A Deep Graph Learning-Enhanced Assessment Method for Industry-Sustainability Coupling Degree in Smart Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, the manuscript is informative having some inadequacies.  I shall highlight them and the authors might improve the quality and readability of this research paper accordingly. 

1. The introduction section does not provide a succinct theoretical basis for the study.  I would like to ask the authors to expand and highlight the advantages of their approaches that bring benefits in the solved issues.   

2. If possible, it will be good if the authors could add a graphical representation summarizing their results which compares controls, results, all the parameters and variables. 

3. Please, briefly add future perspectives and further applied applications of this specific research work in the discussion section.  

4. The techniques and/or models presented and mentioned in the manuscript require sufficient details (including calibration, sensitivity analysis and validation) to allow other researchers to develop and test the applications later on.  Please include the parameters that I have mentioned here. More comparisons that show the advantages and the drawbacks of the proposed schema are needed.  

5. The most relevant data-results should be summarized and demonstrated by a graph and a corresponding table. 

6. Please, highlight the outliers in all the tables and graphs, where relevant.     

7. Please improve the quality of English Language in the manuscript. 

8. Please include and detail all the algorithms (mathematical expressions), of the related techniques and/or model/s mentioned in the manuscript.  

9. Only a few references have been included in the manuscript.  Please add relevant references to enhance the global importance of the paper.

10. The authors should clearly demonstrate how the applicability of the proposed method is better in comparison to other standard methods and how the proposed method opens up new avenues research. 

11. The methodology section requires a clear and concise flowchart that defines the work explicitly.

Author Response

We appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper.We explain, point by point, the details of our revisions in the manuscript and our responses to the reviewers’ comments. Please refer to the uploaded attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The methods are described properly, a literature review is very clear.

Just some small mistakes and misconceptions can be found in the text.

Please read the comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We explain, point by point, the details of our revisions in the manuscript and our responses to the reviewers’ comments. Please refer to the uploaded attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would suggest that the part of results, discussions and especially the conclusions be more widely presented and argued.

Author Response

We appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We explain, point by point, the details of our revisions in the manuscript and our responses to the reviewers’ comments. Please refer to the uploaded attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, I am okay with the changes made. Thanks