Determining Strategic Priorities for Smart City Development: Case Studies of South Korean and International Smart Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting and covers a relevant topic. The methodology is the stronger point of the study and the link to the theory is the weakest point. To solve this issue I recommend the following changes:

* The introduction must clearly present a research gap after a short theoretical discussion about what is known and what is not known in the existing literature

* Lit review - important references are missing. The authors must extend the LR with more recent articles and especially with references published in top ranking journals.. Furthermore, the actual LR looks like a sum of ideas, where each paragraph has just one author with no confrontation or critical analyzis.

* Should include a discussion in section 5, and make a clear presentation where the study aligns, contradicts or (most important) advances existing knowledge. Please note that this means that in this section you must point to specific authors/studies.

* 6.1. Theoretical Implications. Must be totally revised since the previous topics will bring new information. The authors are not showing the contributions because they don't even point a research gap. The actual text is just a recapitulation.

Good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.Some background and information of Smart City Development would make the paper more informative.

2.The study  of International Smart Cities lacks a theoretical framework which is important for the reader to grasp the crust of the research.

3The literature has to be strongly updated with some relevant and recent papers focused on the smart cities dealt with in the manuscript.

4. Figure 1 resolution to be improved. 

5. Theoretical Implications to be enhanced in the result section.

6.The language usage throughout this paper need to be improved, the author should do some proofreading on it.

7. Check the  figure 3 content.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congrats on the revision.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

After carefully checking, I confirm that the authors have completely addressed all my concerns, I therefore recommend accepting this paper for publication