Sustainability in Peripheral and Ultra-Peripheral Rural Areas through a Multi-Attribute Analysis: The Case of the Italian Insular Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research presented here addresses a current issue of great interest to the authorities in the area. The structure and wording is correct.
As a recommendation, it would be useful for the authors to consider changing the name of the "discussion" section to "conclusions", since it is not strictly speaking a section for discussion of results. On the other hand, it would be advisable to have more emphasis on the practical and theoretical application of the research work.

Author Response

General comment:

1.The research design can be improved

Response:

We accordingly extended the research design. Thanks  

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: 

1.it would be useful for the authors to consider changing the name of the "discussion" section to "conclusions"  

Response: We add to discussion an additional section: conclusions. Thanks  

2.it would be advisable to have more emphasis on the practical and theoretical application of the research work.  

Response: Done, in conclusions section. Thanks    

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting, and the methodology and results are well presented. However, there are some shortcomings in the paper that need to be addressed.

• The introduction lacks papers that dealt with similar or the same topic. More precisely, it is necessary to list such papers in order to highlight the scientific contribution of your paper (in the Discussion). It is necessary, therefore, to state how your research differs from the existing scientific literature.
• In the materials and methods, it is necessary to clearly state what your scientific contribution is and what is taken from the existing literature. This is especially relate of formulas that are not adequately referenced.
• I suggest you keep the recommended chapter division. The third chapter does not need to be separated from the results where you describe the research area. The theoretical basis needs to be defined in the introductory part of the paper.
• Also, the authors should better explain what makes their research significant from given literature. The discussion section gives an explanation of the results, but what should be briefly explained is the aim of the research achieved and prove that by comparing the research with similar ones. The Conclusion section should then have final authors' conclusions regarding the obtained results, and how do these results contribute to the research field. It is not mandatory, but future research could be briefly described.

Author Response

General comment:

1. Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Must be improved

Response:

We detailed the references in introduction section. Thanks

2. The research design can be improved Can be improved

Response:

We accordingly extended the research design. Thanks

3. Are the methods adequately described? Can be improved

Response:

For improving the description of the methods, we introduced references. Thanks

4. Are the conclusions supported by results? Must be improved

Response:

Done, we add an additional section. Thanks

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: 

1.The introduction lacks papers that dealt with similar or the same topic. More precisely, it is necessary to list such papers in order to highlight the scientific contribution of your paper (in the Discussion). It is necessary, therefore, to state how your research differs from the existing scientific literature.

Response:

We detailed the references in introduction section.In order to highlight the scientific contribution of our paper, we add a section Conclusions. Thanks

2. In the materials and methods, it is necessary to clearly state what your scientific contribution is and what is taken from the existing literature. This is especially relate of formulas that are not adequately referenced.

Response:

For improving the description of the methods, we introduced references, and in conclusions section we explained our scientific contribution. Thanks

3. I suggest you keep the recommended chapter division. The third chapter does not need to be separated from the results where you describe the research area. The theoretical basis needs to be defined in the introductory part of the paper.

Response:

We modified chapter divisions by adding a section (Conclusions). The theoretical basis in the introduction section was enriched by more detailed references. Thanks

4. The authors should better explain what makes their research significant from given literature.

Response:

Done in the additional section: conclusions. Thanks

5. The discussion section gives an explanation of the results, but what should be briefly explained is the aim of the research achieved and prove that by comparing the research with similar ones.

Response:

Done in the additional section: conclusions. Thanks

6. The Conclusion section should then have final authors' conclusions regarding the obtained results, and how do these results contribute to the research field. It is not mandatory, but future research could be briefly described. 

Response:

Done, we add an additional section: conclusions. Thanks

As far as English language and style is concerned, we submitted our paper to English Language Service arranged by MDPI, before sending it 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors The present manuscript entitled "Sustainability in Peripheral and Ultra-Peripheral Rural Areas through a Multi-Attribute Analysis: The Case of the Italian Insular Region" and resulted in rule generation, specifically, decision rules that are able to suggest tools for policy makers at different levels. The manuscript is well written and introduction is presented very well with significant informations. Materials and methods are quite detailed and very well presented. Case study and discussions are quite impressive and very well presented as well. Although there is a need to draw a clear and concise conclusion and add to the manuscript for readers. Thank you

Author Response

General comment:

1. Are the conclusions supported by results? Must be improved

Response:

Done: we added an additional section (Conclusions) having in mind the supported results. Thanks

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: 

1. There is a need to draw a clear and concise conclusion and add to the manuscript for readers

Response:

Done: we added an additional section (Conclusions). Thanks

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered and included all the reviewer's comments in the manuscript. The manuscript is significantly improved. For this reason, I recommend to accept it as it is for the next step.