Symbiosis and Synergy of Smart Urban Places: The Case of Zwycięstwa Street in Gliwice, Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper introduces the SyM_SyN Method as a comprehensive framework for measuring symbiosis and synergy in urban spaces, yet the methodological explanation, while detailed, would benefit from a clearer justification of its weighting system. Although the authors compare three alternative weighting scales (−2, −1, 1, 2, 3 vs. −2, −1, 0, 1, 2 vs. −3, −1, 1, 2, 4), there is limited discussion of why the chosen scale offers optimal sensitivity for assessing functional relationships on Zwycięstwa Street. Incorporating a sensitivity analysis showing how the results vary across different weighting schemes would improve methodological robustness and strengthen the argument for adopting the selected parameters.

The case study of Zwycięstwa Street provides rich empirical insights; however, the integration of historical, socio-economic, and spatial data could be more balanced. While the authors provide a detailed architectural and functional inventory of all ten segments, the discussion of socio-economic drivers behind the street’s transformation—such as privatization effects, vacancy rates, and retail migration—is somewhat superficial. A deeper examination of these dynamics, potentially supported by demographic data, commercial trends, and land-use policies, would enhance the explanatory power of the findings and provide stronger grounds for the proposed revitalization strategies.

The visual analyses, particularly Figures 22 through 27, demonstrate the authors’ commitment to transparency in reporting, yet the interpretation of these results lacks sufficient comparative benchmarking. For instance, while average levels and intensities of synergy and symbiosis are presented, there is no reference to threshold values or external case comparisons to contextualize what constitutes a “high” or “low” level. Introducing comparative data from similar studies or cities would make the conclusions more persuasive and demonstrate the generalizability of the SyM_SyN Method.

Although the proposed future-state redesign for Zwycięstwa Street (Figure 24 and Figure 25) is visually compelling, the paper would benefit from a more explicit discussion of implementation feasibility. The current design recommendations rely heavily on replacing “incompatible” functions with “desirable” uses to increase symbiotic relations, yet there is no assessment of market constraints, regulatory frameworks, or stakeholder priorities. Including a feasibility analysis—covering economic costs, ownership structures, and potential resistance from property owners—would improve the practical applicability of the study’s conclusions.

The discussion section provides an insightful comparison between the SyM_SyN results and independent evaluations from local architects (Figure 28), but the observed discrepancies in Segment 04 highlight a key limitation that the paper does not fully address: the potential bias arising from relying solely on functional metrics while overlooking architectural and aesthetic values. Since architectural quality was shown to influence experts’ perceptions, the methodology could be enhanced by integrating weighted aesthetic parameters into the symbiosis-synergy framework. This would allow the model to better capture multi-dimensional urban quality and improve its alignment with real-world stakeholder evaluations.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your extremely helpful review.

The paper introduces the SyM_SyN Method as a comprehensive framework for measuring symbiosis and synergy in urban spaces, yet the methodological explanation, while detailed, would benefit from a clearer justification of its weighting system. Although the authors compare three alternative weighting scales (−2, −1, 1, 2, 3 vs. −2, −1, 0, 1, 2 vs. −3, −1, 1, 2, 4), there is limited discussion of why the chosen scale offers optimal sensitivity for assessing functional relationships on Zwycięstwa Street. Incorporating a sensitivity analysis showing how the results vary across different weighting schemes would improve methodological robustness and strengthen the argument for adopting the selected parameters.

The weights serve to compare the states of individual segments and are therefore relative. When applied consistently within the project, they yield useful and meaningful results. Details are provided in lines 299–329.

The case study of Zwycięstwa Street provides rich empirical insights; however, the integration of historical, socio-economic, and spatial data could be more balanced. While the authors provide a detailed architectural and functional inventory of all ten segments, the discussion of socio-economic drivers behind the street’s transformation—such as privatization effects, vacancy rates, and retail migration—is somewhat superficial. A deeper examination of these dynamics, potentially supported by demographic data, commercial trends, and land-use policies, would enhance the explanatory power of the findings and provide stronger grounds for the proposed revitalization strategies.

The SyM-SyN Method is conceived as one of the components of comprehensive urban analyses. It is particularly useful for the study of main urban streets. In practical implementation, a holistic approach to the subject is required. This has been explained in lines 1000–1011 and 1031–1036.

