Assessing Progress and Interactions toward SDG 11 Indicators Based on Geospatial Big Data at Prefecture-Level Cities in the Yellow River Basin between 2015 and 2020
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments
First, I congratulate the authors, for composing this scientometric work on SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), such an important issue, of prefecture-level cities in the Yellow River Basin between 2015 and 2020. However, some major concerns remain. In my opinion, unless these issues are comprehensively addressed, this work, in its present form, cannot be accepted for publication.
Points of Concern
· Explain reproducibility as well as the applicability of this work for other regions/countries and different scales (local to global).
· What is the novelty and uniqueness of your work?
· A tabulated list of acronyms is needed. After it, only mention the full form when the first mentioned, then always use Abbreviations throughout the manuscript.
· Check for grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. In some cases, the meaning of the sentences is not easily understood due to mistakes.
· Texts in the figure are sometimes not distinct. Increase the font size and clarity of the text in the figures.
· Please provide Figures with better resolution.
· Can you enlighten the readers a bit on City SDG reports, since your work is themed around SDG 11?
· Construct sentences properly to make them meaningful.
· ‘Literature review’ section should contain a comparative table that contains previous relevant studies conducted on SDGs, especially on SDG 11. It should include their achievement and shortfalls that you have covered in this new manuscript.
· Write the literature review part by maintaining a proper order/sequence (i.e., chronologically).
· Figure legends are too short. Make those a little bit more descriptive, so that these become self-explanatory.
· Improve the language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript, authors calculated the integrated index of SDG 11 and their spatial aggregation characteristics and quantified synergies and trade-offs among indicators. This study contains some interesting findings and is valuable for the understanding of progress and interactions toward SDG 11 in the Yellow River Basin. However, I still have some questions and suggestions:
1. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the current studies on SDGS, but the introduction of related studies about SDG11 is a little lacking. Please add some reviews about it.
2. Why is the Yellow River Basin chosen as the study area? What is special about this region as the research object of SDG 11 compared with other regions in China?
3. The data range of this paper is 2015-2020. Please add the data for the latest year.
4. It is mentioned in the paper that some indicators in SDG 11 are selected according to the availability of data. Can these indicators represent the construction of the whole SDG 11? Is the composite index calculated from this reliable?
5. The Ratio of Land Consumption Rate to Population Growth Rate (LCRPGR) appears for the first time in line 233. Please indicate the full course
6. Paragraph 3.1 is divided into sections by each SDG indicator you calculated. Please consider grouping the sections by characteristics rather than simply organizing the paragraphs by individual indicators.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper aims to “Assessing progress and interactions toward SDG 11 indicators based on geospatial big data at prefecture-level cities in the Yellow River Basin between 2015 and 2020; I would like to suggest major revisions for this study.
1. Abstract needs to modify by adding the primary purpose of the study.
2. The introduction is fine, but the objectives are not clearly mentioned. You need to incorporate objectives, and it will help to enhance the readability of the paper.
3. What is the main question addressed by the research? Better to mention that it
4. What is the originality of your research? We know there is a gap related to the quantification of SDG. You need to emphasize the originality of the paper.
5. Fig should be corrected as Figure
6. Figure 01 is not clear. Need larger one
7. What is the scale of the data? If data types are different scales, how did you combine them?
8. Figure 2 is not precise. Difficult to read
9. The discussion is good. Please explain how quantification of the SDG is essential to understand the status of sustainability.
10. It would be better if you could explain how others can use this methodology in a similar study area.
11. In Other developing countries, it is not easy to get many of the above data. Do you have any ideas to support them in quantifying SDG?
12. It is better to modify all figures
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
First, I congratulate the authors, for composing this work on the Impact of Digital Finance on Air Pollution in China, such an important issue. However, some minor concerns remain. In my opinion, unless these issues are comprehensively addressed, this work, in its present form cannot be accepted for publication.
· Check for grammatical errors.
· In some cases, the meaning of the sentences is not easily understood due to grammatical mistakes.
· It would be better to write in a simpler language. In most cases, the sentences have become complicated unnecessarily.
· There is no need to say the same thing over and over again.
· Arrange the structure of the sentences correctly.
· Since there is the usage of a lot of abbreviations, add a list of abbreviations, at least in the supplementary file.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank for incorporating my comments. Wish you all the best
Author Response
We have checked the full text and modified the grammatical errors and inappropriate sentences in the revised manuscript.
