Progress in Research on Sustainable Urban Renewal Since 2000: Library and Visual Analyses
, Gerald Madjissembaye Guiradoumngué 1, Jian Zheng 2 and Linlin Liu 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Basically, this is a statistics on the database of different journal publications, which are related to sustainable urban renewal. The aim of this paper, as well as the link between the statistics results and the urban renewal, need to be emphasized provided more explanation in the abstract and conclusion sections for the readers’ understanding.
- A summarized figure for the research framework is recommended to be added to the “Introduction” section.
- Line 38, the authors directly inserted the reference number [2] in the sentences. Based on my opinion, it is not a typical style in academic papers and be suggested to minor modify them. For example, in line 38, to replace “According to [2], ….” with “According to the research by Donaldson and Plessis [2], ….”.
The same recommendation is also applied to line 72, 278, 283,303,367, and 372, which are the reference [13], [19], [37], [40], [56], and [55] respectively.
- Line 794 and 785, in references 13 and 14, please clarify the “Ew rban genda” is correct or not? Is it a typo for “New Urban Agenda”?
- Line 85, please revise the “Today” to “today”.
- Line 93-96, it is quite a long sentence and might cause difficulty for the readers' understanding.
- Line 159, it is not necessary to put the figure and table number in the brackets. i.e., to use “As shown in Figure2 and Table1,” to replace the “As shown (Figure2 and Table1),”. The same comments are applied throughout the whole manuscript.
- Line 581, the format of table 1 is strongly recommended to be revised. The year's number needs to be listed from the left (2000) to the right (2020). In addition, all of the numbers listed in this table should be kept in the same row. It is not a typical style to divide them into two rows.
The same comment is applied to Line 606, Table 5.
- Line 588, please explain how to identify the IF and H-index for all subjects, which are the statistics of different journals, listed in Table 3.
- Line 598, please clarify the “Chine” listed in the “Pays” column is correct or not? Is it a typo for “China”?
- Line 607, Figure 10. The ratio of vertical and horizontal scale needs to be adjusted.
- There are four areas of further research that are concluded in the conclusion section. However, it looks this is a major conclusion in this study. Thus, it is recommended to state and mention these four further research areas in the 4.Discussions and Innovations section.
Author Response
Dear,
Attached please find our response comments for our submission entitled Progress in research on sustainable urban renewal since 2000: Based on library and visual analysis by Bohong Zheng, Francis Masrabaye, Gerald Madjissembaye Guiradoumngué, Jian Zheng and Linlin Liu. After taking into account all the remarks and comments of the reviewers, we hope you will find our article suitable for publication in the Sustainability.
Thank you very much for your comments which have enabled us to improve the
work.
Sincerely Yours.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article serves as a literature review. it is difficult to look for research or scientific hypotheses here. Therefore, I believe that it is not a scientific article and should be rebuilt. However, if other reviewers say otherwise, please disregard my opinion.
Author Response
Dear,
Attached please find our response comments for our submission entitled Progress in research on sustainable urban renewal since 2000: Based on library and visual analysis by Bohong Zheng, Francis Masrabaye, Gerald Madjissembaye Guiradoumngué, Jian Zheng and Linlin Liu. After taking into account all the remarks and comments of the reviewers, we hope you will find our article suitable for publication in the Sustainability.
Thank you very much for your comments which have enabled us to improve the
work.
Sincerely Yours.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
You have chosen to review a topic that is of increasing interest to a range of academic fields. However, I do not feel that your current approach, whilst offering a detailed review of the literature, provides a strong enough synthesis of the findings. I also struggled to identify clear insights within the discussion section. I particularly dislike the way you have approached the most cited papers.
I am aware that this has been prepared by several authors and this is clear within the text. This paper needs a strong editorial review and a much more focused and logical structure. I found it confusing to read and understand what was being presented.
Writing in a second language, which I believe may be the case here, is always a challenge. I would suggest that the Introduction especially would benefit from a review by a native English speaker as it contains many incorrect uses of the language. It also requires work to improve the sense of the sentences that are being presented. Indeed as part of the editing I would strongly recommend language is checked throughout the document. There were too many instances where incorrect words were used, incorrect grammar and phrasing to note them all.
As a more minor point several tables had been stretched to fit a standard visual size. This would need to be addressed.
Author Response
Dear,
Attached please find our response comments for our submission entitled Progress in research on sustainable urban renewal since 2000: Based on library and visual analysis by Bohong Zheng, Francis Masrabaye, Gerald Madjissembaye Guiradoumngué, Jian Zheng and Linlin Liu. After taking into account all the remarks and comments of the reviewers, we hope you will find our article suitable for publication in the Sustainability.
Thank you very much for your comments which have enabled us to improve the
work.
