Next Article in Journal
Influence of the Intrinsic Characteristics of Cementitious Materials on Biofouling in the Marine Environment
Next Article in Special Issue
City of Waste—Importance of Scale
Previous Article in Journal
Retail Potential for Upcycled Foods: Evidence from New Zealand
Previous Article in Special Issue
Revitalization of Public Spaces in Cittaslow Towns: Recent Urban Redevelopment in Central Europe
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Baroque Origins of the Greenery of Urban Interiors in Lower Silesia and the Border Areas of the Former Neumark and Lusatia

Sustainability 2021, 13(5), 2623; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052623
by Bogna Ludwig
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(5), 2623; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052623
Submission received: 21 January 2021 / Revised: 9 February 2021 / Accepted: 19 February 2021 / Published: 1 March 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting topic and relies on high originality. However, the research methodology is not properly emphasized, and the paper structure needs major improvements. The materials and methods section does not present any method - only an "analysis of local sources." I strongly suggest this analysis to be clarified so that a methodological framework is presented there. Otherwise, it could be considered as a "background" section. In this case, the paper would lack a methodology presentation. I would consider splitting results and discussion into two different sections. This work's contribution to the field would also be emphasized if its results were made clearer and articulated with its methods.

 

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editors,

I would like to thank You for opportunity of evaluation of the manuscript. The submitted manuscript titled „Baroque origins of the greenery of urban interiors in Lower Silesia and the border areas of the former Neumark and Lusatia” presents interesting results. However, I found some flawns, which should be improved before an eventual publication. In my opinion the chapter "Metodology" should be improved. Also the extensive chapter "Results and Discussion" is difficult to follow and understand.

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article was consistently improved in this review. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

In my opinion text has been sufficiently improved and I do not have suggestions regarding further corrections.

Back to TopTop