Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Line 54 to 62.

Four regions of Kazakhstan were selected as objects of the study. The main selection criteria were location, area size, and GRP per capita. Thus, these regions territorially represent the west, east, south, and central parts of the country... All this justifies the researchers' attention to these regions.

 

Only "location, area, and per capita GRP" were used as selection criteria, without explaining the relevance of these three criteria to the "assessment of regional sustainable development" (such as whether the size of the area directly affects the representativeness of the sustainable development dimension).

 

2. Line 88 to 93.

 

During the research, the authors encountered some limitations related to data collection. Thus, not all data reflecting sustainable development are presented by region; data for the country as a whole are presented... which does not allow expanding the coverage of observations.

 

Three major data issues were clearly pointed out: incomplete regional-level data, data deviation caused by administrative division adjustments, and the availability of only annual data without quarterly data. However, no solutions to these problems were provided:

The specific method of using national data to replace regional data was not explained (such as whether population weighting or area weighting was used to estimate regional data);

It was not clarified whether the data after administrative division adjustments were standardized (such as how the regional data before the split were connected with the new regional data after the split);

No mention was made of how to address the insufficient observation caused by only having annual data (such as whether interpolation was used to expand the sample or whether the modeling method was adjusted to adapt to small samples).

 

3. Line 140 to 157.

 

Table 1 – Results of the literature review...

O’Callaghan et al., 2022 The object of the study is crisis... Energy efficiency, investment in technologies... 5. Wang et al., 2023 Regions of China... SWB dependent variable, Food security, quality, and conditions of living/working environment... Combination of geospatial models...

 

The literature review did not conduct an "association analysis between existing research and this study", merely listing research information without explaining how the "goal - principle - indicator" approach of this study fills the gaps in existing research (such as the differences from Bobylev's "topic/problem-indicator" method), thus lacking theoretical connection.

 

4. The source of the weight coefficients in the formula has not been specified.

Line 465 to 470.

Author Response

Dear expert, thank you for your comments and recommendations. They helped us clarify and expand the arguments for our findings and present them as significant scientific and applied results.

 

Regarding your Comments

1. Lines 54–62.

Four regions of Kazakhstan were selected as study sites. The main selection criteria were location, area, and GRP per capita. Thus, these regions geographically represent the west, east, south, and center of the country... All of this justifies the researchers' focus on these regions.

Only "location, area, and GRP per capita" were used as selection criteria, without explaining the relevance of these three criteria for "assessing the sustainable development of a region" (for example, whether territorial size directly influences the representativeness of a sustainable development aspect).

 

Answer of authors:

The following aspects served as key arguments explaining the selection of these regions. The location of these regions reflects geopolitical differences in regional development. In particular, this includes different access to transport corridors and intercountry trade and business relations due to the presence or absence of external borders. Furthermore, this has determined differences in the natural resources of a given region and, consequently, the profile of regional production and business. OECD expert studies note the importance of a region's area as a proxy indicator of spatial potential and business density. This indicator is widely used as a criterion for determining the environmental burden on a region and the manageability of natural resources – spatial sustainability. [1] GRP per capita was chosen as the regional selection criterion because it is the main indicator for countries to assess SDGs 8, 9, and 11, as recommended by the UN [2]. Furthermore, being a synthetic indicator, it serves, in our opinion, as an accurate criterion for ESG-responsible regional governance in the context of social responsibility, which meets the objectives set within the framework of this study.

 

[1] OECD (2023). OECD Regional Outlook 2023: The Longstanding Geography of Inequalities

[2] UNDP (2021). Human Development Report Kazakhstan: Sustainable Regional Development.

 

 

2. Rows 88–93.

During the study, the authors encountered several limitations related to data collection. For example, not all data reflecting sustainable development are presented by region; data are presented for the country as a whole... which does not allow for a broader coverage of observations.

Three main data issues were clearly identified: incomplete data at the regional level, data discrepancies caused by administrative division adjustments, and the availability of only annual data without quarterly data. However, no solutions were proposed for these issues:

The specific method for using national data to replace regional data (e.g., whether population or area weighting was used to estimate regional data) was not explained;

It was not explained whether the data were standardized after adjusting administrative divisions (e.g., how regional data before the split were related to the new regional data after the split);

There was no mention of how to address the issue of insufficient observations caused by the availability of only annual data (e.g., whether interpolation was used to expand the sample or whether the modeling method was adjusted to accommodate small samples).

 

Answer of authors:

Comments and conclusions regarding this remark were added to the section describing the research information base.

2.1 Regarding the recommendation to provide an explanation of the application of a specific method for using national data to replace regional data. It should be clarified that, to mitigate these limitations, the proxy substitution method was not used in this study. This is explained by the fact that the availability of studies on the "noise" effect of this method [3] precludes its application in this study. This requires a separate, independent study devoted to the issue of the sufficiency of stable regional data. The section "Limitations and Prospects for Further Research" includes additional commentary on the potential and scientific potential of this topic, as a comparative analysis of the obtained proxy data and actual data on sustainable development. Furthermore, this study aimed to identify the criteria for sustainable regional development that stakeholders can use, based on the current data base, to make management decisions.

 

[3] Methods for Downscaling National Material Consumption Data to the Regional and Municipal Levels — Westin A. L., Rosado L., Kalmykova Y., Patrício J. (2020). Sustainability, 12(20), 8336. DOI: 10.3390/su12208336.

 

2.2 Regarding the recommendation to explain whether the data were standardized after adjusting administrative divisions, an explanation is provided in the section "Limitations and Prospects for Further Research."

 

Answer of authors:

The administrative-territorial reform carried out in Kazakhstan affected individual regions, two of which were selected as the study objects. An examination of the impact of this reform on the quality and content of regional data was not the objective of this study. In particular, the question of how regional data before the division were related to the new regional data after the division was not considered. However, this aspect deserves special attention from researchers and can be considered promising both for assessing the effectiveness of the reforms themselves and for assessing the impact on the performance of sustainable regional transformation.

 

2.3 Regarding the recommendation, explain how to address the issue of insufficient observations caused by the availability of only annual data (e.g., was interpolation used to expand the sample or was the modeling method adjusted to accommodate small samples).

 

Answer of authors:

Using annual series does limit sample size, so methods suitable for small-panel analysis were used. Robust and cluster standard errors were used in the calculations, and a sensitivity analysis of the results was conducted. Missing values were imputed using linear interpolation, which preserved the overall trend without distortion. Checks confirmed the stability of the signs and magnitudes of the key coefficients, which is consistent with international practice in applied regional econometrics (Baltagi, Greene).

 

 

3. Lines 140–157.

Table 1 – Results of the Literature Review...

O’Callaghan et al., 2022 Research Object: Crisis... Energy Efficiency, Technology Investment... 5. Wang et al., 2023 Regions of China... Dependent Variable: Southwest Coast, Food Security, Quality of Living/Working Conditions... Combination of Geospatial Models...

The literature review did not conduct an “analysis of associations between existing studies and this study,” but merely listed research information without explaining how the “goal-principle-indicator” approach used in this study fills gaps in existing research (e.g., differences from Bobylev’s “topic/problem-indicator” method), thereby precluding a theoretical connection.

 

Answer of authors:

We agree with the expert's recommendations. The rationale has been supplemented. The "goal-principle-indicator" approach, unlike other approaches classified by Professor S.N. Bobylev, demonstrates the connection between the Sustainable Development Goals and their country-specific indicators (as criteria for countries) with ESG principles (focused on businesses operating in and impacting a given region) and the indicators selected for regional development ratings. Therefore, this approach is recognized as the most acceptable.

 

 

4. The source of the weighting factors is not specified in the formula.

Lines 465–470.

