is ready to be published without requiring any further revisions or modifications

**********

7. 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

**********