Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript discusses the spatial and temporal integration reconstruction method of rural settlements. The topic and the adopted research methods seem appropriate for publication in the journal of Land. However, the manuscript requires fundamental revision. Meanwhile, the writing is ok, although the language needs further polish. It is recommended to ask a native speaker to check your manuscript for grammar, style, and syntax. I suggest modifications as below.

(1) In the Introduction, the existing content does not lead nicely to some points of this manuscript. For example, why “it is important to address the problems such as…” has not been clarified.

(2) Some opinions are given without the data and references, especially in the first and second paragraphs of the Introduction, which should be clearly delineated.

(3) The paper needs to be better embedded in the international literature. The paper does not do an excellent job at this. “There are few reports on the consolidation potential at the plot scale, the quality evaluation of cultivated land after consolidation, and the time arrangement and spatial layout of consolidation.” Numerous articles previously addressed the relevant content. To be part of the international academic society, the authors should pay more attention to these studies.

(4) The theoretical framework for the manuscript is too simple. The authors should illustrate the mechanism as well. Besides, the figure is not shown clearly.

(5) Tables and figures in the manuscript should be revised carefully. Some of the words are missing in the version. Formulas in articles need to be formatted consistently as well.

(6) The authors used the comprehensive correction index system of the amount of supplementary cultivated Land for rural settlement consolidation. However, the authors do not illustrate why they choose these indicators in the index system. This is a critical matter and is required to be refined.

(7) This manuscript lacks in-depth discussion. Firstly, the authors should compare these results to relevant existing literature and distinguish their differences. Secondly, the authors should point out the limitations of the manuscript and prospects in the field.

Author Response

Thank you for your questions and comments. We adopted all the suggestions. We have carefully analyzed your views on the manuscript and made the  changes to the article. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses the reconstruction of the spatial pattern of rural residential areas from the perspective of land consolidation, which has a good innovation, and has a synchronous effect on promoting the intensive use of rural construction land and strengthening the protection of cultivated land, in line with the direction of contribution album, the overall content is rich, the method is reasonable, and the conclusion is credible.

However, there are several points that can be further improved, with the following specific suggestions：

First, the innovation and significance of the study need to be further refined in the abstract.

Second, the research content of this study has Chinese characteristics, but it should also be supplemented by some international literature.

Third, the distribution map of the study area needs to be supplemented

Fourth, the difference and relationship between spatial reconstruction of regional rural settlements and reconstruction of individual villages can be given in the discussion.

Fifth, the charts in the text need to be properly beautified

It is suggested that it should be accepted after extensive revision.

Author Response

Thank you for your questions and comments. We adopted all the suggestions. We have carefully analyzed your views on the manuscript and made the changes to the article.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your work in this field.

You did a good job!

This version has some revisions that should be considered, not many, but essential.

For details, please see the following comments:

1. the whole format of this manuscript should be re-arranged. Too many format errors seriously affect the reading experience and understanding of the information in the manuscript.

2. line 6, source, please.

3. line 15, source, please.

4. The English language polishing for this manuscript is mandatory.  There are too many languages and academic paper writing standards problems. The fluency of the reading is seriously affected.

5. line 25-31, sources, please. This article does little to get the source citation right in the example and review sections. Please check this manuscript thoroughly, and make sure you cited all sources for the concept, literature, and research status correctly. Normally, a standard-level scientific journal paper in this research field at least should have more than 60 reference papers, but for now. You only have 38. this is unusual.

6. line 40,  'domestic and foreign scholars', please avoid using the translate platform to translate your sentences straightly, such as Baidu. Here should be said as 'Chinese and international shcolars'.

7. your research object is from China, I suggest you add this information in your title. At least, point out that your paper is written from Chinese evidence or for Chinese rural areas. The current research range is much wider than what you really did.

8. Why did you choose Pinggu as your research object?

9. I think most of your research.

10. figure 1 is unreadable, due to the chaotic format layout.

11. section 3.1. is unreadable also.

12. You list a lot of mathematical formulas, but don't organize them very well. The reasons for choosing these formulas, and the logical relationships between them, are not clearly stated. It is simply a pile of formulas.

13. figure 2, at least there should be a map to present the geographical location of this district.

14. Normally, for a driving factor or influencing factor research, in chapter 5, each section should have an empirical case study, to support your theoretical research method.

Author Response

Thank you for your questions and comments. We adopted all the suggestions. We have carefully analyzed your views on the manuscript and made the changes to the article.  Please see the attachment.         

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no further comments on this manuscript.