Prospects for a Megacity Region Transition in Australia: A Preliminary Examination of Transport and Communication Drivers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper shows extensive research.

The only remarks would be the following, on form:

. lengthy paper;

. the introduction should have an actual introduction to the subject - indicating the goals and questions of the study - prior to the background description;

. methodology could be more clearly explained in the begining of section 2.Methods, instead of diving right into it.

 

Nonetheless, the paper is clear and presents interesting data and analysis.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study primarily focuses on the sustainable transportation of Australia by examining the effects of specific technological trends (broadband and fast rail). The study presents an evaluation of sustainable transportation by examining the changes in population and economic development as well as the regional fast rail corridors in Melbourne and regional cities and southeast England. However, I believe that the manuscript needs extensive revision for publication. I have provided extensive remarks on the manuscript, which the authors should consult.

 

My comments for the manuscript may be summarized as follows:

 

1. Problem of the statement and the main motivation of the study are not clear. I couldn’t understand the importance and main objective of the study along with the originality/novelty of the literature.

 

2.     It is essential to thoroughly review the manuscript. The writing style does not align with the standards expected in an academic article. In an academic context, the use of personal pronouns like "we" and "our" is generally discouraged. In addition, the authors employ a narrative style rather than academic language. The manuscript is written like a technical or scientific report that has some unnecessary details within the context of the subject. Therefore, it is imperative to thoroughly revise the entire content.

 

3.     The abstract should be rewritten. The importance and scope of the study should be clearly emphasized. In addition, if it is possible, it can be better to give quantitative results.

 

4.     Introduction needs to be rewritten. The first sentence of the introduction is not proper as the beginning sentence of an academic article. Also, the significance and scope of the study should be more explicitly emphasised in the relevant literature.

 

3. The repetitive usage of direct quotations such as lines 40-44, 54-56,106,110, 157-160.. etc. is discouraged in an academic journal. Authors should use their own sentences with their overall comments and revise these parts.

 

4. I couldn’t understand the exact methodology used in the manuscript. This section should be reconsidered and rewritten. In addition, the Before versus After Impact Analysis (BAIA) needs a detailed explanation. How was this method implemented? 

 

5. All figures should be in colour. The resolutions are relatively low, they need to be revised. For figures 1 and 3, a map frame and a north arrow is required.

 

6.     All tables especially Table 4 should be revised both in terms of font and size.

 

7.     In lines 311 and 350, if such maps are not given in the appendix of this manuscript, they should not be given in the text. An appendix may be included if the information is crucial to the understanding of the manuscript.

 

8.     The abbreviation HSR should not be used in line 358, where it is used for the first time.

 

9. As stated previously, I was unable to perceive in Section 3 which analyses were utilised and what the results were. The results presented in the tables are, in my opinion, merely data; if particular analyses were performed, they should be elaborated upon.  In addition, how were the relationships/effects/influences identified? Was a correlation/regression or any other analysis performed?

 

10. Section 4 needs to be reconsidered and revised. This section contains highly general and disorganised statements. Certain remarks made regarding the discussed subjects are more indicative of broader concerns than those that are specifically addressed within the context of the pertinent research. With greater emphasis, future drivers of the issues highlighted in the manuscript should be emphasised.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is essential to thoroughly review the manuscript. The writing style does not align with the standards expected in an academic article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

i. Figure 2, please check the clarity of the figure

ii. Figure 3, where is the source? 

iii. Please check para 257 (2 full stop?)

 

The strength of this paper;

i. Details analysis between fast rail and IT (broadband) for a report paper.

ii. Looking for best practices and models for the project.

 

Weakness;

I. It shows like a review or a project paper instead of a research article.

ii. As the authors combine discussion and conclusion, the relative conclusion side is not determined. Maybe the authors could conclude under one heading.

 

Further comments:

I. That is nothing much to comment on as the paper reviews articles with simple methodology from previous data.

II. The introduction focuses mega-city region with previous research on the subject matter. Apart from that, the introduction focuses on previous good case studies of mega cities with technologies related. However, the introduction is to lengthy and perhaps can be divide into 2 section (not only under introduction).

III. The article focuses on the feasibility of using it (broadband) and fast rail for future service in the Melbourne mega-city region.

Iv. The methodology applied is based on retrospective application from previous data (secondary data) and proposes the finding.  

Strength

I. The paper looks at the feasibility of adopting mega-city for Melbourne with previous studies as an evidence.

II. Good article from the perspective of road and urban planning. III. Show a good process of writing a case study for a reader to read, and can be a guideline for others to develop a mega-city.  

Weakness

I. The article towards a feasibility study for adoption of mega-city for Melbourne, and does not show critical or new ideas from a methodological perspective.

II A straightforward article from the perspective of academia but can be accepted from an industry point of view.

 

 

 

 

  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

.