Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper appropriately employed the analytical techniques, and the content of the analysis is relatively comprehensive. However, the following issues need to be addressed: (1) The urban-rural integration index proposed in the paper lacks a clear foundation and logical basis. The paper divides the indicator system into four dimensions: social, economic, spatial, and ecological. However, the specific indicators used do not intuitively reflect urban-rural integration. For instance, what is the relationship between the "X4 Binary Comparison Coefficient" and economic integration? Additionally, X5 does not adequately represent social integration. Therefore, please carefully review and select the indicators, and ensure that they align with the conceptual framework of urban-rural integration. (2) The academic contribution of this paper is unclear. Please conduct a literature review from a global perspective, identify the academic gaps in related research, and explicitly state the academic contributions of this study in the conclusion section. Please note that empirical case studies of specific regions do not equate to academic issues and cannot demonstrate the value of this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable suggestions on our manuscript. We have made revisions according to your recommendations. The detailed responses and modifications can be found in the cover letter and the document titled "land-3562193-revision."

Sincerely,
Youming Dong, PhD

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment

The manuscript presents a thoughtful and timely exploration of Spatiotemporal differentiation and driving factors of urban-rural integration in counties of the Yangtze River Economic Belt. It makes a meaningful contribution to the field by addressing urban-rural integration, spatiotemporal differentiation and the Yangtze River Economic Belt, offering insights that are both theoretically grounded and practically relevant. The research is built on a solid methodological foundation, and the findings provide valuable input to ongoing discussions in the field. However, there are areas where further clarification and refinement would enhance the overall quality and impact of the manuscript.

Strengths

1. Relevance and Contribution

The study addresses a pertinent issue within urban-rural integration, shedding light on challenges that are increasingly important in today's landscape. Its alignment with current trends and its real-world applicability make it a compelling read for both scholars and practitioners.

2. Methodological Rigor

The research is carefully designed, with a methodology that is well-suited to the study’s objectives. The thoughtful approach to data collection and analysis enhances the credibility of the findings and demonstrates a commendable level of scholarly diligence.

3. Clarity and Structure

The manuscript is well-organized, with each section contributing effectively to the overall narrative. The logical progression of ideas and the clarity of expression make it accessible even to readers who may not be specialists in the field.

4. Engagement with Literature

The literature review is thorough and well-integrated, showing a strong grasp of existing research. The authors skillfully connect prior studies to the current research, laying a solid foundation and highlighting important gaps that the study seeks to address.

5. Practical and Theoretical Implications

One of the manuscript's strongest aspects is its ability to bridge theory and practice. The findings not only extend theoretical discussions but also offer actionable recommendations that can inform policy, education, or industry practices.

Areas for Improvement

1. Literature Review

• Some of the cited references are somewhat dated. Integrating more recent studies would enrich the theoretical context and reflect the latest developments in the field.
• The connection between existing studies and the identified research gap could be made more explicit to better frame the study’s unique contribution.

2. Methodology

• More detail is needed regarding how participants or data sources were selected. Clarifying these aspects will help readers assess the study’s generalizability and reliability.
• The rationale behind the analytical methods should be more thoroughly explained to strengthen the methodological transparency.

3. Results and Discussion

• Some results would benefit from clearer explanation and stronger linkage to accompanying tables or figures. This will aid comprehension and ensure the findings are effectively communicated.
• The discussion section could delve deeper into the broader implications of the findings. Reflecting on how they interact with or challenge existing theories would add depth and scholarly value.

4. Conclusion

• The conclusion currently reads as somewhat brief. Enriching it with a more comprehensive synthesis of key findings will reinforce the study’s significance.
• Explicitly stating the study’s limitations and suggesting future research directions would add credibility and invite further academic dialogue.

5. Language and Formatting

• A careful proofreading is recommended to correct minor grammatical issues and typos that may distract from the content.
• Please ensure full compliance with the journal’s formatting and style guidelines.

Recommendation

This manuscript holds strong potential and offers a valuable contribution to its field. With minor revisions, particularly in clarifying the methodology, updating the literature, and strengthening the conclusion, it can reach its full impact. Please check the manuscript for plagiarism seems to be high.  I recommend acceptance with minor revisions.

Reviewer Comments for the Authors

• Please elaborate further on the research gap and its significance.
• Clarify and justify your methodological decisions and data sources.
• Deepen the discussion of your findings’ implications—both practical and theoretical.
• Enrich the conclusion to emphasize the contribution and possible applications.
• Conduct a final round of proofreading to enhance clarity and polish the manuscript’s presentation.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable suggestions on our manuscript. We have made revisions according to your recommendations. The detailed responses and modifications can be found in the cover letter and the document titled "land-3562193-revision."

Sincerely,
Youming Dong, PhD

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have made a comprehensive revisions. There is no other comment.