 

Answer of authors:

Changes have been made to the figure titles and notations: "Rate of growth/decline" has been replaced by "Growth/Decrease Index." Commentary added: To systematize the conclusions, the work presents calculations for the annual level of Growth/Decrease Index in indicators (Figure 4) by region.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please check the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear expert, thank you for your comments and recommendations. They helped us clarify and expand the arguments for our findings and present them as significant scientific and applied results.

Regarding your Comments

1. Insufficient consideration of the dynamism of indicators: Sustainable development is a dynamic process. The significance of some indicators may change over time, but the indicators selected in this article are relatively fixed and do not fully account for such dynamic changes. The authors are advised to consider incorporating indicators that reflect dynamic trends in regional development in subsequent studies or to develop a mechanism for dynamically updating indicators to more fully address the needs of assessing regional sustainable development (in other words, this aspect can be considered a limitation of the study).

 

Answer of authors:

Regarding this comment: We agree with the expert's opinion that sustainable development is a dynamic process. The indicators selected in this work, which formed the basis of the proposed methodology and were used in testing the NRSD, consist of the following list:

 

		Degree of dynamism	Use in research as dynamic indicators
Gross regional product per capita, Thousands of tenge	Gross regional product per capita, thousands of tenge	GRP, like population, is a quarterly indicator; data is presented quarterly by country.	Formation Mechanism of Logistics Cluster in Belarus – Stanisław Baranowski, Eugene Busko, Sergiej Shishlo, Wiktorja Usevich, Jurij Androsik, Marina Mistseiko, Wojciech Tanaś, Mariusz Szymanek – Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, Volume 7, 2015, Pages 12-20 – DOI:10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.12.022
Number of research specialists performing R&D. people	Number of research specialists performing R&D. People	Annual indicator	·   https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators ·   A Cohort‑Based Analysis of Labor Force Participation for Advanced Economies — Grigoli F., Koczan Z., & Topalova P. (2018). IMF Working Paper No. 2018/120. – DOI: 10.5089/9781484355251.001
Energy intensity, TOE per thousand dollars	Energy intensity. TOE per thousand dollars	Quarterly indicator, presented quarterly by country; by region, only annual data.	·   A common indicator for assessing energy consumption per 1 GDP created, a dynamic indicator. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.GD.PP.KD?utm_source ·   Energy Intensity, Energy Efficiency, and Economic Growth among OECD Nations from 2000 to 2019 – T. Sueyoshi, M. Goto – Energies 2023, 16(4), 1927; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041927
Domestic expenditure on R&D. million tenge	Domestic R&D expenditure. Million tenge	Annual indicator	Relation of R&D expense to turnover and number of listed companies in all industrial fields – Park, JH., Lee, B., Moon, YH. et al. –  Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2018, Pages 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-018-0093-4
Labor productivity in agriculture. Thousands of tenge	Labor productivity in agriculture. Thousands of tenge	Quarterly indicator, presented quarterly by country; by region, only annual data.	Sustainable Development between Demonstration Farm and Agricultural Labor Productivity: Evidence from Family Farms in the Mountainous Area of Western China – Tingting Huang, Jiangfeng Hu, Qinghua Huang – Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9560; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129560
GVA of manufacturing industry per capita, Dollars	GVA of manufacturing per capita. Dollars	Quarterly indicator, presented quarterly by country; by region, only annual data.	Premature deindustrialisation: the international evidence. – Emre Özçelik, Erdal Özmen – Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume 47, Issue 4, July 2023, Pages 725–746, https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead023
Young people (aged 15 to 35) who do not study, work or acquire professional skills	Young people (aged 15 to 35) not studying, working, or acquiring professional skills	Quarterly indicator, presented quarterly by country; by region, only annual data.	https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/youth-not-in-employment-education-or-training-neet.html?utm_source   Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET); more than a youth policy issue – Mitrou, F., Haynes, M., Perales, F., Zubrick, S. R. and Baxter, J. – International Journal of Population Data Science, (2019) 4(3). doi: 10.23889/ijpds.v4i3.1163.
Total population with incomes below the subsidy minimum. people	Total population with incomes below the subsistence level. People	Quarterly indicator, presented quarterly by country; by region, only annual data.	The OECD poverty rate: Lessons from the Russian case. – Martin Brand – Global Social Policy. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468018121996075

