Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks so much for your manuscript. We will scan it section-wise. 

 

Title: Looks good. 

 

Abstract: Okay. 

 

Introduction: The transition from line 45 to 46 is abrupt. Streamline the sequence, please. How is smart city linked with OGD theme? Mention that. The best part of your research aim is its unique benchmarking framework-thank you and kudos to you for this contribution.

 

Materials and methods: I was wondering as to why you picked 2017-2021 as the time span for bibliometric analysis given that "you" concede that OGD has been in existence for more than a decade now. What you mean by "co-authorship" filters and why were they applied? Justify your stand, please. But for these concerns, I must aver that your work is stupendous. 

 

Results: This section is neat and comprehensive. Good work. 

 

Discussion and conclusions: Impressive.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for your comments and words of encouragement. We really appreciate them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think it is a great paper, with a multidisciplinary approach. My only concern is about the PCA method. Why didn't you conduct a clustering analysis, to cluster variables/indicators. It would be easier to reach the correlated indicators per cluster. 

On the other side, please add in the discussion which are the costs of building indicators based on ISO; or Is there any cost in building similar or fully conformed indicators? Is feasible to reach or measure those ISO indicators? Which are the explicit benefits apart from comparison reasons?

You should also distinguish in the bibliometric section those papers in the theme  that are from Brazil. Do you think it is easier in other metropolitan cities (i.e. from Europe or EEUU) to conform the ISO indicators than in Brazil?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the enlightening review!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for conducting such an interesting research paper titled “Application of Open Government Data to Sustainable City 2 Indicators: a Megacity Case Study”. Having carefully read the article, I enjoyed it. The paper has been structured properly and reads very well. In my opinion, it can significantly contribute to the domain and I can recommend it for publication. However, I have just some minor comments to hopefully help improve the quality of the paper as follows.

First, I recommend the authors separate the conclusion from the discussion section. In this way, they need to more critically discuss the results and then conclude the research in a short (but separate) section at the end.

Second, it would be nice if the authors try to come up with some potential research avenues for future research based on the insights provided in their research.

And finally, I recommend the authors do professional proofreading to remove some minor typos and grammatical errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the enlightening review!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Serious flaws in research design, only one use case study conducted. Reconsider for publication after extensive update.

- In the Introduction part, authors claim that the objective of the paper is to analyze the standardized indicators of ISO 3712x series, without proper reference to these term. A short explanation about this would be grateful.
- When authors discuss ISO indicators in Section 2.2, proper compliance analysis with the open government data is missing. How these indicator correlate with the categorization of open government data?
- Section 2 Materials and Methods should be divided into the 2 section. First to be "Theoretical foundations" (including section 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) and second "Materials and methods" (2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7)
- When explaining selection of paper through the Web of Science and SCOPUS, authors should list resulting 51 reference as they claim.
- For PCA method, clustering analysis for cluster variables/indicators is missing, as it will give correlated indicators per cluster.
- I'm missing proper discussion of referable smart city indicators? How they are composed? Is there any standard on this?
- Although work is promising, addition of few more case studies will contribute to the area in excellent way.
- In last sections, must authors try indicate potential future research directions based on the insights provided in their research.
- More critically discussion of the obtained results should be carried on.
- Section Discussion and Conclusions must be separated into two sections.
- Proofreading should be done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have now extensively improved the paper which is worth of considering for publication in Sustainability. Paper can be accepted for publication in current form as necessary changes are incorporated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for the suggestions and encouragement!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx