An Evaluation of the National Program of Systematic Land Registration in Romania Using the Fit for Purpose Spatial Framework Principles
and Tudor Sălăgean 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article provides very good background and references to FFP land administration.
The research method is well described, but the actual analysis and results have less substance. For example, the managers of the survey companies will have a bias towards conventional survey methods since this is the backbone of their businesses. More independent views should have been solicited.
Although the current systematic registration process is well documented, it would be better if the current bottlenecks had been identified to determine if adopting the FFP land administration approach in full would deliver significant cost and time savings. This could be part of the recommendations.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. In the revised version of the manuscript uploaded to the platform, all changes are made according to the observations made by you and the other reviewers. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Also, the answers to your observations are presented in the attached document.
Kind regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper seems to focus on the land registration issues in Romania. There are five research questions in the paper. However, the general description of property rights registration is not clearly presented. Is there separate legal and fiscal cadastre? Or are there universal cadastre like in Lithuania fir example? I recommend adding short description of the land registration system in country (institutions, responsibilities etc.). It will be helpful for the readers who are not familiar with the land registration and property formation issues in Romania.
The description of different research paradigm does not increase the value of the paper and this part might be excluded from the paper.
It is not recommended to use the dark (actually black) background for figures. Similar situation is with the tables – white text and dark background for column headings is appropriate for academic writing.
There is some jumble with the titles. Part 3 is Results and discussion and part 4 is again Discussion. The part Discussion seem to be rather conclusion and the part 5 (Conclusions) is rather discussion. The paper needs some elaboration concerning the presentation discussion and conclusions.
The line spacing in tables and appendixes need to be arranged.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. In the revised version of the manuscript uploaded to the platform, all changes are made according to the observations made by you and the other reviewers. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Also, the answers to your observations are presented in the attached document.
Kind regards!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deals with a comparison between The Fit For Purpose Land Administration Principles for The Spatial Framework and The Practices of The National Program of Systematic Land Registration In Romania. The manuscript falls within the scope of the subject matter of the journal and meets its requirements, addressing the important problem of fit-for-purpose land registration and its application in Romania. The structure of the article is appropriate and well-ordered, despite the technical nature, the language is understandable, and the authors explain the issues discussed sufficiently. The manuscript describes applied research which has practical value, and the results and methods used are clearly presented. I propose to accept the manuscript for publication after minor revision: it seems that the Figures were prepared in a hurry, and most of them look like screen capture from Powerpoint. I suggest thinking about a better way of presentation, more suitable for the journal (Figure 1 & Figure 4). Table 4 it would be more informative if the rows were ordered by size and consider whether is better to display the relative number of rejected papers in relation to the total number of papers. Table 5-7 seems in an inappropriate format for a table.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. In the revised version of the manuscript uploaded to the platform, all changes are made according to the observations made by you and the other reviewers. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Also, the answers to your observations are presented in the attached document.
Kind regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
See 34 comments in the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. In the revised version of the manuscript uploaded to the platform, all changes are made according to the observations made by you and the other reviewers. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Also, the answers to your observations are presented in the attached document.
Kind regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for implementing my proposed modifications. The paper is much improved, especially in highlighting its limitations, discussion, and a strong set of conclusions, recommendations and further research. Well done.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions.
Kind regards!
Reviewer 4 Report
The article has been significantly improved.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions.
Kind regards!
