PONE-D-23-19081Economic Freedom Index Effects on Tourist’s Arrivals in European Countries: A Spatial Panel AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hasan Hamza,

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 revise this paper according to the reviewers comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 31 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,

Nishanthi Rupika Abeynayake, Ph.D

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 you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Sakar Hasan Hasan Hamza.

4. 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/

5. 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.]

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

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: Authors have given considerable attention to the analysis of the data. However, it needs a better a structure. Writing style and gramma must be revised. Please refer to the comments made on manuscript.

Reviewer #2: I have thoroughly reviewed your paper and would like to provide some constructive feedback to enhance its effectiveness. It would be beneficial to place greater emphasis on the crucial role of tourism at the global level, while also highlighting the interconnection between tourism and economic freedom. By incorporating these aspects into your introduction, you can create a more comprehensive and professional piece of writing.

While you have provided a good starting point, I would suggest focusing on specific theories that are particularly relevant to the topic. The following theories could be incorporated into your analysis: Tourism-led Economic Growth Theory, Input-Output Analysis, Tourism Satellite Account (TSA), Destination Competitiveness Theory, Economic Multiplier Theory, and Social Exchange Theory. These theories offer robust frameworks for understanding the economic impacts and benefits associated with the tourism industry.

Furthermore, it is important to note that while these theories provide valuable insights, they are not exhaustive, and the selection of theories should be tailored to the specific context or region being examined. It would be beneficial to support your arguments by referring to empirical research, statistical analysis, and relevant case studies. This approach will enhance the validity and credibility of your findings, allowing you to effectively demonstrate the critical role of the tourism industry in driving economic prosperity.

The literature review appears to lack a clear logical flow, making it difficult for readers to follow the progression of ideas. Consider organizing the review in a more structured manner, such as by thematic categories or chronological order, to enhance its coherence and readability.

It would be valuable to synthesize the findings and conclusions from the reviewed literature. Highlight the key themes, trends, and conflicting perspectives that emerge from the existing studies. This synthesis will not only provide a comprehensive overview but also help establish the rationale for your research and its contribution to the field.

Ensure that your citations are consistently and accurately formatted throughout the literature review. Properly attributing the sources will enhance the credibility and professionalism of your work.

To improve clarity, consider breaking down complex equations into smaller components and clearly defining each parameter used. Additionally, provide explanations or contextual information to help readers understand the purpose and meaning of the equations in the context of your study. Ensure that all parameters used in your methodology are described in a logical and easily understandable manner. Avoid assuming prior knowledge on the part of the reader. Provide clear explanations for each parameter, including their definitions.

Reviewer #3: Title:

The title of the article is both well-chosen and appropriate for the content it encompasses. It effectively captures the essence of the research and provides readers with a clear understanding of the article's focus.

Abstract & keywords:

The abstract is poorly structured. Highlights of problem identification need to be included in the abstract. Highlighting the problem identification and stating the objectives of the study clearly with aid to understand the originality of the work.

Moreover, certain claims on the economic freedom index seemed to be vague.

Examples:

1. More importantly, the economic freedom index has a significant effect on tourism arrivals in Europe

• Need to clarify the nature and direction of the impacts of the index

2. While some components of economic freedom have marginal effects,

• This is again a vague statement and the author needs to be more specific in reporting his results even in the abstract

3. Our findings have meaningful implications for policymakers interested in sustainable tourism in European countries

• Better to state what these implications are in brief

Better to rewrite the abstract considering the above points.

Keywords: well-chosen and appropriate

Introduction:

The introduction sets out a good platform for the study.

However, the identification of the research problem is not well justified.

Certain terms need to be defined in order to facilitate the understanding (ex: four significant categories of economic freedom by Heritage Foundation need to be defined. the rule of law, market openness, regulatory efficiency, and government size)

Better to expand the references rather than listing them all together in one place, so that the reader can understand which author has found out which relationship. (ex: few studies have examined the effects of press and personal freedom, civil liberties, and economic and political freedom, corruption, and economic freedom (Su and Lin 2014; Kubickova 2016; Saha, Su, and Campbell 2017; Tang 2018; Kubickova 2019; Bulut, Kocak, and Suess 2020; Öcal and Yildirim 2010))

Literature review:

The author shows a good understanding of broad, relevant literature. The review provides a comprehensive overview of different indices and their impacts on tourism.

A few issues are being identified in relation to the formatting and presentation of the section.

Certain citation formats need to be revised (Ex: first reference in the literature review section, Saha and Yap ((2014) on page no 05).

Certain references are too old to be used and highlight the need to use recent articles.

Methodology:

Methodology and the relevant models are well-explained and suitable for the study.

Results & Discussion:

This section provides very good analyses and clarifications to support answering the research questions.

Author had made a commendable attempt to relate the findings of the study to the previous literature.

Conclusions:

Better to include a separate section for conclusions, implications and future research.

References:

Referencing is satisfactory. However, need to revisit to the section as certain references cited in the text are not included in the list of references (ex: Heritage Foundation 2020) on page number 2 second paragraph).

Language and formatting

The quality of English and general presentation is satisfactory.

While the expression is generally clear, there are a few issues in general word formatting, punctuation and grammar.

**********

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:  TPSR Guruge

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-19081 with comments.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript.docx

PONE-D-23-19081R1Economic Freedom Index Effects on Inbound Tourism in European Countries: A Spatial AnalysiPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamza,

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 Mar 09 2024 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,

Thang Quyet Nguyen, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The revised verson has been improved much. The manuscript needs to be supplemented with theoretical foundations. The methods of analysis and techniques used need to be further clarified. It is particularly important for the manuscript needs to clearly highlight the newly discovered points from the research.

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

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

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: 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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: 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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: 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: Author/s have addressed all comments satisfactorily. However, they could consider reducing the number of unmercenary tables and equations as it breaks the flow. Measurement of variables can be showed using equations.

Reviewer #4: To Editor:

The authors have made considerable attempts to address issues raised in the previous reviews. However, the present revision still needs further attention, including the methodology and result sections for a better structure. The detailed comments as below.

Abstract

The abstract of an empirical study should be more specific by reporting results in numbers rather than merely qualitative statements, as in the current revision; brief policy implications need to be included in this applied research and in specific contexts.

Methodology

- The choice of Destination Completeness Theory (DCT) should be further justified to replace others, such as the Tourism-led Growth Theory which seems to be more relevant to the topic and has already been mentioned in the literature review section. The introduction of DCT should be put in the review section to make a more logical flow to build a framework.

- Consider organizing the methodology section to delve mainly into a framework or theoretical hypothesis (if any) that emerged from previous sections and provide explanations or justifications for the choice of the empirical strategy or specification of regression equations. This elaboration not only establishes the rationale for the research idea but also enhances the robustness of the estimated results.

Results/Data

- The database does not fully describe whether tourists come from only the EU or other countries. It should be from only the EU. A description of the countries list should also be added (maybe in the appendix) as the present data only code numbers instead of names of countries.

- The concepts and terms of economic freedom and its components need to be clearly defined by the authors rather than letting the reader guess, such as the Trade Openness. This can impact the study's outcomes since there are several different measures of trade openness (e.g., export, import, or the total of both to GDP).

- The constructed variables and their descriptive statistics should be put in the methodology section together with the data section or in a separate section for better paper structure and to avoid disfunctioning the results section, which focuses on only the estimated results or main outcomes of the study.

/Estimation of the results

- This section causes much confusion and lacks consistency between paragraphs second and third, and within each one there is also inconsistency among sentences, mainly because of not indicating the terms home country and neighboring countries in many contexts. E.g., some of them are: “the increase in destination country prices positively affects tourist arrivals”; “As per theoretical predictions, an increase in the price level should increase the prices of goods and services in the destination countries, thereby enhancing the destination country's competitiveness”; “A review of Figure 2 reveals that for 170 countries in 2017, the relationship between price levels and tourist arrivals is a positive communication pattern.” “Even an increase in neighboring countries' prices results in a flow of tourists to neighboring countries and a decline in entries.”

- Since the data is not described clearly, as mentioned above, this statement needs to be fully justified and more specific: “The increase could be attributed to the arrival of tourists from neighboring countries, regional tourism industry development, or the overall increase in tourists in the developed world.”

- The authors should use the usual way of presenting p-values for easier reading, such as *, **, and *** for different levels of significant statistics; several tables should be put in the appendix to spare space for other main results with further discussion.

