Practical Strategies and Guidance for Contextual Literature Reviews in Urban Studies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study combines the contextualized method of historical philosophy with the literature review in urban studies, providing new theoretical perspectives and analytical frameworks for academic writing in urban research, which contributes to advancing theoretical development and innovation in this discipline. I appreciate the authors’ expression of some research results, such as Figures 5-6 and 7-8 (clear and interesting). However, the research has several limitations that need further elaboration. My comments are as follows:
1. Incomplete literature sources
The article primarily focuses on Western urban studies literature, citing numerous experts from Europe and the United States (e.g., Camillo Sitte, Ebenezer Howard), while rarely mentioning urban studies literature from non-Western countries (e.g., Asia, Africa). This may result in research conclusions being biased toward Western urban development experiences and theories, failing to fully consider urban research perspectives and achievements under diverse global cultural and social contexts. I acknowledge that the origins of urban studies may not lie in non-Western countries. However, it is still recommended that the authors provide a comprehensive overview or at least explicitly address this limitation in the text.
2. Limitations of snowball sampling
While the snowball sampling method helps researchers trace foundational literature and subsequent citations, it may introduce sampling bias. For example, if initial literature selections concentrate on a specific research direction or school, subsequent literature obtained through this method may also lean toward that direction, thereby overlooking other important research perspectives and achievements. The authors should explicitly discuss this limitation.
3. Need for case studies
In the Discussion or Appendix section, the authors could consider adding concrete case studies to demonstrate how to apply these strategies in practical urban research projects. For instance, they might illustrate how to employ the contextualized method of historical philosophy in writing literature reviews for different urban research topics—including the selection and analysis of historical documents, and the integration of historical contexts with contemporary urban issues. Practical examples would help readers intuitively understand the application process and effectiveness of these strategies.
Minor Issues
1. Line 757: The appendix is critically important, but I cannot access its detailed content. The authors are advised to integrate appendix materials directly into the manuscript (MDPI journals generally have no word limits), which would enhance reader accessibility.
2. Missing citation:
ï‚Ÿ Line 22: "Historical tives…" [requires citation]
ï‚Ÿ Figures 1 and 2: [requires foundational references; just like Figures 7-8, which are well-supported]
ï‚Ÿ Line 92: "A linear snowball sampling method was…" [requires citation]
ï‚Ÿ Other sentences needing references support.
Author Response
Comment 1: This study combines the contextualized method of historical philosophy with the literature review in urban studies, providing new theoretical perspectives and analytical frameworks for academic writing in urban research, which contributes to advancing theoretical development and innovation in this discipline. I appreciate the authors’ expression of some research results, such as Figures 5-6 and 7-8 (clear and interesting). However, the research has several limitations that need further elaboration. My comments are as follows:
Response 1: Thank you so much for your positive feedback. We have addressed all your valuable comments. Below you will find our responses to each point one by one.
Comment 2: 1. Incomplete literature sources
The article primarily focuses on Western urban studies literature, citing numerous experts from Europe and the United States (e.g., Camillo Sitte, Ebenezer Howard), while rarely mentioning urban studies literature from non-Western countries (e.g., Asia, Africa). This may result in research conclusions being biased toward Western urban development experiences and theories, failing to fully consider urban research perspectives and achievements under diverse global cultural and social contexts. I acknowledge that the origins of urban studies may not lie in non-Western countries. However, it is still recommended that the authors provide a comprehensive overview or at least explicitly address this limitation in the text.
Response 2: Thank you so much for your valuable comment and bring our attention to this matter. We have added this matter as our research limitation. Kindly check the red text. Kindly check the red text in the conclusion section that starts with “This study primarily references urban studies literature from Western sources due to the greater accessibility of peer-reviewed publications…”
Comment 3: 2. Limitations of snowball sampling
While the snowball sampling method helps researchers trace foundational literature and subsequent citations, it may introduce sampling bias. For example, if initial literature selections concentrate on a specific research direction or school, subsequent literature obtained through this method may also lean toward that direction, thereby overlooking other important research perspectives and achievements. The authors should explicitly discuss this limitation.
Response 3: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added a sentence in red to clify such limitation. Kindly check the sentences that start with “. This study employed snowball sampling to identify …”
Comment 4: 1. Line 757: The appendix is critically important, but I cannot access its detailed content. The authors are advised to integrate appendix materials directly into the manuscript (MDPI journals generally have no word limits), which would enhance reader accessibility.
Response 4: Thank you for bringing this point out. We have added the link were the readership can track the tables.
Comment 5: Missing citation:
Ÿ Line 22: "Historical tives…" [requires citation]
Response 5: We have added citations. Kindly check and let me know if further modification is needed and we will do them all.