 

In addition to the expert's opinion, we note that these indicators are compiled in the Data-base primarily on a quarterly basis for the country and are not presented quarterly by region. We noted this in the "Limitations" section. We have also supplemented the comments in the substantiation section of the NRSD methodology. In the article, we previously outlined the idea that: “For example, the indicator should be transparent: simple and easy to explain, capable of reflecting dynamics over time, and clear in formulas, data, and weights. At the same time, the collected data should be regularly updated and have adequate resource costs for their receipt. It should be noted that the above principles describe the "ideal" indicator. The selected NRSD indicators should meet at least several criteria”.

Given that the indicators are mostly compiled by region only on an annual basis, we recommend that official statistical agencies establish a process for collecting and presenting data on a quarterly basis. At the same time, given the labor-intensive nature of this process, the authors propose automating the calculation of the NRSD at further stages of the methodology's implementation.

2. Limitations associated with model assumptions: When using the ARIMA model to forecast GRP per capita, assumptions such as stationarity and linearity of the time series are made. However, in real-world regional economic development, nonlinear factors and structural changes may be present, which could lead to deviations in the model's forecast results. Further refinement of this issue is crucial.

 

Answer of authors:

When constructing the ARIMA model, the requirement for series stationarity was taken into account. To this end, second-order differentiation and the Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test were performed, which showed that the transformed series is stationary. The model was built on cleaned data, ensuring the validity of the conclusions. The residuals were tested for autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity, and no significant violations were found. For reliability, the forecasts were compared with the results of the Holt–Winters method, and a close match was obtained at an acceptable level of error (MAPE < 10%), which confirms the adequacy of the model.

 

3. Limitations of the forecasting time horizon: The forecasting in the article is primarily focused on the short term, while sustainable development is clearly a medium- to long-term process. Therefore, it is crucial to consider using medium- and long-term forecasting models, such as LSTM (long short-term memory) models and system dynamics models, in the study.

 

Answer of authors:

The forecast in the paper covers the medium term (up to 7 years), due to the limited length of the original series and the volatility of economic indicators. The ARIMA model was chosen as optimal for such data, as it provides robust trend estimates without redundant parameters, serving as a reliable basis for short- and medium-term forecasting. Future plans include extending the time horizon and using hybrid approaches, as recommended by the expert reviewers. These include LSTM models, which can account for nonlinear dynamics, and system dynamics models for assessing sustainable development scenarios over the long term.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposal is interesting, and the reviewer recommends its publication, provided that certain corrections and improvements are made.

1. The proposal concerns Kazakhstan: this should be clearly stated in the title. Currently, the title is general, so it is not clear what the article is about.

2. The main problem is the division of the article into sections, which makes it difficult to understand the purpose of the study. In the introduction, the authors present the research methodology, and only then do they include the sections ‘Theoretical Framework’ and ‘Materials and Methods’. The content of these sections does not really correspond to what one would expect.
The reviewer suggests rethinking the structure of the article to make it clearer:
The introduction should clearly state the article's purpose, the research conducted, and its cognitive significance; some general information about the regions of Kazakhstan covered by the study could also be provided here to make the results more understandable.
The next section should present a literature review (see comments below).
The following section should describe the methodology of the study conducted by the authors: sources, how they were used, and research methods.
The subsequent sections should follow a standard format: results, discussion, and conclusions.

