Micro-Geographies of Information and Communication Technology Firms in a Shrinking Medium-Sized Industrial City of Ostrava (Czechia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with interesting issues in the field of micro-geography - the spatial distribution of information and communication technology (ICT) firms in the city of Ostrava. The methods used to achieve the aim of the paper are adequate, I would especially appreciate the extensive field survey.

I have to say that the paper has only few formal and content shortcomings.

Here are some comments and remarks to the presented paper:

• First of all, it is necessary to edit and increase the quality of Figures 2, 3, 12 and 13 which are almost unreadable.
• line 529 - correct name of metropolitan region Sydney

• in figure 1 the name of one of the curves in graph´s legend is missing

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors took up an interesting issue. The article has been properly structured, and the selection of methods and case studies is very interesting. Ostrava is an interesting post-industrial city with a rather stratified spatial structure. I believe that the article is eligible for publication in the Land journal, but requires some corrections and a thorough linguistic correction. In addition, the article has not been properly edited in line with Land Editorial Guidelines and requires careful review to suit requirements.

Detailed Notes:

1. The article contains 47 citations of various studies. This figure seems to be satisfactory, but I think more can be done about it. In particular, you can look for additional, valuable articles on the functional and spatial structures of post-industrial cities, similar to Ostrava (post-mining). In addition, it is worth reviewing studies related to the functioning of central service bands.
2. As I wrote in the introduction, Ostrava is an interesting case study and it seems that Chapter 3 should look a bit different. I miss a map of the functional and spatial structure of Ostrava. It is worth preparing one common map, which will also show the location of Ostrava against the background of the Czech Republic, for less informed readers.
3. In the chapter on methods, I suggest that you prepare a research workflow that will clearly show the readers what was done in this research and at what step.
4. There are many photos in the article. I suggest preparing an orientation map with the numbers of individual photos, so that the reader is aware of the area in which the analyzed buildings are located. (That is why the previously mentioned map of the functional and spatial structure is so important - preferably with the boundaries of auxiliary units - districts).
5. Some chapters should have different titles. Chapter three is simply a Case study: Ostrava. Chapter 2 name can also be simplified.
6. Finally, the question of the title of the article. The work is interesting but it concerns a specific case study that was not included in the title. This needs to be changed.

Congratulations on the article and good luck in improving!

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the theoretical framework is developed very well, but logically gives a preference to the topic of spatial distribution of ICT firms and at least one paragraph could be given to a general view of the issue of urban shrinkage and transformation of traditionally industrial regions.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Did the authors make proper corrections? In responses to my comments, references to map 12 and map 13 appear, and I do not see such maps in the new version of the article. The last map is number 10, anyway, it is not very legible and needs to be replaced. I appreciate the revision of the literature, the increase in the number of cited sources and the addition of a research procedure, but there are still some errors in the article that need to be corrected. They also apply to the editing and language side.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for all recommendations. In the first round of the review process, we reacted to all of your requirements. Figures were replaced and renumbered, therefore, original maps 12 and 13 are now maps 11 and 12 in the word document (ignore the pdf version, we will change it). Both maps (11 and 12) are highly detailed and provided in high resolution. However, the submission system does not allow to put the maps with high resolution directly into the text. Therefore, we submitted also all maps in high resolution as the attachment/appendix. We do not know, if you can see it as a reviewer. Especially the last map with functional structures - right in the text it will never be well readable because it is too detailed - it is necessary to look at the full high-resolution version of the map in the appendix.

Regarding the errors in the paper - it is possible, but the paper was checked and corrected three times. We must admit that we do not see more mistakes, but the paper will be checked and corrected once more. If you can tell us exactly what needs to be changed, we will do our best.

Thank you. The authors.