The Interaction Between Sustainable Development and Cultural Infrastructure: An Empirical Analysis of France and Romania in the Era of Smart Technologies and Future Research Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Cultural Infrastructure as a Vector for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Study Between Romania and France in the Era of Smart Technologies and Future Research Agenda“ analyses a relevant and problematic area - the interaction between sustainable development and cultural infrastructure.

The article analyses a relevant and problematic area - the interaction between sustainable development and cultural infrastructure. The authors cover many aspects in the work, which should lead to the complexity of the study, but when reading the article, it seems chaotic. However, this does not negate the overall value of the article.

The goal of the article must also be clarified and it must be clearly stated how individual studies conducted in the work contribute to the implementation of this goal. The introduction states "Our goal is to show how culture can be used to promote education and lessen inequality by examining how cultural infrastructure changes with income levels". This formulation of the goal is inappropriate. First of all, by examining the correlation between cultural infrastructure and income levels alone, it is impossible to show how culture can promote education and lessen inequality. In order to determine the relationships between these components, complex models should be formed in which education level (or quality) and lessen inequality would be dependent variables, cultural infrastructure would be an independent variable, and income level would be a moderating variable.

In the abstract, it is written: In other words, it asks how regional and local economic and social conditions shape the cultural policies and educational frameworks that influence cultural accessibility. From this description, the paper is expected to examine how economic and cultural conditions shape cultural policy and how cultural policies and educational frameworks influence cultural accessibility. But this is not the case in the paper. First of all, the impact of social conditions on neither cultural infrastructure nor cultural policies is investigated. Second, the direct impact on cultural policies is also not investigated.

Once you have a clear goal, state it the same way everywhere (both in the introduction and the summary).

I suggest expanding the abstract. It should briefly indicate the problem being solved, the goal, the research methods used, and the results obtained.

The article also does not clearly define terms. Please clarify, define the terms used, and use them consistently throughout the article.

Another shortcoming is related to the fact that the goal mentions sustainable development. Still, in principle, the research only covers the economic component of development (GDP per capita), ignoring the social and environmental dimensions.

The "Materials and Methods" section should consistently describe the stages of the study, the methods used in them, and the period used for the study. For example, it remained unclear what period of data to use for the correlation study. This method is very primitive but can be used to determine general trends, so I do not consider this a fundamental flaw.

When presenting the results (especially the study of relationships), it would be desirable to compare them with the results of studies by other authors.

The bibliometric analysis is well done. A practical smart technology solution (Figure 10) is debatable and not based on the authors' research. The question arises as to why SAP, etc., was chosen.

Overall, the research provided interesting insights and could be published. However, it needs to be revised to avoid contradictions, present everything consistently, clearly reveal the connections between the analysed aspects, and adjust the title to match the research conducted.

Author Response

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I rate the article as interesting and the methodology as correct. I also have no reservations about the level of English. However, before the article is published, I recommend the following changes.

The study aims to determine the link between cultural heritage and urban sustainability and how multidisciplinary education can help organize urban issues. To achieve this goal, the authors used the method of bibliometric and literature analysis combined with linear regression (a hybrid model).

This approach determines the originality of the topic. As a result of the study, 4 themes (models) were defined, constituting a practical solution that can be applied to the field of culture for resilience and sustainability applicable to both Romania and France. That especially is a new approach with Romania, but also reduces a gap with France.

The scope of the study is certainly original and the study covered all (at the time of writing the article) available publications in WoS, which were subjected to a comprehensive analysis. This gives the opportunity for a wide citation of this article in future similar studies, not only those concerning France or Romania.

In my opinion the methodology applied is correct.

The conclusions are well-formulated and justified. Perhaps for better readability, the authors could consider bulleting the research questions/objectives, which would lead to better readability of the article and increase its citations.

The authors cited 58 references in the text. Since the bibliometric method was used and the literature review is also important, I recommend considering increasing this number to a minimum of 80 items - as long as 144 literature items are mentioned in the method.

1. Line 226. Table 2: Summary of Cultural Infrastructure: Cultural infrastructure (measured in units) in relation to GDP per capita for each region in Romania - presents too much uninportant details, not connected with its title. I recommend removing items for which only GDP is indicated, and leaving only major regions with complete data. Moreover, the second half of the table has a larger font size - this should be standardized. This will also ensure that the data in Table 1 and Table 2 are consistent.
2. Some figures are not referred in the text: 4, 5, 6, 8, 10
3. Line 721. Author Contributions: For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used (...) - this two sentences should be deleted.

Apart from that, I don't notice any major problems.

Author Response

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The use of linear regression in the study has limitations. The relationship between GDP per capita and cultural infrastructure is likely more complex than a simple linear model can capture. There may be non - linear relationships, interactions with other variables, or regional - specific factors that are not accounted for. For example, in some regions, cultural infrastructure investment might be influenced by local cultural traditions or political will, which are not considered in the current model. The authors should consider using more advanced statistical methods, such as polynomial regression or multiple regression with interaction terms, to better explore these relationships. Additionally, the data sources for cultural infrastructure in Romania seem to be somewhat limited. Relying solely on the number of cultural infrastructure units without considering their quality or usage efficiency may lead to inaccurate results. It would be beneficial to include more comprehensive data, such as visitor numbers, frequency of cultural activities, or satisfaction surveys related to cultural infrastructure.

2.While the study makes an effort to compare Romania and France, the analysis of the differences between the two countries could be more in - depth. The authors mainly focus on the relationship between GDP per capita and cultural infrastructure, but they overlook other important aspects that could contribute to the differences in cultural infrastructure development. For instance, differences in historical, social, and political contexts between the two countries may have a significant impact on cultural policies and the development of cultural infrastructure. France has a long - standing strong cultural heritage and a well - established cultural policy system, while Romania has a different historical trajectory and is still in the process of developing its cultural infrastructure. These differences should be more comprehensively analyzed to provide a more profound understanding of the research topic. Moreover, the discussion of the role of smart technologies in cultural infrastructure development is rather superficial. The authors only briefly mention the use of an ERP system as a solution. They should explore more deeply how smart technologies can be integrated into different aspects of cultural infrastructure, such as improving cultural heritage preservation, enhancing cultural activities' accessibility, and promoting cultural education.

3.The conclusions drawn from the study are somewhat simplistic. The authors conclude that GDP per capita has a limited influence on cultural infrastructure, but they do not provide clear and practical suggestions for policymakers. Given the complexity of the factors influencing cultural infrastructure investment, the authors should offer more targeted policy recommendations. For example, in regions with different economic levels, what specific policies can be implemented to promote the development of cultural infrastructure? How can local governments balance economic development and cultural investment? In addition, the future research directions proposed in the paper are rather general. The four research themes lack specific research questions and methods. The authors should further refine these themes, formulate clear research questions, and suggest appropriate research methods to guide future research. This will make the future research agenda more actionable and valuable.

Author Response

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took the recommendations into account and revised the article. Although the research uses simple methods, the paper meets the requirements for this type of work, the research results are reasonable, the insights are meaningful, and further research directions are planned. I recommend the article for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has made significant progress.