3. The authors have included a literature review in the ‘Theoretical Framework’ section. It should be significantly simplified and improved. Table 1 is incomprehensible. It contains six literature items. Why were these selected? There is no need for a tabular literature review. A text outlining the main trends will suffice. However, it is certainly worth justifying the authors' choice of these particular literature items. Without justification, the selection appears random and of little value.
 
4. The sections presenting the research results should be reorganised so that they first present the results and then comment on them. For example, in lines 237-239, the authors write: ‘The study showed that each of the regions has its own differences in natural and climate conditions, which aggravate and might mitigate at some point the environmental consequences of the industrial enterprises' functioning in the region.’ This is confusing because the study's results appear later. A similar weakness appears in the next section (lines 373ff).

Minor issues should also be corrected:
Lines 66-69: Comparing the surface areas of European countries with regions of Kazakhstan is difficult to justify. It is much more important to present data on population size. Surface area is not particularly significant for the study's results. However, if it is, this should be justified.
Line 116: The strange, isolated phrase ‘Information base’ should be removed. If this was intended to be a sub-section heading, then such a sub-section should be created.
Line 149: China does not have a ‘federal structure’. It should rather be stated that these are simply large countries where regional development is of significant importance.
Line 228: The section of the article should not be called ‘Main part’.
Lines 239-241: ‘In addition, the availability of natural resources and minerals determines the specifics of the regional industries' development.’ This is an obvious conclusion, and in this case, too general. In any case, conclusions – but not so general ones – should be presented after the research results have been presented.
Line 344: The isolated phrase ‘Conclusion on the section’ should be deleted, or a sub-section with this heading should be created.
Pages 25-26: Abbreviations should be in alphabetical order.

Author Response

Dear expert, thank you for your comments and recommendations. They helped us clarify and expand the arguments for our findings and present them as significant scientific and applied results.

Regarding your Comments

1. The proposal concerns Kazakhstan: this should be clearly stated in the title. Currently, the title is generic, making it unclear what the article is about.

 

Agreed, amendments have been made. The title of the revised article is "Ranking Regional Sustainability: A National Perspective on Measurement and Evaluation (based on materials from Kazakhstan)"

 

2. The main problem is the division of the article into sections, which makes it difficult to understand the purpose of the study. In the introduction, the authors outline the research methodology and only then include the "Theoretical Framework" and "Materials and Methods" sections. The content of these sections does not quite match the expectations.

The reviewer suggests revising the structure of the article to make it more understandable:

The introduction should clearly state the purpose of the article, the study conducted, and its educational significance; to make the results more visual, it could also provide general information about the regions of Kazakhstan covered by the study.

The next section should present a literature review (see comments below). The next section should describe the authors' research methodology: sources, their use, and research methods.

The following sections should follow a standard format: results, discussion, and conclusions.

 

According to the expert, the work was structured according to his recommendations.

 

3. The authors included a literature review in the "Theoretical Framework" section. It should be significantly simplified and improved. Table 1 is unclear. It contains six sources. Why were these sources chosen? A tabular literature review is not necessary. A text describing the main trends would be sufficient. However, the authors' choice of these sources should certainly be justified. Without justification, the choice appears random and of little value.

 

Regarding the comments regarding the inclusion of a table to present the conclusions of the literature review, the main arguments for including a table to present the results of the literature review were that recent trends in scientific research published in highly ranked journals have focused on the use of various forms of data visualization for literature review results. In particular, tabular forms and diagrams have been used in the works of various scientists [4, 5, 6, 7]. We noted these methods as a way to visually focus experts' attention on the results of the work performed, reflecting the creative approaches of various researchers. Therefore, we believe it would be better to retain this table, but supplement it with comments on its structure.

