A QGIS-Based Road Network Analysis for Sustainable Road Network Infrastructure: An Application to the Cachar District in Assam, India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled “A QGIS-based Road Network Analysis for Sustainable Road Network Infrastructure: An Application to the Cachar District in Assam, India”. The article presents the GIS-based analysis for sustainable road network infrastructure, interesting, and useful method in QGIS environment.
In my opinion, the research addresses the current issue. Methods and ways of aspects of a GIS-based analysis and its functionality are useful, and what is more very needed in environmental science. The formal aspects of the paper are not proper in this format. However, major scientific revisions are needed.
The introduction is not well structured, and it covers not all the concepts investigated in the methodological part. The authors need to stress the novelty of this study in the introduction section suggest the authors add more details about the state of the art approaches and methods for visualization of mapping, other projects related to 2D-3D visualization of data related to visualization would improve the paper. Please indicate how your findings can be useful in other disciplines, you can find some related papers:
DOI: 10.3390/ijgi11020108
DOI: 10.3390/ijgi11020132
The results and conclusions are correctly interpreted, but the real discussions are missing. I propose to add a discussion section to the paper, in which the authors also compare their results with other studies that focus on the aim of the study! The other important problem of the section of Results, that the own results are not compared with the literature data, data of other research in similar problem. Please provide at least one subchapter with this discussion.
The paper is in general written clearly and is easy to follow. However, some key details are missing (e.g. Discussion). Adding more details about the state of the art -- approaches and methods for visualization of geographic data, other project related to the visualization of data related to visualization would improve the paper.
Coming to other observations:
- Line 29-39: I suggest this part of article move into Methodology. Based on this observation, I suggest a new subsection namely “Description of study area”.
- Line 97: Missing references.
- Almost every figure needs to be revised, because of multiple reasons, see below.
- Fig 1-5, 7,9-10. Not clear and not readable. Please replace it with min. 300dpi figure, with larger text.
- Fig 6 and Fig 8. Improve the quality. Please replace it with min. 300dpi figure, with larger text.
- I suggest the authors add a new paragraph to introduce the highlights of visualization.
- In Methodology (e.g. software links) is missing references. Authors could add following reference: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119457091.ch3
- I recommend the authors add discussion to the manuscript!
Author Response
Respected reviewer, thank you so much for your valuable comments.
Please see the attached file for details of revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims to digitize the existing road network of Cachar district to find and display the optimal route in terms of distance between two junction points in the road network, using the shortest path tool in QGIS. The paper has an interesting objective, however the following issues should be tackled before the paper is accepted for publication.
· First of all, the aim of the research should be defined more clearly in the abstract.
· By the end of introduction it would be recommended to present the aim and the structure of the article.
· Also, the main contributions of this paper should be highlighted in the last paragraph of introduction section.
· The authors have to formulate research questions.
· Before the methodology, the authors have to provide solid literature review.
· The gaps in the literature review are not discussed. The originality of the study in relation to the previous studies is not well identified. The authors have to show research gaps, which are not covered by other studies.
· Proposed methodology is not clear. Further description of the methodology should be provided.
· In the Section “Results and Discussion”:
Ø the authors report a field study. This field study should be described and its results should be presented.
Ø Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 it would be recommended to combine them into one.
Ø Fig. 6 and Fig. 8 it would be recommended to be removed.
Ø authors should explain the research findings, showing how it relates to the literature review and research questions, and making an argument in support of the overall conclusion.
· References should be cited in numerical order. The reference order is wrong (e.g. Reference 11 is cited before Reference 2). You should check that the first citation of each reference appears in numerical order and update the reference order in the main text and reference list accordingly.
· Finally, the reference list should be extended and include papers from period 2021-2022.
Recommendation: Major Revisions
Author Response
Respected reviewer, thank you so much for your valuable comments.
Please see the attached file for details of revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The content of the paper has a very poor scientific soundness. This is rather a description of an analysis of a road network using dedicated software, than research with the use of a specific methodology. The effects are also weak. Finding the shortest way for two examples could be realized using for example google maps tool. The author wrote about the limitation of the use of google maps in areas with poor access to the internet, but how to use QGIS, ADMA, .kml files,.osm files, and the whole presented methodology in the same areas?
By the way, the result from the google map service looks more complex. As a practical use, not only the distances in the network, but the travel time considering the actual conditions, is more realistic. A comparison of results shows the role of the network and its parameters considered in a specific tool. This could be an interesting scientific problem but is not considered by the Author.
The next weakness of the manuscript is the literature review. The author writes about some papers but with no commentary about usefulness to his own work. For example:
Kurtin [9] presented a review, assessment and projection of network analysis in geographic information science.
With what findings?
Poser and Dransch [15] utilized GIS data for disaster management with application to rapid flood damage estimation.
With what results? Etc.
Considering, the aspects above, I recommend rejecting this manuscript.
Author Response
Respected reviewer, thank you so much for your valuable comments.
Please see the attached file for details of revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
However, the authors have made many important changes to the study that have changed the quality in a positive direction, there are still important flaws which need to be corrected.
Comments 1: However, authors modified the literature review, it is still very simple and not sufficient. I suggest that the author should not just evaluate the results of the 3 cited articles in the literature review, but provide an actual literature review of the visualisation possibilities and links to the topic of the article.
Comments 2: I suggest the author, delete the section of Structure of manuscript!
Comments 3: I suggest the author, add references into section 2.1.
Comments 4: Line 122: State Disaster Management Authority (ASDMA) (http://sdmassam.nic.in/) [see Figure 1]. => delete see!!!
Comments 5: As I mentioned in my last review, all figures must be improved! In the most figures can’t read the captions.
Comments 6: Avoid using bulleted lists in the section of results.
Author Response
Dear respected reviewer, thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions.
The same have been incorporated. Please check the attached PDF.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
All the requested changes of the initial review have been made in this new version of the paper and I think that the quality of the paper has reached the high standards of the Journal and therefore it can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear respected reviewer, thank you so much for your contribution towards improvement of the manuscript and providing acceptance to the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version of the manuscript is more clear and readable. I still evaluate this paper as low scientific. But, I saw, that the Author consider remarks from the other two reviewers. So, let them prepare their own revisions and I agree with these opinions.
Author Response
Dear respected reviewer, thank you so much for your contribution towards improvement of the manuscript and providing acceptance to the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for addressing the comments. In general, this revised version forms a better package than the previous one. I have no further conserns.