Because the specification of regression models and their choices of variables are often subjective and there is a complicated nexus between each country’s price level and tourist arrivals, the authors should provide a separate section or some validity tests and analyses on the robustness of the estimated results. Several sensitive tests may include using different subsets of the data (e.g., the European countries with and without the European Union); different development levels (e.g., GDP per capita); etc.

Others

Some grammatical and typing/formating errors remain, such as: “under researched,” “comprehensive comprehension,” “Dependency Critique Theory (DCT),” “data,” “Estimation of result.” The whole paper should be rechecked for consistency in grammar, formatting, and structure.

Reviewer #5: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-19081R1

Title: Economic Freedom Index Effects on Inbound Tourism in European Countries: A Spatial Analysis

1. Abstract & keywords:

Even though the second verson has been improved, it is better for the authors to emphasize on the significance or the contribution of this paper. At the moment, authors seems to spend too much on writing the results.

2. Introduction:

The revised verson has been improved much. However, there are still some minor issues. First of all, the brief introduction of the key issues are still missing. Authors should include the defintion in the first or second paragraph. Secondly, the research gap has been poorly emphasized in the introduction. Finally, authors might consider including the research objectives at the end of the introduction.

3. Literature review

While authors have included several studies, a logical focus is still missing. Authors should try to emphasize on the key point of each section, instead of just listing study.

4.Methodology

The structure of this section is quite strange.

The introduction of Destination Competitiveness Theory should be placed in the introduction or Literature review, not in the methodology. Second, objectives should be in the Introduction

Methodology should focus on how to collect and analyze the data.

5. Results:

6. Discussion

In the conclusion section, authors should not dicuss the data results. It should be in the Results section. Dicussion should focus on the findings of the study and its contribution.

There shoul be one separate section about limitation and future research (extend the last 3 sentences)

7. Language and formatting

While the language quality is acceptable, there are still minors grammar mistake. Please doublcheck.

Reviewer #6: Dear Author

I have read your previous notes and corrections. The changes you made are quite good and make your paper more interesting. However, I feel there is still something you need to complete, namely there needs to be a discussion section. This is considered very necessary because in the discussion section you will discuss reflections on all your findings, apart from that you can also argue the value of objectivity between theory and findings. Thank you

**********

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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes:  Yandra Rivaldo

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.docx

PONE-D-23-19081R2Economic Freedom Index Effects on Inbound Tourism in European Countries: A Spatial AnalysiPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamza,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The manuscript needs to be meticulously and carefully edited. It should provide a more comprehensive review of the literature and updated information. The methods of analysis and techniques used need to be further clarified. Importantly, the manuscript should prominently highlight the new findings discovered through the research. It is particularly important for the article needs to clearly highlight the newly discovered points from the research. The format and language used are also important areas of concern for the article.

I am also enclosing the comprehensive comments from reviewers here for you to make necessary improvements to the article 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 19 2024 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,

Thang Quyet Nguyen, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

[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-23-19081R3Economic Freedom Index Effects on Inbound Tourism in European Countries: A Spatial AnalysiPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamza,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: I am providing the extensive feedback from reviewers for your consideration in order to enhance the manuscript. I emphasize that the explanation of the editing of the manuscript must be careful and detailed

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 07 2024 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,

Thang Quyet Nguyen, 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.]

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 #7: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

**********

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 #7: No

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #7: No

Reviewer #8: 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 #7: No

Reviewer #8: No

**********

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 #7: No

Reviewer #8: 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 #7: - The written introduction needs to clearly show the practical context: Need more data..., lack of theoretical context

- Apply the theoretical base

- Old references need updating

- The qualitative research part needs to be described in more detail such as: discussing the scale...

- Tables need deeper analysis.

- How should we compare the differences with other studies?

- The implication is that the writing needs to be more focused.

Reviewer #8: 1. I could not agree with your assertion that this is the first study that harnesses on a spatial analysis to unravel the relationship between economic freedom and tourism. For example, of existing studies in that direction see below:

Ouchen, A., & Montargot, N. (2022). Non-spatial and spatial econometric analysis of tourism demand in a panel of countries around the world. Spatial Economic Analysis, 17(2), 262-283.

Xie, W., Li, H., & Yin, Y. (2021). Research on the spatial structure of the European union’s tourism economy and its effects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1389.

Based on this evidence, can you rephrase your statement and enhance your contribution.

