System Dynamics Theory Applied to Differentiated Levels of City–Industry Integration in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Analyzing the paper, I have the following remarks and suggestions:
a) The proposed paper to be published in Sustainability journal is interesting to be taken into consideration, due to some applied ideas of general systems theory on a typical phenomenon regarding the current development of China: differentiated dynamics of city-industry integration. The title covers the main studied issues, but I suggest a change to highlight better the contents: System dynamics theory applied to differentiated level of city-industry integration in China.
b) The Abstract is well structured, but the second, fifth and sixth phrases should be reformulated to eliminate the excessive repetition of some expressions (“level of integration” or “level of industry and city integration”).
c) Analysing the next three chapters, I recommend an important restructuring, because it is required a distinction between the methodology, results and discussions sections. If the last two sections can be merged, the scholars are interested to have a clear picture of the theoretical framework and methods used by authors.
d) Taking into consideration the above suggestion, I propose to define a new section as Methodology (or a similar one), where could be included the current Chapters 2, and 3. In this new section, I have the following requires:
- replacing the contents of “Industrial aspect” and “Urban aspect” boxes, from Figure 1 with “Industry” and “City”;
- please, reflect on the opportunity to represent on the diagram from Figure 2 the “Proportion of the industrial employees in active population”! I believe that this indicator, by value and dynamics, can have an important role in the city-industry integration level (I know, that means a large work for authors!);
- correction of the “Ubran” with “urban” inside of Figures 3 and 4;
- replacing of the “Education business expenses” with “Business education expenses”; at the same time, reflect on the opportunity to replace this syntagm with “Education expenses” (inside of manuscript you discuss about it) one; any case, this kind of expenses as indicator (“Education business expenses”) needs some explanations!
- eliminating the description of the “archaic” principles, because they are well-known by each researcher and it is not necessary to be presented, however you make some connections with the approached topic;
- merging the content of the current Chapter 3 in the Chapter 2, because there not elements to justify the title: Dynamic modelling of “city-industry” system, especially if you agree the idea of moving the above paragraphs [(1)…(4)];
- citing of Figures 2, 3, and 4 in the manuscript;
- please, search to define two-three sub-chapters.
e) If you agree the proposed restructuring (see point c)), the current Chapter 4, become “Results and discussion”, which fulfils all the characteristics to have such new Title. Please reflect if the first general part could be included at the Methodology, because it’s about the general standardization of variables. The research findings are well presented, and I accept the related general comments.
I encourage the authors to move the paragraphs from the next Chapter 5 (until 401 row) to this section because this can be better integrated as discussion, too.
f) Moving the first part to above section, Conclusions, can keep the remained contents. In this context, please, dived the contents in two or three paragraphs, eventually, adding two ideas for other scholars: i) to follow the same methodology, and ii) to be advertised on the limits of this kind of research.
g) The entire manuscript requires an English revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Through the establishment of "evaluation indicators" of China's local space, the author uses factor analysis and entropy methods to propose a system dynamics model for the integration of production processes in China, which has high readability and research value.Some suggestions are listed below to help improve the paper:
What is the source of the data established by the "indicator system" of this article? This is not easy to find in the article. According to the standard of an academic paper, the citation of the source and source of the information should be more rigorous.
From line 240 to line 363, this article provides a large amount of statistical interpretation of data and verifies the indicators claimed in this article; this spirit of careful dialectical research to increase reliability is commendable.However, in an article, the presentation of too large data (especially the statistical data of administrative jurisdictions from line 334 to line 363) may easily cause the main purpose of the research to lose focus and lead to dialectical fragmentation of problem awareness. The accumulation of the above-mentioned data should be presented in a more detailed and clearer way of descriptive statistics, so as to meet the author's intention in this study.
It is suggested that the author should present the statistical part of the production process fusion in the administrative jurisdiction to the readers in a more concise, clear, concise and mature way of writing, rather than just a pile of data.
The data collection method used is worthy of admiration; however, making it easy for readers to wonder what the research focus of this article is trying to express.
Proofreading needed to correct the misspelling and other format mistakes.
If the author can improve on the problems raised above, I think this will be a classic paper worth reading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I highly appreciate the serious efforts of the authors to analyse and to take into consideration my suggestions. I consider that the current form of paper can be published in Sustainability journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
ok