The visual analyses, particularly Figures 22 through 27, demonstrate the authors’ commitment to transparency in reporting, yet the interpretation of these results lacks sufficient comparative benchmarking. For instance, while average levels and intensities of synergy and symbiosis are presented, there is no reference to threshold values or external case comparisons to contextualize what constitutes a “high” or “low” level. Introducing comparative data from similar studies or cities would make the conclusions more persuasive and demonstrate the generalizability of the SyM_SyN Method.

The maximum levels of the key measured parameters are shown in Figures 21, 22, and 27. Future plans are outlined in lines 977–985 and 1031–1036.

Although the proposed future-state redesign for Zwycięstwa Street (Figure 24 and Figure 25) is visually compelling, the paper would benefit from a more explicit discussion of implementation feasibility. The current design recommendations rely heavily on replacing “incompatible” functions with “desirable” uses to increase symbiotic relations, yet there is no assessment of market constraints, regulatory frameworks, or stakeholder priorities. Including a feasibility analysis—covering economic costs, ownership structures, and potential resistance from property owners—would improve the practical applicability of the study’s conclusions.

The SyM-SyN Method is intended to support the process of changing the uses of urban places and constitutes only one element within a set of comprehensive actions. This has been explained in lines 1000–1011 and 1031–1036.

 

The discussion section provides an insightful comparison between the SyM_SyN results and independent evaluations from local architects (Figure 28), but the observed discrepancies in Segment 04 highlight a key limitation that the paper does not fully address: the potential bias arising from relying solely on functional metrics while overlooking architectural and aesthetic values. Since architectural quality was shown to influence experts’ perceptions, the methodology could be enhanced by integrating weighted aesthetic parameters into the symbiosis-synergy framework. This would allow the model to better capture multi-dimensional urban quality and improve its alignment with real-world stakeholder evaluations.

It is planned to develop analogous methods for assessing other socio-spatial aspects of the main urban street, employing graphs to record complex urban structures and drawing on the experience gained from the application of the SyM-SyN Method.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the revision and modifications.

The manuscript has been improved; and I do not have any extra point.

Regards

Author Response

thank You very much

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper employs the SyM_SyN methodology to quantitatively assess symbiosis and synergy within urban spaces, analysing the main street of Gliwice as a case study. The topic aligns with current research priorities in sustainable urban development and smart cities, featuring a systematic methodology and detailed case analysis, thereby possessing practical value. However, the present article exhibits the following shortcomings:

1.The abstract is lengthy, predominantly theoretical in exposition, lacking a concise summary of the research question, methodological steps, key findings, and conclusions.

Recommendations: Condense background descriptions (e.g., ‘definition of symbiosis & synergy’), emphasise case findings and methodological contributions more prominently. Enhance the practical significance of the research (e.g., implications for urban renewal and street vitality enhancement).

2.The introduction is excessively lengthy, with an overly academic narrative structure that obscures the core research question. It lacks a comparative review of relevant prior methodologies (e.g., spatial syntax, functional mix index).

Recommendation: Organise using subheadings or paragraph breaks (Research Context—Research Gaps—Research Question—Research Objectives). Clearly articulate the study's innovation (e.g., the applicability of the SyM_SyN method in analysing urban main streets).

 

3.The Methods section contains excessive formulas (PsyM, PsyN, IsyM, IsyN, Pant, etc.), making it challenging to read. It lacks intuitive explanations: what urban spatial characteristics do these indicators represent?

Recommendation: Include an ‘Indicator Reference Table’ (symbol—calculation formula—practical significance—urban case study). Alternatively, relocate some formulas to the appendix, retaining only the most critical ones in the main text. Additionally, incorporate comparisons with existing methods (e.g., spatial syntax centrality, land use diversity indices).

 

4.The discussion section leans heavily towards methodological validity, with insufficient analysis of urban renewal strategies.

Recommend dividing the discussion into two parts: Methodological reflection (strengths, limitations, comparison with other approaches). Practical implications (lessons for Gliwice and other urban renewal contexts).

 

5.The conclusion emphasises the method's contributions but lacks sufficient coverage of research limitations and future directions.

