Assessment of the Adaptive Reuse Potentiality of Industrial Heritage Based on Improved Entropy TOPSIS Method from the Perspective of Urban Regeneration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper constructs an indicator system to evaluate the adaptive reuse potential of industrial heritage, and uses the improved entropy TOPSIS method to measure the potential distribution of industrial heritage and develop adaptive reuse strategies. A lot of work has been done around the theme of the article, which has certain reference value for unleashing the potential of industrial heritage and promoting urban renewal. However, at present, there are still some problems and deficiencies in this paper. In order to make the paper more scientific and perfect, the following suggestions are put forward：
Comment 1: In the abstract part, there is a lack of quantitative data expression in the description of the research results, and the characteristics and innovation of the paper are not prominent enough. It is suggested that the author refine and modify the abstract of the paper.
Comment 2: In the introduction, the space is redundant, the writing logic is chaotic, and the description of practical problems is relatively broad, without focusing on the typical urban industrial heritage situation in Beijing, which the article studies. It should be introduced through practical questions, and then highlight the practical and theoretical significance of the article. Therefore, it is recommended to supplement it.
Comment 3: The literature review section is not detailed and in-depth enough, and does not clarify the main topics, research results, and shortcomings of existing research in the academic community. It only lists and extracts some articles, and does not indicate the innovation and marginal contribution of this article. It is recommended that the author conduct a literature review based on the mature logic of high-level papers both domestically and internationally; Based on keywords such as "urban renewal" and "industrial heritage potential", it is recommended that the author refer to and cite the following literature:
[1] Designing a spatial pattern to rebalance the orientation of development and protection in Wuhan. [J] Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(4): 569-582.
[2] Industrial heritage as a catalyst for urban regeneration in post-conflict cities Case study: Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina. [J]. Cities, 2018, 74: 259-268.
Comment 4: In the overview section of the research area, there is a lack of relevant descriptions of the urban industrial heritage in the research area. Is the area map and terrain map in Figure 3 more suitable, and it is recommended that the resolution should not be less than 300dpi; Suggest supplementing the overview of the research area and placing it in the Materials and Methods section of the third part, and continuing to beautify each map.
Comment 5: In terms of the expression of research methods, the length is too long. It is recommended that the author simplify and retain the core formulas and processes, paying attention to the refinement of language and clear and coherent logic before and after.
Comment 6: The overall structure of the article is disordered, and it is recommended to arrange it in the order of introduction, materials and methods, results, discussions, and conclusions.
Comment 7: In the explanation of the results of the paper, the author only provided an overall description of the relative scale and potential evaluation results of industrial heritage. The author lacks a summary of the fundamental reasons and basic laws behind the results. Suggest the author to further analyze the results.
Comment 8: In the conclusion section, it is recommended to avoid repeating the previous results and further refine them to make the implementation of the research results more targeted and actionable.
Comment 9: The overall writing logic of the article needs to be strengthened, the language expression needs to be further condensed and improved, and attention should be paid to the coherence between contexts.
None
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is very interesting, and I have read it with pleasure, as it points to sustainable use of buildings.
Specific comments
Line 87. Figure 1, in which the diagram of te research framework is described, should be more elaborated in the text. Or when elaborated further in the text, there should be a short description in which sections the different parts in the figure are elaborated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper contributes to the topic of reusing industrial heritage for regeneration of urban area. This topic seems good and novel for a scientific paper. However, the content of the paper requires some manipulations. So, the following comments have to be revised before the acceptance:
- The major drawback of the paper is the about the application of TOPSIS. Fist of all, the paper did not explain why the TOPSIS method is selected and appropriate for the problem? Then, there are many other MCDM methods such as VIKOR, ELECTRE, and etc. why the paper did not present a comparison among the solution of the different methods?
- The mathematical punctuation should strongly be considered throughout the paper. There are many missing “,” and “.” in all of the equations. For example, in line 247 and 248, equation 9 and 10, a “,” is required between two phrases as an indicator for separation.
- The paper used an abbreviation called “C-OWA”, but did not refer that what it stands for in the first appearance (line 189). It is defined in line 323. Please make clarification.
- In the keyword section, there is a keyword named as “Improved entropy technique for ordering preferences by similarity to the ideal solution”. This is much more like a sentence not a keyword, please replace it with an appropriate one.
- The paper is not including a literature review section by alone, but review some of the recent and related works in the middle of introduction section. I suggest to enrich the reviewing section preferably in a separated section named as Literature Review.
There are many missing mathematical punctuations and grammatical errors, please conduct a complete proof-read throughout the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review of the revised manuscript, and we feel particularly honoured and fortunate to have your approval. Your suggestions have been really valuable and helpful in revising and improving our thesis. The logic and professionalism of the revised manuscript has been greatly improved, and this has allowed us to refine our logic and way of thinking in writing our English paper. In addition to this, we have further polished the entire article, revising the wording and readability of the sentences, in the hope that the revised language will meet the requirements of the journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is revised based on the comments and is acceptable in the current form.
The are minor revision with the text and quality of english language.
Author Response
Thank you for your careful reading and checking of the revised manuscript, and we appreciate your approval of the revised article. Your comments have rationalized the use of quantitative research methods and brought our understanding of multi-criteria decision making a step closer. It has improved the logic and professionalism of the revised manuscript and made the article more complete and rigorous.
Due to the length of time we have spent on the manuscript, the repeated addition and deletion of sentences and sections has evidently resulted in poor readability. Now that the article's intelligibility has been improved, the article's language has been rewritten, and the coherence of statements has been examined, and every effort has been made to enhance the language in the revised manuscript, which we hope will be significantly enhanced. We have meticulously reviewed and enhanced the English writing in the revised manuscript, and we hope that these changes will satisfactorily resolve your concerns and requests.