2. The motivation of the study is not substantially justified given that your primary contribution is not grounded as there are numerous studies that have used the spatial approach, I am not convinced whether you have strongly justified your methodology and scope of study. Provide more information on the methods used by the existing studies in your literature review and tease out the gap you intend to fill. Since you failed to provide discernible evidence of the methodologies used in previous studies, it is difficult to accept that you are the first authors to use the methodology in your study.

3. Reconcile some statements in your conclusion and findings. For example;

“Furthermore, while the coefficients for six economic freedom indices are meaningless, the coefficients for the Trade Freedom Index, the Investment Freedom Index, the Property Rights Index, and the Government Integrity Index are significantly positive.” What does this statement mean? Insignificant or significant?

4. Can you justify why these findings are apparent? Provide some evidence-based rationale for these findings juxtaposing with previous studies.

“The neighboring countries' total economic freedom index demonstrates positive and significant effects. Furthermore, most economic freedom variables, such as the Business Freedom Index, the Investment Freedom Index, the Labor Freedom Index, the Trade Freedom Index, and the Government Integrity Index, exhibit a statistically significant and positive effect. However, neighboring countries' Monetary Freedom Index results in a decrease in the number of domestic arrivals. Among the various indicators, only improvements in the country's and neighboring countries' Investment Freedom Index and Government Integrity Index increase domestic arrivals. However, the Financial Freedom Index, the Tax Burden Index, and the Government Spending Index demonstrate no significant effect.”

**********

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 #7: No

Reviewer #8: Yes: 

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND TOURISM review report.docx

PONE-D-23-19081R4Economic Freedom Index Effects on Inbound Tourism in European Countries: A Spatial AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamza,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITORThe manuscript needs to be meticulously and carefully edited. It should provide a more comprehensive review of the literature and updated information. Some terms and theories should be explained more clearly such as "institutional economic theory"... The methods of analysis and techniques used need to be further clarified. The methodology should clearly explain a variables in model and the data processingl. It is particularly important for the article needs to clearly highlight the newly discovered points from the research. The format and language used are also important areas of concern for the article.

I am also enclosing the comprehensive comments from reviewer here for you to make necessary improvements to the article==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 09 2024 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,

Thang Quyet Nguyen, 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.]

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 #9: 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 #9: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #9: 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 #9: 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 #9: 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 #9: 1. The abstract showed a study on the relationship between economic freedom and inbound tourism in European countries using spatial econometrics model. The study addressed an important research gap that need to conduct the research. The abstract mentioned methodology by using a spatial panel data approach and analyzing data from 41 European nations based on spatial framework. The abstract also showed clearly the key findings and policy implications.

2. The introduction provided a comprehensive between and well-structured entry into the topic of economic freedom index effecting on inbound tourism in European countries. The introduction mentioned an importance of inbound tourism in Europe, relevance of economic freedom, gaps in existing research, using spatial econometric models and clear research objectives. However, there are the following points should be improved:

- The introduction should not present the detail theories because the content will be showed in the literature review.

- Some terms and theories should be explained more clearly such as "institutional economic theory".

- Should briefly explain the spatial econometric model.

3. The literature review presented a comprehensive and well-structured content. The review showed the effects of economic freedom on inbound tourism. the determinants showed clearly such as GDP, price levels, exchange rates, income sensitivity. The review also mentioned spatial analysis and destination competitiveness theory. The literature review should clearly identify the gap based on the previous research and discussing more recent trend in research on inbound tourism. If possible the review should show a broader implications of economic freedom and clearly show the link between economic freedom and policy.

4. The methodology should clearly explain a variables in model and the data processing.

5. The results and finding are clearly and concisely.

6. Conclusions, policy implications and limitation:

- The conclusions presented the clearly the research topic.

- The policy implications should clearly suggest based on findings: the relationship between economic freedom and inbound tourism; tourism infrastructure, trade liberalization.

- Limitations should focus on model limitation (eg. not mention cultural and political factors), data constraints, external factors.

7. Revise the references and some paragraphs should be clarified and more focus.

**********

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.

**********

[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.

Economic Freedom Index Effects on Inbound Tourism in European Countries: A Spatial Analysis

PONE-D-23-19081R5

Dear Dr. Hamza,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Thang Quyet Nguyen, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

**********