Sincerely Yours.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, I can see you've done a tremendous amount of work to improve your article, please take some more time to make it even better than it is now:
1.Insert tables and figures into the text, I'm uncomfortable looking at the end of the article to see what the meaning of these tables and figures is
2. Item/ Chapter: "Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability"-find more examples, not only in Africa
3.Item/ Chapter :"A SWOT analysis of the field of virtual reality rehabilitation and therapy"- It is would like to see conclusions from this analisys,
I see you have read a lot of articles, but from yours article I would like to read conclusions and ways of developing research on sustainable cities, not just references to the articles and a brief summary of what it is about. The most cited publications were selected, but there is no suggestion how to use them, or how they make yours topic better. I propose to end each chapter with some summary, so that the reader will find this kind of usefulness in the article.
Ps:
Is this a deliberate procedure?
-line 363: 2.2. impact -lower case letter
-line 564 : ... -before "The United Kingdom"
Author Response
Attached please find our submission entitled Progress in research on sustainable urban renewal since 2000: Based on library and visual analysis by Bohong Zheng, Francis Masrabaye, Gerald Madjissembaye Guiradoumngué, Jian Zheng and Linlin Liu. After taking into account all the remarks and comments of the reviewers we hope you will find our article suitable for publication in the Sustainability.
Thank you for your work in processing our paper.
Looking forward to the majors review process.
Sincerely Yours,
Bohong Zheng *
School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha-China
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Further comments
Abstract: there are still some areas where sentence construction and grammar are poor/weak
e.g. ‘This study, which shows the continuity of researches on sustainable urban renewal aims at, we have identifying the literature on sustainable urban renewal based on a library analysis of scientific research since 2000.’
The amended section at the end of the abstract is much improved and offers greater clarity on this paper. Please could this standard be applied to the first part of the abstract.
Introduction
I am afraid that I have struggled to draw clear meaning from this section, despite obvious improvements being made. I have noted some of the points below. I strongly feel this needs much further work and is not acceptable in its existing form. English sentence construction remains a major issue.
Ln74-82: whilst this has been improved the opening part of the paragraph needs further work. The opening sections mix tenses and do not flow well.
Ln 149 and 150 – use of the word ‘precarious’ - I am not sure this is being used in the correct context – please check
Ln 151-152 – this opening sentence is confused on many levels – complexity does not create a war zone (or battle-field – not sure which you were trying to use) and it does not mean a necessary focus on urban areas. What is clear is that an increasing focus on multi-level and polycentric governance has highlighted the importance of urban areas, especially cities, in the climate change debate.
Ln 151-165 – this paragraph is confusing and does not make a clear point
Ln 185-187 – repetition of sentence
Ln 258 – I would have thought that the flow would be improved by putting Urban Renewal as 1.1 and then followed by Urban Renewal and Sustainable Development?
Ln 259 - extra space
Ln 261 -268 – poor sentence structure – rewrite. Meaning not clear, poor grammar.
Ln 273-274 - poor sentence construction ‘Historically, cities have been considered the centres of economic development, cultural and social’. Would suggest economic, cultural and social development
Ln 274 – remove ‘the’ before urban
Ln 275-276 – this is not constructed as a sentence
Ln 276- I do not think the use of the word ‘urbanity’ is correct in this context
I have not noted in such detail on the other sections. You have improved the detail within the methodology section, which seems much stronger. However in further analysis and discussion there are still many areas where I struggle to understand the sense of the debate. There are also missing references eg ln 1539
As examples
Ln 1457-1471 – you do not make it obvious to the reader what the four main areas of future research that your work has highlighted. At lines 1467-1471 you talk about concepts – are these the same as areas of future research – you also refer to a figure but do not reference it.
Ln 1473-1475 – I do not understand this first sentence
Ln 1615 – As you note in the next chapter you have only used one research database – should you not perhaps use the descriptor ‘major’ instead of ‘comprehensive’ review ?
Sorry, but again throughout this reflective section English is not of high enough quality. It is affecting the meaning and quality of the ideas being presented.
Author Response
Attached please find our submission entitled Progress in research on sustainable urban renewal since 2000: Based on library and visual analysis by Bohong Zheng, Francis Masrabaye, Gerald Madjissembaye Guiradoumngué, Jian Zheng and Linlin Liu. After taking into account all the remarks and comments of the reviewers we hope you will find our article suitable for publication in the Sustainability.
Thank you for your work in processing our paper.
Looking forward to the majors review process.
Sincerely Yours,
Bohong Zheng *
School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha-China
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Once again, I would like to emphasize the enormous amount of work by the authors to improve your article. It was a pleasure to be part of this work, and I think it is a valuable publication.
Author Response
Dear,
Attached you will find the responses to the comments in our article entitled: Progress in research on sustainable urban renewal since 2000: Based on library and visual analysis by Bohong Zheng, Francis Masrabaye, Gerald Madjissembaye Guiradoumngué, Jian Zheng and Linlin Liu. After taking into account all the remarks and comments from the critics, we hope you find our article suitable for publication in Sustainability.
Thank you for your comment which has helped us to improve the quality of our work.
Sincerely Yours,
Bohong Zheng *
School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha-China
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I am afraid that the quality of the English presented in this paper is still below the standard I would hope to see. I feel that this is not only affecting the quality of the 'read' but most importantly also affects the points that you are trying to make. In many places it is difficult to follow your arguments and discussion.
