Exploring the Transformation Path and Enlightenment of Border Cities: A Case Study of Jilong, Tibet, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper analyzes Jilong, a Chinese border city in Tibet, to examine the evolution of border cities in the Global South and China’s interior frontier. It focuses on state-driven development in Jilong, particularly its economic growth, urbanization, and enhanced connectivity with Nepal following the Belt and Road Initiative. However, it partly lacks theoretical depth and a thorough case analysis.
The study reveals how Jilong serves as a tool and outcome of political restructuring, where diverse stakeholders align with central directives to foster economic growth and secure borderland governance.
The literature review in Section 2 is somewhat fragmented, lacks depth, and lacks clarity. It is recommended to highlight the shortcomings of existing research and the ideas and theories that will be used in this paper.
Section 3 is somewhat lengthy, especially the methods and data analysis sections. It is recommended to simplify them and clearly explain the key points.
Section 4 is very cumbersome, with a lot of repetitive content and redundancy. It's more like a story than a case study. It is recommended to simplify the content and expression. For example, Section 4.1 and 4.2 can be shortened to a quarter or a third, simply highlighting the main trade characteristics before and around the 2015 earthquake. Section 4.3 is also too long and contains a lot of repetitive expressions about trade and actor practices.
In the discussion or conclusion part, it lacks the challenges and potential of such development, and efficient talks with the paradigm of ‘South Urbanism’
"Tibet Region" in the Figure 1?
The English writing needs proofreading.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers
We have carefully addressed all of your comments point by point and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The point-by-point response document has been uploaded as a Word file via the submission system.
We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has greatly helped us improve the quality of our work. If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you again for your time and effort.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe location of the research area may be interesting to readers, as may the discussed issues of border city.
It is recommended to:
- clearly formulate the research problem. The current version of the article does not address this issue. The current version contains a general description of Jilong City. The research problem could be, for example: "factors of development of border cities", or "contemporary trends in the development of border cities", or "impact of the state border on the development of border cities", etc.,
- in reference to the clearly formulated research problem, clarify the article's topic. The current version is unscientific: "Navigating border cities' transitions from frontier towns to flourishing border cities: A case of Jilong, in Tibet, China." The beginning of the topic, in particular, suggests a general description of the issue, rather than a presentation of research results with a clearly defined scientific objective. The article's topic could be, for example: "Factors of Development of Border Cities: A Case of Jilong City, in Tibet" or similar,
- also, in reference to a clearly defined research problem, formulate the research objective, e.g.: "identification and assessment of factors of development of border cities on the example of Jilong City" or similar,
- remove all content unrelated to the selected research problem from the current version of the article. This comment applies to most of the current content of the article,
- present the research results in the form of graphs and tables. The authors mention "52 interviewees, including 20 government officials from Jilong and Shigatze, 15 managers from enterprises in Jilong, and 27 local residents and tourists". There is no description of the research questions or presentation of the interview results. The further general description of the history and economy of Jilong City does not confirm that interviews were conducted,
- re-write the chapter "3.3. Data Analysis". Its actual version does not include a presentation of interview results; its writing suggests the use of AI to generate the article's content,
- clearly define the subject of the research. According to the article's topic, it is Jilong City. The purpose of the numerous digressions and references to Gyirong Town is unclear, as so "Table 1. Comparisons of Jilong and Zhangmu".
Author Response
Dear Reviewers
We have carefully addressed all of your comments point by point and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The point-by-point response document has been uploaded as a Word file via the submission system.
We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has greatly helped us improve the quality of our work. If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you again for your time and effort.
Best regards!
The authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary
In this paper the authors describe the characteristics and challenges of frontier towns on the Tibet – Nepal border region through focusing on one town, Jilong. The study draws from intensive field work and interviews with locals to gain insights into the operation of the town, its economic base and its geological and environmental fragility as it faces earthquakes and the difficulties associated with its high altitude environment.
Assessment
This is an interesting paper though rather long and some of its messages are difficult to comprehend.
The Introduction focuses on the unique location and difficulties faced by border settlements and is a useful introduction to the issues.
Reviewing Border Economies: Lessons and Strategies begins by examining the problems faced by border towns and in particular provides a useful discussion of the issues associated with transformation of these towns into effective, modern centres.
Materials and Methods commences by explaining that Jilong is a county-level city (whatever that is) and occupies 9,300 km2 with a population of 190,000, yet elsewhere (line 383) it says that it has 19,496 residents and a population density of only 2 persons/km2. Whether these inhabitants reside in an urban town or in the surrounding region needs to be clarified (these figures are repeated in lines 761-2). A town of 9,300 km2 would be nearly 100 km square which it obviously isn’t. It also states that the city comprises 41 administrative and 56 natural villages.
