Analysis of the Relationship between Beijing Rail Transit and Urban Planning Based on Space Syntax

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the authors have returned with a completed version of the manuscript, it has major shortcomings.

1. The introduction has been slightly improved, but the previous observations remain valid: the novelty of the paper is not highlighted, therefore it is not clear if it exists.

We recommended the authors to present a critical analysis of the studies in the field based on which to highlight the novelty of the paper. However, here's how they came to complete the introduction: 'There is relatively scarce literature on the rail transit network of the national railway, subway, and suburban railway. This study, therefore, sorts out the relationship between Beijing's urban planning and rail transit in different historical periods and explores space syntax analysis in various rail transit structures.'

2. The conclusions of the paper are dry, without contribution and support what I have pointed out above - the paper does not contribute to the current state of knowledge.

'After analyzing Beijing's multi-center and multi-circle rail transit structure, it is concluded that the current division of labor in Beijing's rail transit is still unclear.'

'However, after analyzing the synergy, it is found that the application of space syntax still needs to be analyzed in combination with the actual situation, and the quality of the rail transit structure cannot be judged only by numerical values.'

Therefore, the results of the study at conclusions such as: 'is still unclear' and 'still needs to be analyzed'.

In view of the above observations, I cannot recommend the paper for publication in a top journal such as Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Arguments and discussions might be deeper and more comprehensive.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

the paper is very difficult to read, it needs more clarity. 

Regards, 

Siti

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The current paper studies the relationship between urban planning and rail transit development for the case of Beijing using space syntax method. Although the topic is interesting and the writing format is straightforward, the paper needs major revisions before being accepted. Here, you can find some comments: 

1- The author should briefly mention their method in the abstract. 

2- Line 33-36: More details about the previous literature, specifically their results are needed to make the comparison easy for readers.  

3- The structure of paper is missing (Last paragraph of the introduction).

4- Table 2: I suggest to present the table in reverse.  

5- Section 3: I can`t see any details regarding your method. Indeed, there is no specific boundary between your method and result. They should be presented clearly and separately.

6- Figure 3: The quality of figure is low. Also, red (hot) colors are usually used for worse (low) scores in legends.

7- The conclusion should include suggestions for future research. 

8- My main concern is the lack of novelty for this research. Since the applied method was not developed by authors, I strongly recommend to clearly present the contribution of this paper and how it adds to the related literature.     

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author responded appropriately to all points in the previous review. The manuscript has been much improved and can now be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your previous comments that helped us improve this manuscript.

Reviewer 5 Report

Thanks for the revision, however, my main concerns regarding the novelty and the method are still observed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study is used space syntax analysis to examine the relationship between the urban development of Beijing and the evolution of its railway transport.

The topic is interesting, but the paper needs improvement to be recommended for publication:

1. The introduction is superficial. References are grouped by general topics. Statements of the type 'There are relatively few studies on systematically combing the evolution of urban space and urban transportation facilities, and the same is true for the research on rail transit structure using the space syntax.' they should be supplemented with references and critically analyzed to highlight the novelty of the paper.

2. The conclusions of the paper are dry, without highlightinggeneric and fundamental conclusions. In fact, this can be seen from the abstract, respectively conclusions such as:

 'After analyzing Beijing's multi-center and multi-circle rail transit structure, it is concluded that the current division of labor in Beijing's rail transit is still unclear.'

‘Analysis using space syntax shows that connecting suburban centers by suburban railways improves accessibility better than subways.’

‘However, after analyzing the synergy, it is found that the application of space syntax still needs to be analyzed in combination with the actual situation, and the quality of the rail transit structure cannot be judged only by numerical values.’

3. Some figures need to be improved in terms of resolution.For example, Figures 1, 2, 3 are difficult to read.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is showing an analysis on the relationship between Beijing rail transit and urban planning based on space syntax. In general, it is a little bit confused, but if I understood correctly, the authors are trying to explaining how was the increasing of the rail transit in Beijing. For that, the authors have explained how was the development of the rail system and used space syntax to better understand that. 

I think the authors should improve section 2 in order to show how they are going to achieve the main purpose of the manuscript. Section "2. Materials and Methods" is not a material and methods section. What is there is just a small introduction.