Supplement limitations: e.g., focusing solely on ground-floor commercial functions without considering traffic flow, pedestrian behaviour, or digital activity data. Add future research directions.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am most grateful for your very helpful review.

This paper employs the SyM_SyN methodology to quantitatively assess symbiosis and synergy within urban spaces, analysing the main street of Gliwice as a case study. The topic aligns with current research priorities in sustainable urban development and smart cities, featuring a systematic methodology and detailed case analysis, thereby possessing practical value. However, the present article exhibits the following shortcomings:

1.The abstract is lengthy, predominantly theoretical in exposition, lacking a concise summary of the research question, methodological steps, key findings, and conclusions.

Recommendations: Condense background descriptions (e.g., ‘definition of symbiosis & synergy’), emphasise case findings and methodological contributions more prominently. Enhance the practical significance of the research (e.g., implications for urban renewal and street vitality enhancement).

The abstract has been thoroughly revised.

2.The introduction is excessively lengthy, with an overly academic narrative structure that obscures the core research question. It lacks a comparative review of relevant prior methodologies (e.g., spatial syntax, functional mix index).

Recommendation: Organise using subheadings or paragraph breaks (Research Context—Research Gaps—Research Question—Research Objectives). Clearly articulate the study's innovation (e.g., the applicability of the SyM_SyN method in analysing urban main streets).

Paragraphs 1 and 2 (Introduction and Research on the Structure …) were reorganised with subheadings. The review of prior methodologies is presented in Sections 2.2–2.5. Details of the SyM-SyN Method are described in Section 3, its applicability in Subsection 3.1, and the method of application in Subsection 3.2.

3.The Methods section contains excessive formulas (PsyM, PsyN, IsyM, IsyN, Pant, etc.), making it challenging to read. It lacks intuitive explanations: what urban spatial characteristics do these indicators represent?

The explanation of the meaning and selection of the indicators is provided in lines 892–904.

Recommendation: Include an ‘Indicator Reference Table’ (symbol—calculation formula—practical significance—urban case study). Alternatively, relocate some formulas to the appendix, retaining only the most critical ones in the main text. Additionally, incorporate comparisons with existing methods (e.g., spatial syntax centrality, land use diversity indices).

Relations with existing methods are described in lines 197–208. 

4.The discussion section leans heavily towards methodological validity, with insufficient analysis of urban renewal strategies.

Recommend dividing the discussion into two parts: Methodological reflection (strengths, limitations, comparison with other approaches). Practical implications (lessons for Gliwice and other urban renewal contexts).

The discussion section was divided into two subsections: methodological considerations and practical considerations regarding potential improvements to Zwycięstwa Street in Gliwice.  

5.The conclusion emphasises the method's contributions but lacks sufficient coverage of research limitations and future directions.

Supplement limitations: e.g., focusing solely on ground-floor commercial functions without considering traffic flow, pedestrian behaviour, or digital activity data. Add future research directions.

                         The conclusions have been revised. The limitations of applying the SyM-SyN Method and its place within a comprehensive study of urban structures are described in lines 1018–1025, while plans for future research are outlined in lines 1045–1054.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the topic of “Smart Cities” and “Urban Symbiosis and Synergy,” an issue of both theoretical innovation and practical value. The paper proposes the SyM_SyN method, which integrates Space Syntax with functional-neighborhood relationship analysis, providing an operational framework for evaluating the socio-functional coordination of main street spaces. The case study examines the city of Gliwice, Poland, supported by detailed data and comprehensive charts.

The revised manuscript is structurally and visually more complete than the initial draft, and all my concerns have been addressed. Aside from replacing certain figures with clearer versions (e.g., Figures 15, 19, 20, 24), I have no further suggestions for modification.

Author Response

This study focuses on the topic of “Smart Cities” and “Urban Symbiosis and Synergy,” an issue of both theoretical innovation and practical value. The paper proposes the SyM_SyN method, which integrates Space Syntax with functional-neighborhood relationship analysis, providing an operational framework for evaluating the socio-functional coordination of main street spaces. The case study examines the city of Gliwice, Poland, supported by detailed data and comprehensive charts.

