Applying Contextualism: From Urban Formation to Textual Representation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Some sentences are too long (for example: "The conclusion that can be drawn is that the context-text complexities can be understood through the exploration of four interconnected factors—key themes, such as focus on concepts, components of context, contextual factors, and thinkers’ contributions—adds depth to our understanding..."). It would be preferable to revise them for greater clarity and conciseness.
- It is recommended to include more recent bibliographic references.
- The bibliography format needs revision; the author’s name should follow the “last name + first name” structure, not the reverse.
- The article is well-written, demonstrating an academic and professional style. The use of connectors is appropriate, and the terminology is precise and relevant.
- The structure of the article is clear and logically organized.
- Some redundancy is observed, particularly with the frequent repetition of “context” and “text.” Reformulating certain sentences could help improve lexical variety and readability.
Author Response
Comment1: Some sentences are too long (for example: "The conclusion that can be drawn is that the context-text complexities can be understood through the exploration of four interconnected factors—key themes, such as focus on concepts, components of context, contextual factors, and thinkers’ contributions—adds depth to our understanding..."). It would be preferable to revise them for greater clarity and conciseness.
Response1: Thank you for your valuable feedback and commnets. We have revised the entire text for such long sentences. Kindly check and let us know if further modifications are needed.
Comment 2: It is recommended to include more recent bibliographic references.
Response 2: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added recent references.
Comment 3:The bibliography format needs revision; the author’s name should follow the “last name + first name” structure, not the reverse.
Response 3: We have double-checked the reference style and formatting to ensure they align with the journal's requirements.
Comments to the English Quality
Comment 4: The article is well-written, demonstrating an academic and professional style. The use of connectors is appropriate, and the terminology is precise and relevant.
Response 4: Thank you for your commenet. We have doubled checked the language
Comment 5: The structure of the article is clear and logically organized.
Response 5: Thank you you
Comment 6: Some redundancy is observed, particularly with the frequent repetition of “context” and “text.” Reformulating certain sentences could help improve lexical variety and readability.
Response 6: We have doubled check the entire text for redamancy.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report:
General Evaluation:
- The topic is interesting.
- The arguments and explanations of different phases of the study should be reorganized to become more reader-friendly.
- No particular theoretical framework is explained.
- The limitations of the study should be added.
- The theoretical and practical implications of the study should be highlighted.
- The literature review is relevant to the topic of research.
- The results, discussion, and conclusions could have been presented in a more organized way.
- All references are relevant.
- The corpus selection procedure should be explained in detail.
Comments:
- Linguistics, psychology (psycholinguistics), sociology (sociolinguistics), anthropology, and cultural studies should also be considered in the Literature Review.
- Some statements are too general.
- References have not been provided for some parts.
- The data is not large enough to enable the authors to make generalizations.
- The theoretical framework(s) of the study should be explicitly described before arguments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
General Evaluation:
Comment 1: The topic is interesting.
Response 1: Thank you for you feedback.
Comment 2- The arguments and explanations of different phases of the study should be reorganized to become more reader-friendly.
Response 2: We have revised the text that explain the phases in the abstract and in the result section.
Comment 3- No particular theoretical framework is explained.
Response 3- Indeed there is no framework. We have adjusted this issue in the entire text to replace 'framework' with relevnet words based on their context
Comment 4- The limitations of the study should be added.
Response 4- We have added couple of sentences in the conclusion to clarify the research limitations. Kindly check the sentences that start with "This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged.."
Comment 5- The theoretical and practical implications of the study should be highlighted.
Responses 5- Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added couple of sentences in the conclusion to explain this point. Kindly check the sentences that start with "This study established a four-stage contextual guide to bridge the persistent divide between text and context in academic writing with the salience of urban research. .."
Comment 6- The literature review is relevant to the topic of research.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment.
Comment 7 - The results, discussion, and conclusions could have been presented in a more organized way.
Response 7- We have revised the mentioned sections to enhance readability. Additionally, we have adjusted Figure 2 to better reflect the research content and main findings.
Comment 8- All references are relevant.
Response 8- Thank you for this comment.
Comment 9- The corpus selection procedure should be explained in detail.
Response 9- We have revised the text and clarify the figures for better readability of the text.
Comments 10- Linguistics, psychology (psycholinguistics), sociology (sociolinguistics), anthropology, and cultural studies should also be considered in the Literature Review.
Response 10: We have added the recommended disciplines based on you valuable comment. Kindly check the inter text.
Comments 11- Some statements are too general.
Response 11: We have revised the entire text.
Comment 12- References have not been provided for some parts.
Response 12: Thank you so much for this comment. We have revised the list of references.
Comment 13- The data is not large enough to enable the authors to make generalizations.
Response 13: Thank you so much for you comment.
Comment 14- The theoretical framework(s) of the study should be explicitly described before arguments.
Response 14: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have adjust this point by clarifying that out outcome is conceptual guide instead of being a framework.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease reorganize the order of the bibliographic references, particularly the newly added ones, because they are not following an alphabetical order by the author´s familiy name.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Please reorganize the order of the bibliographic references, particularly the newly added ones, because they are not following an alphabetical order by the author´s familiy name.
Response: Thank you for your thoughtful review. We have revised the manuscript to address the order of the references. The journal's format requires a numerical style, in which references are ordered based on their appearance in the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- There are still limitations related to the theoretical foundations followed in the study. The study's theoretical framework(s) should be explicitly described before data analysis.
- The theoretical and practical implications of the study should be revised to highlight the contribution of the present study and how it is different from the previous studies.
- The corpus selection procedure should be explained in detail.
- The corpus is limited. The generalizations made by the author(s) require an investigation of a larger corpus.
Author Response
Comment 1- There are still limitations related to the theoretical foundations followed in the study. The study's theoretical framework(s) should be explicitly described before data analysis.
Response 1: Thank you for highlighting these points. We have added a diagram in the introduction section to illustrate the research concept and structure. Kindly review Figure 1 and the corresponding text, starting with: 'Following this introduction, the research unfolds in six sequential sections (Figure 1). The second section reviews relevant literature, aiming to contextualize the study and trace the development of contextualism, focusing ..."
Comment 2-The theoretical and practical implications of the study should be revised to highlight the contribution of the present study and how it is different from the previous studies.
Response 3: We have clarified the contribution of this study in the introduction section. Kindly review the sentence starting with: "This guide bridges the gap between historical inquiry and theoretical reflection through these questions, ..."
Additionally, we have added a couple of sentences in the discussion section. Please check the sentences beginning with: "Unlike previous studies, this study provides theoretical ..."
Comment 3- The corpus selection procedure should be explained in detail.
Response 3: We have clarified the steps of selecting the scholars materials. Kindley check the sentences in blue that start with "We describe the methodological steps, including the selection of scholars, analytical techniques, and conceptual guidance development.
Comment 4- The corpus is limited. The generalizations made by the author(s) require an investigation of a larger corpus.
Response 4: Thank you for bringing these points out. We have clarified in the conclusion that this manuscript is a concept paper. Additionally, we have added a couple of sentences to describe the limitation of having a small corpus of scholars.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s),
Thanks for observing the required changes in the second revision.
All the Best,
The Reviewer