Some minor review:

-Title: I think the title could be "Analysis on the Relationship between Beijing Rail Transit and Urban Planning Based on Space Syntax". The word "Research" is redundant. Every manuscript is a research.
-please change in the entire manuscript the word "transport" to "transportation" to keep American English instead of British English (or the opposite). Do not mixture it.
-page 2. Figure 1 has poor quality. Please provide a better one. 
-Sections 3.1 e 3.2 (3.2.1) are in a fact a literature review. Please put them in a new section 2.
-page 6, line 133. Please change "note:" to "where" and put I-i, RRA_i, n, MD_i in italic, just like they appear in Equation (1).
-page 6. I think the authors can delete the "Source: created by the author" from Figure 3, because everything that was not cited was created by the authors.
-page 8. I think the authors can delete the "Source: created by the author" from Figure 5, because everything that was not cited was created by the authors.
-page 8. Something is weird in equation 2, because it is so big. Also, please change "note:" to "where" and put Int_r, r, Int_n in italic, just like they appear in Equation (2).
-page 9. I think the authors can delete the "Source: created by the author" from Figure 6, because everything that was not cited was created by the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Points 1 and 3 of the report were not taken into account or were superficially treated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate you for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them again. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. The authors welcome further constructive comments if any.

Below we provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Points 1 and 3 of the report were not taken into account or were superficially treated.

1. The introduction is superficial. References are grouped by general topics. Statements of the type 'There are relatively few studies on systematically combing the evolution of urban space and urban transportation facilities, and the same is true for the research on rail transit structure using the space syntax.' they should be supplemented with references and critically analyzed to highlight the novelty of the paper.

Response： Thank you very much for your previous comments. Our expression is not rigorous, it should be "there are relatively few studies on systematically combing the evolution of urban space and urban transportation facilities in Beijing". Furthermore, the application of space syntax highlights the innovativeness of simultaneously analyzing different rail transit structures.

3. Some figures need to be improved in terms of resolution. For example, Figures 1, 2, 3 are difficult to read.

Response： The figure resolution has been improved. Maybe the figure of the word file you received is compressed. Please check the PDF file.

Sincerely,

Leilei Meng

Ph. D. Candidate, Graduate School of Eng., Tohoku Univ.

Ishida Design Lab 507, 6-6-06 Aramaki Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered almost my questions. But some details still remain in the paper:

-page 2. I think section 3 should be section 2 e section 2 should be section 3.
-page 2. I think something is not right in this prhase of the section 2: "Using traditional analysis and space syntax, the evolution of Beijing's urban space and urban planning is studied in relation to the structure of Beijing's rail transit in the multi-center structure are studied." Look that there are 
two words "studied". Please rewrite it.
-page 2. The poor quality of Figure 1 remains the same.
-page 6. the letter "n" at line 139 should be italic. It is in Equation (1).
-page 7. I think the source in Figure 4 can be deleted because that figure is not in the reference. The reference was used to draw the plot, but exactly that plot is not in the reference.
-page 8. the letter "r" in "number is r" at line 222 should be italic. It is in Equation (2).

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate you for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them again. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. The authors welcome further constructive comments if any.

Below we provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. page 2. I think section 3 should be section 2 e section 2 should be section 3.

Response： Revised accordingly.

2. page 2. I think something is not right in this prhase of the section 2: "Using traditional analysis and space syntax, the evolution of Beijing's urban space and urban planning is studied in relation to the structure of Beijing's rail transit in the multi-center structure are studied." Look that there are two words "studied". Please rewrite it.

Response： Thank you very much for the reminder. Revised accordingly.

3. page 2. The poor quality of Figure 1 remains the same.

Response： The figure resolution has been improved. Maybe the figure of the word file you received is compressed. Please check the PDF file.

4. page 6. the letter "n" at line 139 should be italic. It is in Equation (1).

Response： Thank you very much for the reminder. Revised accordingly.

5. page 7. I think the source in Figure 4 can be deleted because that figure is not in the reference. The reference was used to draw the plot, but exactly that plot is not in the reference.

Response： Revised accordingly.

6. page 8. the letter "r" in "number is r" at line 222 should be italic. It is in Equation (2).

Response： Revised accordingly. Thank you very much for your previous comments that helped us improve this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Leilei Meng

Ph. D. Candidate, Graduate School of Eng., Tohoku Univ.

Ishida Design Lab 507, 6-6-06 Aramaki Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan

[email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author, I maintain the opinion that the introduction is superficial and that the novelty of the paper is not highlighted, therefore it is not clear if it exists. The five added references (14-18) are older than 10 years. Therefore, they are not relevant in a critical analysis that highlights the novelty of the paper.

Regarding the last sentence in the introduction, 

'Studying the relationship between the two can help elucidate the laws of both and is significant for the current urban multi-center spatial structure construction and the application of space syntax in rail transit.'

I consider that it is subjective and unsupported and cannot be included in the category of 'contributions of the paper'.

On point 3, 'Some figures need to be improved in terms of resolution. For example, Figures 1, 2, 3 are difficult to read.' I also maintain my opinion.

From my point of view, the paper cannot be published in this form.