A Systematic Review of a City in a City: An Aerotropolitan Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Chaotic introduction, I recommend editing from general to specific; in my opinion, some sentences do not make sense in the whole context, and I often did not know what the authors meant.

Is it necessary for chapters 1.2 and 1.3 to be separate? I recommend combining them into one.

It is necessary to define pull factors better and characterize what pull factors are; in my opinion, it is not enough to just list them.

The methodology is not adequately described, as it describes the results and images rather than which methods were used, why and especially how. The entire methodology needs to be adjusted! In addition, it is also necessary to explain Figure 4 because, even though it belongs to methodology, its meaning and purpose is lost.

The results are described very simply and do not say anything; the authors could be more specific in describing the results and focus on thoroughly explaining what results they achieved. I would also be interested in why the authors dealt with the selected attributes. This requires an addition to the methodologies.

In the discussions, the authors describe the clusters, but it is unclear what they specifically describe; it would be good if the authors worked more on the explanation. In addition, some paragraphs - for example, about tattoos - are unrelated to the topic. If so, please explain. Again, many pictures in the chapter do not have a description. The clusters of relationships that the authors describe also need to be explained... how are these clusters significant? What is their significance in the issue?

What is the purpose of chapter 5.2? Theoretical and practical implications? What is the basis of these knowledge?

Is Chapter 6 Necessary? Has a patent been issued?

After reading the article, I don't feel that the goal was fulfilled. The article seems quite chaotic; I recommend major revisions and the addition of important information. Plus, the article has several formal errors:

- the images have no description and only a minimal title - I recommend adding them

- several images do not fit proportionally into the text

- several images have a black background, so they are not easy to read and understand

- is the graph in Figure 5 well chosen? I recommend rather columnar

- some concepts in the text are not necessary; for example, if we are starting from a theory, I recommend also stating why we are starting from it

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I evaluate this manuscript high and see it as attractive. However, I formulated some structural remarks with asked to introduce these in the final version.

The paper looks too long. Some elements could be deleted or transferred to supplement. Some elements could change their position in the paper.

I think the term “aerotropolis” is not commonly understood. Please, define it clearly at the beginning of the paper (in the introduction). Probably, this could be explained also in the abstract.

Figures 5 – 13 can be published as supplementary material. Mainly, I recommend deleting figures 8 – 12 from the main text of the paper.

Section 3 (results) should be enlarged in the descriptive sense. Probably with the use of a part of existing section 4 (discussion).

I do not fully understand the sentence on page 10:

For co-authorship analysis, visualisation scale is set at 1, size variation of 0.5, maximum label length of 30. For co-authorship links, size variation is set at 0.5, and maximum links at 1000, using Viridis.

Please, make this clear.

Headers of a description of the clusters (in section 4) should be classified as “subsections”. For example: 4.1 Cluster 1 (red), 4.2 Cluster 2 (yellow) etc.

Figures 15 – 17 add nothing to the purpose of the publication. Instead, a photo from an exemplary airport will be an interesting illustration of the “city in the city”.

The paragraph on page 17 starting with "Figure 14. demonstrates several composites (…)" looks like not in the right place or is wrong formatted.

Elements placed in section 4 should be transferred to section 3 as "results".

The majority of the content of section 5 (whole subsection 5.2 without the last paragraph) should be transferred to section 4 as a "discussion".

The order of figures 19 and 20 should be changed because the current figure 20 is commented on in the text earlier.

Section 6 has no sense here.

I suggest removing the supplementary material (Table S1) from the main text. It is possible to attach the file with these data (for example as an XLS file).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made significant changes in the new updated version of the article, which supported the original intention of the paper and increased its quality.

I evaluate these changes very positively and express my recommendation for publication.

I have a few comments about the article:

"despite an army of opportunities" in the Introduction, second sentence - I would change this phrase to another,

I recommend to replace the words crux, and eateries and be broken into synonyms,

chapter 1.1 and 1.2 describe pull factors, the same or different? maybe I would combine these chapters into one,

once again, the unification of descriptions with figures is missing - either bold, italic or both... often there is a different marking,

at the end of chapter 1.2 at the very end; the dot is missing,

I would like to know why only ten articles were reduced... from 1461 to 1451. Can the authors add this information?

in chapter 3, the year 20014 is written, definitely a typo... please correct it to 2014,

for pictures 10, 11, and 12 in width oriented pages, the page numbers are incorrectly marked,

I lack a summary in conclusion, the authors only describe the limitations... I would be happy if it were possible to supplement the conclusion,

I recommend adding abbreviations as well.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did not consider all my comments, but they explain the reason for leaving some of the figures that I proposed to remove. I have noticed that all important suggestions have been taken into account and that the manuscript now looks clearer.

I think that this article could be published in its current form after some technical corrections (including page numbering).

Author Response

I think that this article could be published in its current form after some technical corrections (including page numbering).
The page numbering style has been rectified