Comment 6: Figures 1 and 2: [requires foundational references; just like Figures 7-8, which are well-supported]
Response 6: We have added references in the caption.
Comment 7: Line 92: "A linear snowball sampling method was…" [requires citation]
Response 7: We have added citations. Kindly check and let me know if further modification is needed and we will do them all.
Comment 8: Other sentences needing references support.
Response 8: We have doubled check all references and add more references and citation to support or argument.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have carefully reviewed the paper entitled " Practical Strategies and Guidance for Contextual Literature Reviews in Urban Studies. This study aims to provide training in literature review for students in fields such as architecture and urban planning. " Overall, the paper is well-structured and interesting. However, there are several aspects that can be improved.
The paper contain all main obligatory chapters (Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results; Discussion). However, the paper has some inconsistent compering to the instructors for the authors, which should be corrected. My corrections are the following ones:
TITLE
The title of the manuscript are concise, specific and relevant. This is Ok.
ABSTRACT
The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. According to the instruction to the authors you can revised.
List of a Keywords is appropriate.
INTRODUCTION
The paper needs to clearly emphasize the novelty of the research in the introduction. Clearly state the research gap and explain how this study addresses it.
Introduction chapter do not contain all mandatory elements. Defining specific hypotheses which have being tested should be added. By the way, within the scope in this study, key publication and the most cited studies (Wos) can be discussed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The qualitative research methods selected in this study are the appropriate method for conducting content analysis by generating themes and codes. Snowball sampling is also considered accurate and appropriate.
The criteria for how the 17 articles in the snowball sampling were selected should be clarified.
The Historical Significance of Context in Text Production and Interpretation
What program were the figures made with?
The literature review in sections 3 and 4 supports the theory
The Result chapter provide concise and precise description of the experiment results.
REFERENCES
The references are numbered in order of appearance in the text in the text in square bracket. This is Ok.
All equations are numbered in brackets and placed on the right margin of the text. This is Ok.
The number of references is insufficient and should be expanded (only 27)
Text font in tables and figures should be according to the instructions for the authors.
Author Response
Comment 1: Dear Authors,
I have carefully reviewed the paper entitled " Practical Strategies and Guidance for Contextual Literature Reviews in Urban Studies. This study aims to provide training in literature review for students in fields such as architecture and urban planning. " Overall, the paper is well-structured and interesting. However, there are several aspects that can be improved.
The paper contain all main obligatory chapters (Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results; Discussion). However, the paper has some inconsistent compering to the instructors for the authors, which should be corrected. My corrections are the following ones:
Response 1: Thank you so much for your comments and feedback.
Comment 2: TITLE- The title of the manuscript are concise, specific and relevant. This is Ok.
Response 2: Thank you
Comment 3: ABSTRACT- The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. According to the instruction to the authors you can revised.
Response 3: We have revised the abstract to follow the journal instruction. Kindly check and let us know if further modification is required and we will don them all.
Comment 4: List of a Keywords is appropriate.
Response 4: Thank you.
Comment 5: INTRODUCTION
The paper needs to clearly emphasize the novelty of the research in the introduction. Clearly state the research gap and explain how this study addresses it.
Introduction chapter do not contain all mandatory elements. Defining specific hypotheses which have been tested should be added. By the way, within the scope in this study, key publication and the most cited studies (Wos) can be discussed.
Response 5: Thank you for bringing this point out. We revised the introduction to better describe the gap, aim, questions and method in brief. We have also added sentences to reflect the contribution of our manuscript.
Comment 6: MATERIALS AND METHODS
The qualitative research methods selected in this study are the appropriate method for conducting content analysis by generating themes and codes. Snowball sampling is also considered accurate and appropriate.
Response 6: Thank you.
Comment 7: The criteria for how the 17 articles in the snowball sampling were selected should be clarified.
Comment 7: We have clarified the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the reasons behind them. Kindly check the red text that start with “The inclusion criteria prioritized …”
Comment 8: The Historical Significance of Context in Text Production and Interpretation
What program were the figures made with?
Response 8: Thank you for your question. We are pleased to confirm that all figures were originally created by the authors using Microsoft PowerPoint, and were subsequently refined and adjusted using Adobe Photoshop to enhance visual clarity and presentation quality.
Comment 9: The literature review in sections 3 and 4 supports the theory.
Response 9: Thank you
Comment 9: The Result chapter provide concise and precise description of the experiment results.
Response 10: Thank you
Comment 11: REFERENCES
The references are numbered in order of appearance in the text in the text in square bracket. This is Ok.
All equations are numbered in brackets and placed on the right margin of the text. This is Ok.