I have made many, but not an exhaustive list, of issues I have identified.
Comments
Ln 24 – axes is not the correct term
Ln 31 – suggest ‘were’ rather than ‘have been’
Ln 32-33 – this sentence is not grammatically correct
Ln 44-46 – this opening sentence has no context and does not make sense in relation to the previous paragraph
Ln 46- why is the sentence begun with the word ‘Thus’?
Ln49-51 – are you not trying to say that an alternative approach to urban clearance of old slum areas is reconstruction, identified as a more sustainable method of urban renewal?
Ln 52 – typo - his should read this
Ln 53-55 – the meaning of this sentence is not clear
Ln 63 – inanimate objects cannot be dissatisfied – not correct use of the word
Ln 68 – do you mean address rather than discuss complex issues?
Ln 68-70 – this sentence is not quite right – you are identifying that the topic has gaps and uncertainties
Ln 84- incorrect word – axes
Ln 85-86 – incorrect tense - sentence could be improved
Ln90-91 – you are not integrating sustainability into urban renewal – you are presenting and considering the literature on urban renewal and sustainable development
Ln 96-99 I feel that urban renewal does not prevent segregation but works to overcome segregation?
Ln 98-99 – this is not a sentence
Ln 101-102 – the end of this sentence does not make sense
Ln 102-104- this sentence does not fit with the earlier context
Ln 111 – 112 – the sentence makes no sense
Ln 138-140 – two sentences need revision.
Ln 156 – incorrect use of axes
Ln 160 h-index not H-index
Ln 171 – h-index not Index H
Ln 175 h-index
Ln 178-187 – incorrect type size
Ln 189 – Figure 2 not Figure2
Ln 200 – Not sure title of Figure 3 is correct?
Ln 251 – do you mean newspapers – or should this be academic papers?
Ln 258 – is the word ‘contributed’ necessary
Ln 260 – should the opening word be ‘Of’ rather than ‘On’
Ln 264 – should the sentence end with the word ‘literature’ ?
Ln 267 – it is not clear what the ‘main subjects’ mean/are. This descriptor is not used elsewhere in this paragraph
Ln 282 – title needs to be revised on the figure
Ln 305- Figure 10 - should this be in brackets or are you going to refer to it via text?
Ln 330-335 – poor sentence structure – difficult to follow discussion. Consider separating into two shorter sentences
Ln 359 – ‘four parts structures’ is not grammatically correct
Ln 391-393 – Sentence must be re-written - it is not understandable
Ln 394-395 – I do not understand what this means
Ln 443-446 – sentence does not make sense
Ln 446-447 – this information appears to have no relationship to the discussion
Ln 393-405 – these section does not flow. If introducing the goals you must relate them to the issue of urban renewal. Also sentence construction poor.498-500
Ln 504-508 – I do not understand the point that is being made
Ln 529 – it is not clear what ‘further action damage’ means
Ln532- error in author name
Ln 534 – what is urban shrinkage?
Ln 539-ln 544 – repeat
Ln 561-562 -not a sentence
Ln 566- I believe humans have been around for more than several decades AND it is not human emissions that are the problem but emissions generated through human activity
Ln 567-569 – not a sentence
Ln 574-575 – not a sentence
Ln 583-586 – not a sentence
Ln 586-587 – not a sentence
Ln 590-593 – not sentences
Ln 596-598 – not a sentence
Ln 605-607- not a sentence
Ln 612 – missing word(s) – ‘being one of the most problems’
Ln 678 – etc
Ln 686 – ‘old contours’ ?
Ln 690 – not a sentence
Ln 694-696 -not a sentence
Ln 704-707 – I do not understand this sentence
Ln 742 – ‘However’ is not necessary
Ln 771 – use of axes
Ln 791 – do not understand this opening sentence
Ln793-794 – this is not a sentence
Ln 797-798 – this does not make sense
Ln 800-803- sentence meaning and structure to be improved
Ln 818-820 – not a sentence
Ln 835-837 – not a sentence
Ln 838 – what does ‘origin’ mean – not clear in this sentence
Ln 852-853 – I am not clear about the meaning of this sentence
Ln 853-861- not a sentences- need to improve structure of this section
Ln 872-877 – improve the quality of these sentences and meaning
Ln 883 – not a sentence
Ln 892-895 – not a sentence
Ln 916-918 – not a sentence
Author Response
Dear,
Attached you will find the responses to the comments in our article entitled: Progress in research on sustainable urban renewal since 2000: Based on library and visual analysis by Bohong Zheng, Francis Masrabaye, Gerald Madjissembaye Guiradoumngué, Jian Zheng and Linlin Liu. After taking into account all the remarks and comments from the critics, we hope you find our article suitable for publication in Sustainability.
Thank you for your comment which has helped us to improve the quality of our work.
Sincerely Yours,
Bohong Zheng *
School of Architecture and Art, Central South University, Changsha-China
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
