Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with a topic that is worth of investigation and it’s in line with the scope of the journal. I would suggest some revisions to improve it before considering it as acceptable for publication in the Sustainability journal. Particularly, I recommend reconsidering it after that the following minor revisions would be accomplished:

1.      The authors choose and “all-in-one” Introduction/state of art section (i.e. section 1), therefore I would suggest expanding it in term of storytelling. Particularly, I would suggest setting a wider scene talking about other possible modelling tools to evaluate accessibility/economic (spatial and non) impact of transport infrastructure (see/cite https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065126 for a review of method used in the literature)

2.      Figure 1 (i.e. the simplified flow diagram summarizing the method used should be better detailed

3.      Figure 4: the caption says it is the accessibility distribution while the legend refer only to time (correct), why?

4.      Please cite references for all the formulas used in the manuscript (for instance, Equation 5)

5.      Could you please specify the value of the B coefficient in equation 5? How it was estimated?

6.      Section 2.2.2: 3 models have been reported, but only one (the gravity formulation) has been used in the end. Do the authors think including this small review (i.e. the 3 models) is necessary? I would suggest including only the formulation used in the application

7.      Please note that there are 2 Conslusion section (5 and 6). I interpreted it as a typo (i.e. Section 5 – Discussion). If my interpretation is correct, I would suggest expanding it and make some results comparison with the current literature (even though it is referred to other case studies)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences should be "harmonized"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an important topic about optimization strategies of regional cross-border transportation networks and the implications for the construction of cross-border transport corridors in Xinjiang. It is well-structured, but I believe it can be further improved by following these suggestions:

1.     The paper contains several unnecessarily long sentences that can be rephrased for better readability and clarity. For instance, shorten the sentence about General Secretary Xi Jinping's speech at the China-Central Asia Summit in 2023 and others.

2.     In line 61 of the introduction, the paper mentions a bottleneck restricting cross-border openness and cooperation, but no evidence is provided. Please include references or data to support this claim.

3.     While the introduction discusses the importance of transportation and the regional context, it does not explicitly state specific problems or objectives. Clearly define the research problems and objectives to guide the reader.

4.     The aim of the paper, as stated, focuses on analyzing traffic accessibility and optimizing cross-border transport corridors between Xinjiang and Central Asia. However, it should also address the identified problems of sparse infrastructure, low traffic volume, and limited accessibility. Ensure the aim aligns with these problems.

5.     The paper lacks a literature review section. A comprehensive literature review is essential to situate your research within the existing body of knowledge and to highlight gaps that your study addresses.

6.     In line 156, data is mentioned without providing references. Please include references to the sources of this data for verification and credibility.

7.     The lack of detailed dataset information makes it hard to judge the results. Provide a thorough description of the dataset, including sources, variables, and any preprocessing steps taken.

8.     In section 2 (Materials and Methods), the variables in Equation 5 should be clearly explained. Ensure each variable is defined, and their roles in the model are described.

9.     Authors should explain how the impedance coefficient (𝛽) is calculated and what values it can assume for different transportation conditions.

 

10.  Sections 5 and 6 both present conclusions. Consolidate these sections to avoid redundancy and provide a single, comprehensive conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf