Next Article in Journal
Are Mechanical and Biological Techniques Efficient in Restoring Soil and Associated Biodiversity in a Brownfield Site?
Next Article in Special Issue
Trade-Off between Land Use Pattern and Technical Efficiency Performance: Evidence from Arable Crop Farming in Tunisia
Previous Article in Journal
Wood-Based Products in the Circular Bioeconomy: Status and Opportunities towards Environmental Sustainability
Previous Article in Special Issue
Density, Diversity, and Design: Evaluating the Equity of the Elderly Communities in Three Measures of the Built Environment
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

A Bibliometric Analysis on Smart Cities Related to Land Use

Land 2022, 11(12), 2132; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122132
by María Teresa Bastanchury-López 1,* and Carmen De-Pablos-Heredero 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Land 2022, 11(12), 2132; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122132
Submission received: 20 October 2022 / Revised: 23 November 2022 / Accepted: 24 November 2022 / Published: 26 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Land: 10th Anniversary)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper raises a significant topic, i.e., academics' knowledge of smart cities in relation to land use. It has the potential to make a sound contribution to relevant fields. However, it is pity that the submitted manuscript is rather descriptive in nature, without conducting an in-depth analysis of the knowledge evolution in relation to the topic and discussing its inspirations for future research. Further, the manuscript has not made an extensive exploration regarding the content and progress of the major research themes of the topic, making readers unclear still about the research progress and particularly the research gaps of smart cities studies that focus on land use. In addition, Three exists many logical and linguistic mistakes, e.g., in the paragraph between line 103 and line 105, which can be avoided if the author(s) paid more careful attention. Besides, the language used in the manuscript is not very academic but a bit casual. The contents of line 140 and line 142 are exactly the same.  In summary, this manuscript is a good draft with potential but very substantial revisions are required to be favorable for publication.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this exciting paper; however, screening the paper shows that this is more a project or seminar work than a scientific article or review. I want to ask the authors to reduce bullet points to their minimum, maybe only in conclusions, to reduce Figures and Tables to a maximum of 5 each, and if needed, split/move more than the sixth ones in Appendices. In this case, the review became readable and more concise. For example, Figure one is not necessary to be included in the paper. If the authors still insist, then move it to Appendix.

Moreover, add the motivation to the intro section, and insert the objectives and specific objectives.

Overall, if this is a bibliometric article/review, I would like to see more citations/literature. Less than one hundred is not enough.

It would be beneficial to split section three into two separate sections 3.1 could be a data section and 3.2 a Result section. After line 370, the new section, a Discussion section could be added.

Use scientific words, not everyday words, like "the hot topics today" could be replaced by "Nowadays essential issues in the cities are...". So, do copy editing.

In the conclusions, add who will benefit when reading your article and why: students, policy management, or scientists,...

If these necessary things are done, the article could be accepted.

Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is highly appreciated that the authors made a substantial revision to the original manuscript. The academic quality of the paper has greatly improved. However, regarding the content and progress of the major research themes of the topic, the authors only simply select some representative papers and present their research foci or findings. The manuscript has not made an in-depth, integrated, and systematic elaboration surrounding the research status quo of related research themes. Besides, the presentation of the current manuscript is not reader-friendly still as a result of inconsistent typesetting and numerous language mistakes. It is suggested that the authors proofread the manuscript carefully again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop