The Civil City Framework for the Implementation of Nature-Based Smart Innovations: Right to a Healthy City Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is deeply described, in some passages almost too much in detail. Overall, the paper results as a long introduction to the quantitative and statistical study that will follow. However, all statements are abundantly referenced, therefore the work may bring deeper insight into the field.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for all comments, which allowed us to prepare a new and hopefully better version of the manuscript. As this is not an empirical, but conceptual paper, we appreciate the Reviewer's understanding for the lack of statistical analysis or specific findings.

We made sure to shorten the introduction and tried to reformulate the whole paper to make our narrative clearer and more to the point. We also took care to correct the spelling mistakes and polish the style of the whole manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Weaknesses:

 (-) Out of scope for this journal.

 (-) Novelty is unclear.

 (-) There are English issues.

 (-) References are inadequate.

 (-) The introduction must be improved.

 (-) The related work section must be enhanced.

 (-) The method is too simple.

 (-) The method is not novel enough.

 (-) Experimental evaluation must be improved.

 (-) The problem definition is not formal enough.

 (-) Some improvements are needed in the description of the method.

(-) It looks like a report and a technical or academic paper. 

==== ENGLISH ==== 

The writing style of this paper is not good enough. Authors should spend some time improving it so that the paper can be read more smoothly.

==== REFERENCES ==== 

The literature review is incomplete. Several relevant references are missing.

The reference format is inconsistent. Please check the format carefully and ensure it is consistent for all references.

==== INTRODUCTION ==== 

The authors need to better explain the context of this research, including why the research problem is important.

==== RELATED WORK ==== 

The related work section is not well organized. Authors must try to categorize the papers and present them in a logical way.

The authors should explain clearly what  the differences are between the prior work and the solution presented in this paper.

The authors should add a table that compares the key characteristics of prior work to highlight their differences and limitations. The authors may also consider adding a line in the table to describe the proposed solution.

==== PROBLEM DEFINITION ==== 

The authors should add a clear and detailed problem definition. 

Authors should give a clear formal definition of the problem. 

==== METHOD ==== 

The authors should first give an overview of their solution before explaining the details. 

A novel solution is presented but it is important to better explain the design decisions (e.g. why the solution is designed like that)

The solution is described but there should be more examples.

==== EXPERIMENTS ==== 

A statistical analysis should be carried out to demonstrate that the experimental results are significant. 

There is not enough discussion of the experimental results. 

==== CONCLUSION ==== 

Some text must be added to discuss the future work or research opportunities.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for all comments, which allowed us to prepare a new and hopefully better version of the manuscript. As this is not an empirical, but conceptual paper, we would appreciate the Reviewer's understanding for the lack of statistical analysis or specific findings. Those will be available at the end of the project and we will then make sure to follow up on our present work.

We made sure to shorten the introduction and tried to reformulate the whole paper to make our narrative clearer and more to the point. We also took care to correct the spelling mistakes and polish the style of the whole manuscript.

We reviewed all references and made sure they are correctly cited in the same format and adequate to the topic. All cited sources are recognised in the literature on the topic, and therefore we are convinced they remain relevant to our paper.

We also reformulated parts of the text to make sure we clearly state our objective and goals of this work as well as define the problem. We hope this is now more convincing.

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, many thanks to the authors for the opportunity to read your work. It really is an interesting job. 

The writing is fluid, pleasant to read, and the structure presented is correct.

The topic addressed is original, to a certain extent, and with a certain future path in the global literature within the framework of, as indicated in the text, current debate on implementing health and care-related solutions in cities with a rights-based approach.

I believe that the text provides key elements for the global debate and to enrich this line of research. Finally, I also consider that the conclusions are appropriate and consistent with the analysis developed.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for such a positive review and all encouraging comments. In the new version of the manuscript we decided to shorten the introduction and tried to make our narrative clearer and more to the point. We also took care to correct the spelling mistakes and polish the style of the whole manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you.