The revised manuscript is structurally and visually more complete than the initial draft, and all my concerns have been addressed. Aside from replacing certain figures with clearer versions (e.g., Figures 15, 19, 20, 24), I have no further suggestions for modification.

Thank you for your opinion and helpful remarks.

Figures 15, 19, 20, 24 were replaced.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The proposed SyM_SyN method offers a novel approach to quantifying symbiosis and synergy in urban streetscapes using weighted neighborhood matrices (Section 3). While the method appears systematic and well-structured, it has only been tested on a single case study—Zwycięstwa Street in Gliwice. This limits its generalizability. The authors should discuss the method’s scalability and potential limitations in applying it to other urban contexts. A brief roadmap for external validation in future studies would enhance methodological robustness.

2. The paper introduces multiple quantitative indicators (e.g., PsyM, PsyN, IsyM, IsyN) to measure the level and intensity of symbiosis and synergy (Section 3.5). However, the logic behind assigning specific weights (e.g., [-2, -1, 1, 2, 3]) to different spatial relationships seems largely empirical. The authors are encouraged to better justify these weights using theoretical references or prior empirical studies. Moreover, a brief sensitivity analysis would be beneficial to show whether the results are stable under different weighting schemes.

3. The paper contains a large number of figures, particularly in Sections 4.2 to 4.5 (e.g., Figures 4–13 and 17–19). While these contribute to transparency, many side-by-side street views and matrix visualizations convey overlapping information. The authors are advised to consolidate similar figures and emphasize only the most informative visualizations (such as Figures 21, 22, and 27) to improve the readability and visual clarity of the manuscript.

4. Section 5 offers useful insights into the methodological and practical implications of the SyM_SyN method. However, the discussion remains largely confined to the internal logic of the proposed framework. To strengthen the contribution, the authors should engage more deeply with related methods such as space syntax, multiple centrality assessment, or urban vitality indices, and compare their results to those obtained using SyM_SyN. This would contextualize the findings and highlight the added value of the proposed method.

5. Although the paper is structurally sound, the writing style occasionally lacks academic fluency. Phrases like “It should be clearly emphasized once again that…” are repeated multiple times, and terms like “hypersymbiotic” are used without formal definition upon first mention. The authors are strongly encouraged to conduct a thorough language edit (ideally by a native English speaker or professional service) to ensure clarity, terminological precision, and a formal academic tone throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

REVIEV 1

Thank you very much for your valuable remarks and for suggesting ways to improve our article. Below, we provide our responses and information on the changes made in accordance with your comments.

1. The proposed SyM_SyN method offers a novel approach to quantifying symbiosis and synergy in urban streetscapes using weighted neighborhood matrices (Section 3). While the method appears systematic and well-structured, it has only been tested on a single case study—Zwycięstwa Street in Gliwice. This limits its generalizability. The authors should discuss the method’s scalability and potential limitations in applying it to other urban contexts. A brief roadmap for external validation in future studies would enhance methodological robustness.

Ad.1. Limitation of that method and plans for future development were described in the end of par 5-Discussion.(lines-901-905)

 

2. The paper introduces multiple quantitative indicators (e.g., PsyM, PsyN, IsyM, IsyN) to measure the level and intensity of symbiosis and synergy (Section 3.5). However, the logic behind assigning specific weights (e.g., [-2, -1, 1, 2, 3]) to different spatial relationships seems largely empirical. The authors are encouraged to better justify these weights using theoretical references or prior empirical studies. Moreover, a brief sensitivity analysis would be beneficial to show whether the results are stable under different weighting schemes.

Ad.2. Discussion about scales of weights is added in part (lines 270-301)

3. The paper contains a large number of figures, particularly in Sections 4.2 to 4.5 (e.g., Figures 4–13 and 17–19). While these contribute to transparency, many side-by-side street views and matrix visualizations convey overlapping information. The authors are advised to consolidate similar figures and emphasize only the most informative visualizations (such as Figures 21, 22, and 27) to improve the readability and visual clarity of the manuscript.

Ad.3. Our intention is to give readers full set of info about the character of Zwyciestaw street in Gliwice. We would like to leave the full set of figures.