This section details the way in which data was collected through interviews which were carefully recorded and coded. However, the results of these interviews are not evident in the Results section. I would expect a summary of the comments and an analysis of them with tables of the codes and drawing out the key findings.
The Results section provides a long explanation of the petty trade economy of Jilong but no where does it define the petty trade economy. It then provides an excellent and comprehensive description of the 2015 earthquake and its impact on the region. It resulted in the focus of trade transferring to Jilong as the alternative port in Zhangmu was severely damaged. I found particularly interesting the accounts of the China-Nepal cooperation agreements which is a valuable addition in this paper. Finally, the Results section describes the initiatives taken to upgrade Jilong and the region including cooperation agreements, diversification of industries, the China-Nepal railway, addressing poverty, and bringing in professionals with skills needed in the region.
The relatively short Discussion section highlights the difficulties faced by border towns such as Jilong and calls on officials to recognise the complexities and uniqueness of border cities. I found it difficult to understand the meaning of “an urgent need for a comparative and contextualized conceptualization of individual cities”. This is assumed to relate to the need for policy outcomes of the study which the Discussion section addresses to some extent.
Although the paper describes the many interviews conducted among the local population, these are not apparent in the paper and should at least be summarised. The paper’s strength lies in these interviews, but its weakness is in not showing their results. Nevertheless, the paper provides a very clear explanation of the changes and challenges being faced by Jilong and other similar border towns. Without access to the interviews, it would be difficult to replicate the study. The authors state that the data would be made available.
There are a large number of papers in the literature which address border cities between Nepal and China, many by Galen Murton of the Department of Geography, University of Colorado Boulder, USA. The paper quotes several papers by Murton.
The single table and six figures are of reasonable quality and are legible. The paper does not cite any limitations. The English is quite satisfactory and the authors state no conflict of interest. Only three of the 66 references are pre-2000, the majority being from the past decade. Self-citation is not an issue.
Overall, an interesting though fairly complex paper on the vital subject of border settlements.
Specific Comments
Line 63 “The city of Jilong, also known as Gyirong in English…” Yet Figure 1 shows Jilong and Gyirong to be two separate towns.
Line 92 “transcending the Anglo-Saxon urban perspective.” What is meant by this? Please clarify.
Line 218 states the population is 190,000 yet here it states it is 19,496 residents. Please be consistent.
Line 415 “Jilong City, situated on the southern slope of the Himalayas.” Surely it is on the northern side of the Himalayas? Line 231 states “the city lies on the northern slope of the Himalayas”
Author Response
Dear Reviewers
We have carefully addressed all of your comments point by point and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The point-by-point response document has been uploaded as a Word file via the submission system.
We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has greatly helped us improve the quality of our work. If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you again for your time and effort.
Best regards!
The authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the second version of the manuscript, the authors made minor changes.
The text remains descriptive, lacking scientific added value.
The new topic of the manuscript is even more general and does not correspond to the content ("Research on Path Exploration and Countermeasures for the Transformation of Border Cities : A case of Jilong, in Tibet, 3 China". Regarding "Path Exploration," the authors identified only two phases: Phase I "Navigating the petty trade of the border city" and Phase 2 "Petty trade transitions since the 2015 earthquake". The issue of "Countermeasures for the Transformation of Border Cities" was not addressed in the manuscript at all, and it is unclear why it was included in the actual topic.
Still, it is recommended to:
- clearly formulate the research problem which the authors try to solve. The current version of the manuscript does not address this issue. The current version still contains a general description of Jilong City. The research problem could be, for example: "factors of development of border cities", or "contemporary trends in the development of border cities", or "impact of the state border on the development of border cities", etc.
- in reference to the clearly formulated research problem, clarify the manuscript's topic,
- also, in reference to a clearly defined research problem, formulate the research objective, e.g.: "identification and assessment of factors of development of border cities on the example of Jilong City" or similar,
- remove all content unrelated to the selected research problem from the current version of the manuscript. This comment applies to most of the current content of the manuscript,
- present the research results in the form of graphs and tables. The authors mention "52 interviewees, including 20 government officials from Jilong and Shigatze, 15 managers from enterprises in Jilong, and 27 local residents and tourists". There is no description of the research questions. The connection between analysis of high-frequency keywords and the topic of the manuscript is unclear. The actual version of chapter "3.3. Data Analysis" does not address the topic of the manuscript.
Author Response
We wish to extend our sincere gratitude to all the reviewers for their time and invaluable comments. Your insightful feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully considered each suggestion and have revised the manuscript accordingly. A point-by-point response to all comments has been provided in the uploaded Word document, detailing the specific changes made in response to each of your recommendations.
We greatly appreciate the thorough review and believe that the manuscript has been significantly strengthened as a result of your input.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