 

For example, regarding the recommendations to supplement the explanation for the selection of these particular studies, the following is included in this section. Visualizing the literature review findings in a table allowed us to focus the researchers' attention on specific scientific studies, applying current trends in scientific data visualization [4, 5, 6, 7]. Moreover, the choice of these studies is justified by the fact that they studied similar issues through the examination of relevant independent variables. This allowed us to justify their selection not only through the modeling results but also to create a theoretical basis for the modeling based on leading research.

 

[4] J. Hilgart, C. Miles, Jo-A. Chase, "How to present an informative summary of findings table for systematic reviews of interventions: A tutorial." 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12093

[5] Regional Smart Specialization Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review. H. Ferreira, C. S. Marques L. Farinha. 2024. Journal of the Knowledge Economy https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-025-02736-3

[6] M. Rimidis, M. Butkus From Adversity to Advantage: A Systematic Literature Review on Regional Economic Resilience. Urban Science. 2025, 9(4), 118; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9040118

[7] K.I.Khan, S.Mahmood, A.Khalid. Transforming manufacturing sector: bibliometric insight on ESG performance for green revolution Discover Sustainability (2024) 5:359 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00547-1

 

4. The sections presenting the research results should be reorganized so that the results themselves are presented first, followed by commentary.

1 For example, in lines 237–239, the authors write: "The study showed that each region has its own differences in natural and climatic conditions, which aggravate and may at some point mitigate the environmental impacts of industrial enterprises in the region." This causes confusion, as the research results appear later. A similar deficiency appears in the following

2 section (lines 373 and following).

Minor comments should also be corrected:

3 Lines 66–69: Comparing the areas of European countries with the regions of Kazakhstan is difficult to justify. It is much more important to present population data. Area is not particularly significant for the research results. However, if it is significant, this should be justified.

4 Line 116: The strange, isolated phrase "Information base" should be removed. If this was intended to be a subsection heading, such a subsection should be created. 5 Line 149: China does not have a "federal structure." Rather, it should be stated that these are simply large countries where regional development is important.

6 Line 228: This section of the article should not be titled "Main Body."

7 Lines 239–241: "Furthermore, the availability of natural resources and minerals determines the development characteristics of a region's industries." This is an obvious conclusion, and in this case, too general. In any case, conclusions, although not so general, should be presented after the presentation of the research results.

8 Line 344: The separate phrase "Conclusion on the Section" should be deleted, or a subsection with this title should be created.

9 Pages 25–26: Abbreviations should be arranged alphabetically.

 

All comments on this section have been fully taken into account. The work has been amended.

Comments	Working on comments
1 For example, in lines 237–239, the authors write: "The study showed that each region has its own differences in natural and climatic conditions, which exacerbate and may at some point mitigate the environmental impacts of industrial enterprises in the region." This causes confusion, as the study results appear later.	Corrected
2 Lines 373	Corrected
3 Lines 66–69: Comparing the areas of European countries with the regions of Kazakhstan is difficult to justify. It is much more important to present population data. Area is not particularly significant for the study results. However, if it is significant, it should be justified.	Excluded
4 Line 116: The strange, isolated phrase "Information base" should be removed. If this was intended as a subsection heading, such a subsection should be created.	Excluded
5 Line 149: China does not have a "federal structure." Rather, it should be stated that these are simply large countries where regional development is important.	Corrected
6 Line 228: This section of the article should not be titled "Main Body."	Restructured
7 Lines 239–241: "Furthermore, the availability of natural resources and minerals determines the development characteristics of a region's industrial sectors." This is an obvious conclusion, and in this case, too general. In any case, conclusions, although not so general, should be presented after the presentation of the research results.	Excluded
8 Line 344: The separate phrase "Conclusion on the Section" should be deleted, or a subsection with this title should be created.	Excluded
9 Pages 25–26: Abbreviations should be arranged alphabetically.	Corrected

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to all the authors for your prompt responses. My concerns have been satisfactorily resolved. I think the manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated all the amendments recommended by the reviewer. As a result, the proposal has become clear and well-structured. I recommend it for publication.