 

4. Section 5 offers useful insights into the methodological and practical implications of the SyM_SyN method. However, the discussion remains largely confined to the internal logic of the proposed framework. To strengthen the contribution, the authors should engage more deeply with related methods such as space syntax, multiple centrality assessment, or urban vitality indices, and compare their results to those obtained using SyM_SyN. This would contextualize the findings and highlight the added value of the proposed method.

Ad.2. Extend review  of references about Space Synrax, MCA and relation with SyM-Syn Method was added in part 2 – lines 120-186

 

5. Although the paper is structurally sound, the writing style occasionally lacks academic fluency. Phrases like “It should be clearly emphasized once again that…” are repeated multiple times, and terms like “hypersymbiotic” are used without formal definition upon first mention. The authors are strongly encouraged to conduct a thorough language edit (ideally by a native English speaker or professional service) to ensure clarity, terminological precision, and a formal academic tone throughout the manuscript.

Ad.2. Article was completely revised from language point of view. The “hypersymbiotic relation is explained in line 265.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an approach to evaluating the level of symbiosis and synergy at streets in Gliwice using a SyM_SyN Method.

The abstract of the paper requires adjustments to make it clear and understandable to the reader. Symbiosis and synergy must be clear because they have a role in this paper. Also, a SyM_SyN Method must be explained, and results must be included.

Introduction

The short introduction is a weakness of the paper, demonstrating the absence of exploring the context of the issue. There were concerns about exploring the thematic involving contextualizing with the authors and past papers. The objective must be introduced in this section.

Section 3

SyM_SyN Method: What is it? Is it a method? For that? The proposal?

Why the paper [6]?

Please use Math equations to plot each one.

Although the author explains the steps of SyM SyN in the following paragraphs, the presentation requires rewriting. The text in actual form shows that scientific style wasn’t employed in the text, and it does not explain why this method was used. What are the advantages? Is it only an application?

Figure 14 must be remade.

The method and steps to achieve the results don’t make clear how these results were found.

Author Response

REWIEV 2

We sincerely thank you for your valuable remarks and constructive suggestions for improving our article. Please find below our detailed responses, together with information on the revisions made in accordance with your comments.

 

1. The paper presents an approach to evaluating the level of symbiosis and synergy at streets in Gliwice using a SyM_SyN Method.

The abstract of the paper requires adjustments to make it clear and understandable to the reader. Symbiosis and synergy must be clear because they have a role in this paper. Also, a SyM_SyN Method must be explained, and results must be included.

Ad.1 The abstract was completely revised. The idea of SyM-SyN method was explained.

 

2. Introduction

The short introduction is a weakness of the paper, demonstrating the absence of exploring the context of the issue. There were concerns about exploring the thematic involving contextualizing with the authors and past papers. The objective must be introduced in this section.

Ad.2.Introduction was revised but still is not very long. Theortical background and extend review  of references about Space Synrax, MCA and relation with SyM-Syn Method were added in part 2 – lines 120-186.

 

3. Section 3

SyM_SyN Method: What is it? Is it a method? For that? The proposal?

Why the paper [6]?

Please use Math equations to plot each one.

Ad.3. This article is an report from the implementation of the Sym Syn method to study Zwyciestwa street in Gliwice. In Article in ACEE the theoretical base of Sym-Syn Method was presented with extended references review. All math are presented.

 

4. Although the author explains the steps of SyM SyN in the following paragraphs, the presentation requires rewriting. The text in actual form shows that scientific style wasn’t employed in the text, and it does not explain why this method was used. What are the advantages? Is it only an application?

 

5. Figure 14 must be remade.

Ad.5. Revision of figure 14 was done

 

6.The method and steps to achieve the results don’t make clear how these results were found.

Ad.1 The abstract was completely revised. The idea of SyM-SyN method was explained.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- As stated by the authors clearly, this manuscript is a report that aims to assess a method at a small scale level of a street. 

- A similar manuscript also has been published recently by the first author in the below address; and present text does not provide any significant difference:

https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/acee-2025-0023?tab=article

-On the other hand and considering the structure and scientific soundness of the manuscript, it is not well designed and processed. Also, it is not supported by a rich literature review and does not count on an acceptable number of references. 

- Contribution of the study is not clear and there is no specific result to be addressed. And due to the scale of the study, its implication is under question. 