The number of references is insufficient and should be expanded (only 27)
Text font in tables and figures should be according to the instructions for the authors.
Response 11: We have double-checked all the references. Kindly review and let us know if any further modifications are needed, and we will make all the necessary changes.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents an ambitious and timely exploration of how historical and interdisciplinary perspectives can strengthen literature reviews in urban studies. Its conceptual scope is impressive, but the manuscript would benefit from clearer structure, deeper analysis, and stronger methodological transparency in the following areas:
1. Structure and Organization
The manuscript repeats ideas, especially around historical thinkers and the role of context. Condensing these discussions would improve flow. The eight thematic groups are a useful framework but need clearer boundaries and transitions to avoid overlap and confusion.
2. Use of Theory
The article effectively references classic thinkers like Dilthey, Gadamer, Kuhn, and Foucault. However, the discussion is mostly descriptive. A more critical analysis—examining tensions, limitations, and how these theories apply to current urban research—would strengthen the contribution. Inclusion of more recent scholarship would also improve relevance.
3. Methodology
The qualitative and conceptual approach is appropriate, but details are lacking. The authors should clarify:
- How sources were selected
- How content was coded and analyzed
- Whether findings were validated
- How the themes connect to the final strategies
4. Examples and Application
The article outlines helpful strategies for early-career researchers but stays abstract. It would be more effective with concrete examples showing how the strategies improve literature reviews in practice.
5. Conclusions and Impact
The conclusions align with the article’s goals, but they should be more clearly tied to the analysis. The connection between historical insights and practical strategies should be better explained and supported with up-to-date references.
In sum, this is a valuable contribution with potential. Focused revisions will enhance its clarity, critical depth, and practical utility for its intended audience.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWhile the article successfully conveys its central argument, the clarity, coherence, and grammatical consistency of the English could be enhanced.
Author Response
Comment 1: Dear Authors,
I have carefully reviewed the paper entitled " Practical Strategies and Guidance for Contextual Literature Reviews in Urban Studies. This study aims to provide training in literature review for students in fields such as architecture and urban planning. " Overall, the paper is well-structured and interesting. However, there are several aspects that can be improved.
The paper contain all main obligatory chapters (Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results; Discussion). However, the paper has some inconsistent compering to the instructors for the authors, which should be corrected. My corrections are the following ones:
Response 1: Thank you so much for your comments and feedback.
Comment 2: TITLE- The title of the manuscript are concise, specific and relevant. This is Ok.
Response 2: Thank you
Comment 3: ABSTRACT- The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. According to the instruction to the authors you can revised.
Response 3: We have revised the abstract to follow the journal instruction. Kindly check and let us know if further modification is required and we will don them all.
Comment 4: List of a Keywords is appropriate.
Response 4: Thank you.
Comment 5: INTRODUCTION
The paper needs to clearly emphasize the novelty of the research in the introduction. Clearly state the research gap and explain how this study addresses it.
Introduction chapter do not contain all mandatory elements. Defining specific hypotheses which have been tested should be added. By the way, within the scope in this study, key publication and the most cited studies (Wos) can be discussed.
Response 5: Thank you for bringing this point out. We revised the introduction to better describe the gap, aim, questions and method in brief. We have also added sentences to reflect the contribution of our manuscript.
Comment 6: MATERIALS AND METHODS
The qualitative research methods selected in this study are the appropriate method for conducting content analysis by generating themes and codes. Snowball sampling is also considered accurate and appropriate.
Response 6: Thank you.
Comment 7: The criteria for how the 17 articles in the snowball sampling were selected should be clarified.
Comment 7: We have clarified the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the reasons behind them. Kindly check the red text that start with “The inclusion criteria prioritized …”
Comment 8: The Historical Significance of Context in Text Production and Interpretation
What program were the figures made with?
Response 8: Thank you for your question. We are pleased to confirm that all figures were originally created by the authors using Microsoft PowerPoint, and were subsequently refined and adjusted using Adobe Photoshop to enhance visual clarity and presentation quality.
Comment 9: The literature review in sections 3 and 4 supports the theory.
Response 9: Thank you
Comment 9: The Result chapter provide concise and precise description of the experiment results.
Response 10: Thank you
Comment 11: REFERENCES
The references are numbered in order of appearance in the text in the text in square bracket. This is Ok.
All equations are numbered in brackets and placed on the right margin of the text. This is Ok.
The number of references is insufficient and should be expanded (only 27)
Text font in tables and figures should be according to the instructions for the authors.
Response 11: We have double-checked all the references. Kindly review and let us know if any further modifications are needed, and we will make all the necessary changes.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll of my previous round comments have been adequately addressed. The manuscript merits acceptance in my view.
