Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-          Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title (e.g. soft targets,  environmental design and so on)  - please replace them in the way to reflect the article ideas and not just be redundant

-          Like a result of your work, please improve each figure / table (which is not “self- processing) with your own “substantial” contribution. Besides this, please align the visual quality of all figures / tables

-          The section of introduction should include (even briefly at the end of the chapter): the context of the study, which are the main results presented  in short, which is the originality of this paper, the main implication policy of these results and a description of the structure of the paper - the role of each section of the paper. Some of them are missing - please fill it accordingly

-          The “Literature Review”  (part of Introduction chapter or – my recommendation  - separate chapter after Introduction) should include in more detail the “gap” in existing literature (especially “recent” literature) and the innovative aspects brought by this paper (analysis for existing literature and the novelty and originality brought by this paper should be highlighted) - please detail the gaps in the existing literature (partially done in different chapters) and state more clearly / more explicitly the manner in which the article addresses these gaps

-          The hypothesis / hypotheses should be a little bit more specific (e.g. hypothesis1, 2, 3… - introduced perhaps at the end of Introduction chapter or at the beginning of Materials and Methods) and should reflect statement/s validated or invalidated by the research in Results (sub)chapter – with clear reference to hypothesis1, 2, 3…

-          „The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results”. Please detail what is the advantage of your study method / concept compared to other methods / concepts, what are the similarities, what exactly differentiates it and how this aspect is reflected on the results.

-          An uninformed reader can think that it is a descriptive article and that’s why, I recommend that the “concrete” proposals with “practical” applicability and if possible... “measurable” be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection at Results or/and Discussion’s (sub)chapter). Actually, it would be interesting if the study would present some aspects more clearly related to the practical application of the study (examples) and its results (where could be applied, how could be applied and so on). Thus, please detail further the interpretation of the data analysis performed and its implications by reference to the scope of the research.

-          No elements are mentioned regarding the subjective and limiting nature of the study (the limits of the research and the way in which these limits will be addressed in the future – if will be) and no (argued) opinion regarding a possible modification of the investigation indicators, especially since the data used in the present study are not available for verification. I appreciate if you’ll bring up the (or some) limitations of the study and (as clearly as possib) future directions of evolution / research should be also reflected to have a holistic view on the topic

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for sending valuable comments and the opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of our article. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments that we have tried to elaborate in full. The authors 'response to reviewers' comments you can find below.

 

Sincerely,

 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Aim at preventing the terrorist attacks, the factors and measures are studied in this research, and there some questions in the manuscript:

(1) Firstly, the literature review of introduction should be concluded again. There is only “1.1 Analysis of soft targets attacks” in this section, and the title of subsection should be connective with the research points.

(2) Secondly, the logic of this article is not clear, and the research contents is also not clear, so I think they need be determined.

(3) Thirdly, the preventing measures may be valid to decease the terrorist attack rate, and is it compatible with other urban systems? Whether it will bring any other threats?

(4) Finally, the most serious problem is that the creative points is not clear, the author should conclude them.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for sending valuable comments and the opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of our article. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments that we have tried to elaborate in full. The authors 'response to reviewers' comments you can find below.

 

Sincerely,

 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This research is fascinating because it tries to find ways to suppress problems through environmental design. This idea is the author's contribution to efforts to reduce environmental issues.

 

This research needs to be tested in the field. Does it have the results according to plan or not? Trials must be carried out to determine the community's perspective in that location.

 

At the very least, there should be a survey on people's perceptions of changes in space and environmental design. So there must be a survey of public perceptions about the developed theory. Thus, the ideas made by the author get justification or evaluation from the user community. Don't just be assumed by the author about its effectiveness.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for sending valuable comments and the opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of our article. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments that we have tried to elaborate in full. The authors 'response to reviewers' comments you can find below.

 

Sincerely,

 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

-          Not all figures are correctly cited (eg: figures 6 and 8 lack sources, figures 3 and 18 refer to sources that are not found in the References area and so on) - please allign  accordingly

-          The section of introduction should include (even briefly at the end of the chapter): a description of the structure of the paper - the role of each section of the paper. Some of them are missing - please fill accordingly

-          Would be really appreciated if you wil (can) formulate even one Objectiv of the study with minimum two Hypotheses in the way to be validated by the research in Results chapter  (with clear reference to hypotheses1 & 2 of the objective of the research). This would prove that there is a line of argumentation - that one starts from (minimum) one hypothesis and reaches a conclusion (proven with the help of the study). Also, this would clearly demonstrate the personal innovative contribution of the authors

Author Response

Deat reviewer,

Thank you for sending valuable comments and the opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of our article.

Thank you for your comments. Your comments have been very helpful in improving the quality of the article as well as in continuing to explore the CPTED methodology in conjunction with soft targets.

Resources and reviews have been added to the article. Tables that contained a different font type as well as framing have been changed.

The introduction has been complemented with a brief structure of the article.

The main objective of the research has been added. The aim of the empirical research was to find out whether there is a link with the perception of feeling safe and the appropriate arrangement of the elements. To date, no such research has been conducted. Research conducted in the past has only focused on examining crime after the application of the elements of the CPTED concept. 
However, no hypothesis has been established due to reliability, which we have not yet worked out.

Reviewer 2 Report

According to the comments of reviewers, the article has been modified carefully. And the research can decease the terrorist attacks availably, so the theme is consistent with this journal s consistent with this journal. Although the scientific significance of this research is not obvious, it contributes to the safe and sustainable development of cities. So, I think it can be published in this journal after serious consideration.

In addition, there are still some questions in the manuscript:

(1) Please check the format of manuscript carefully, such the line 75 and 76 in page 2.

(2) Please check the details of the article, such as the format of the table, as well as the grammar of manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for sending valuable comments and the opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of our article.


The format of the manuscript and grammar has been corrected.
 
Tables and figures have been edited. We did not notice that in some tables there was a different type of font and a different way of framing.

Thank you very much for all your comments.

Have a nice day