-In fact, the manuscript seems to be a section within a greater context of another study. 

-Considering this argument, I do not recommend further process of this manuscript; and do not find relevant considering the quality and impact factor of this journal.

 

Regards

 

Author Response

REVIEV 3

Thank you for your remarks. Below are our responses and the corresponding changes made.

1.- As stated by the authors clearly, this manuscript is a report that aims to assess a method at a small scale level of a street. 

Ad.1. Limitation of that method and plans for future development were described in the end of par 5-Discussion.(lines-901-905)

 

2. - A similar manuscript also has been published recently by the first author in the below address; and present text does not provide any significant difference:

https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/acee-2025-0023?tab=article

Ad.2. This article is an report from the implementation of the Sym Syn method to study Zwyciestwa street in Gliwice. In Article in ACEE the theoretical base of Sym-Syn Method was presented with extended references review.

 

3.-On the other hand and considering the structure and scientific soundness of the manuscript, it is not well designed and processed. Also, it is not supported by a rich literature review and does not count on an acceptable number of references. 

Ad.3. Extended review  of references about Space Synrax, MCA and relation with SyM-Syn Method was added in part 2 – lines 120-186

 

4.- Contribution of the study is not clear and there is no specific result to be addressed. And due to the scale of the study, its implication is under question. 

Ad.4. Contribution of the study is described in part 4 – lines 407 469. Limitation of that method and plans for future development were described in the end of par 5-Discussion.(lines-901-905)

 

5.-In fact, the manuscript seems to be a section within a greater context of another study. 

Ad.5. Plans for future development of SyM-SyN Method were described in the end of par 5-Discussion.(lines-901-905)

6.-Considering this argument, I do not recommend further process of this manuscript; and do not find relevant considering the quality and impact factor of this journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It seems necessary to supplement the content in the introduction so that the background of the study and the overall flow of previous research can be understood. Additionally, it would be good if the importance, necessity, and contribution of the research were clearly revealed along with the research purpose.

2. In Chapter 2, we suggest that prior research on the structure of urban space be organized by topic or period to clearly reveal the overall flow. Prior research needs to be organized logically so that the research purpose and importance can be highlighted.

3. In the case of Fig 2, the content needs to be refined. Rather than representing it as a single process overall, it would be better to divide the content into three stages: Step 0-3, Step 4-5, and Step 6-9.

4. If the content is long, it is necessary to subdivide the table of contents according to topic. There is a significant overall quantitative difference in each table of contents. If there is a lot of content, please subdivide the table of contents and use a large or small table of contents.

5. The contents of the conclusion need to be supplemented. Please briefly summarize the results, how the research was able to achieve its purpose, and emphasize once again the contribution of the research.

Author Response

REWIEV 4

We are grateful for your insightful remarks and constructive suggestions regarding our article. Below, we outline our responses and indicate the revisions implemented in line with your comments

1. It seems necessary to supplement the content in the introduction so that the background of the study and the overall flow of previous research can be understood. Additionally, it would be good if the importance, necessity, and contribution of the research were clearly revealed along with the research purpose.

Ad.1. Extended review of previous research was added in part 2

1. In Chapter 2, we suggest that prior research on the structure of urban space be organized by topic or period to clearly reveal the overall flow. Prior research needs to be organized logically so that the research purpose and importance can be highlighted.

Ad.2. Revised and extended review  of references about Space Synrax, MCA and relation with SyM-Syn Method was added in part 2 – lines 120-186

1. In the case of Fig 2, the content needs to be refined. Rather than representing it as a single process overall, it would be better to divide the content into three stages: Step 0-3, Step 4-5, and Step 6-9.

Ad.3. Revised and extended review  of references about Space Synrax, MCA and relation with SyM-Syn Method was added in part 2 – lines 120-186

1. If the content is long, it is necessary to subdivide the table of contents according to topic. There is a significant overall quantitative difference in each table of contents. If there is a lot of content, please subdivide the table of contents and use a large or small table of contents.

Ad.4. Dividable tables were divided.

1. The contents of the conclusion need to be supplemented. Please briefly summarize the results, how the research was able to achieve its purpose, and emphasize once again the contribution of the research.

Ad.5. End part of discussion and conclusions were revised for summarizing results.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx