Multipurpose GIS Portal for Forest Management, Research, and Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work reads well and is written fluently. It generally follows a clear structure. Providing the detailed evaluation of the questionnaires as an appendix improves the readability of the paper.
Some improvements are needed to comply with the general rules of scientific writing.
The results section should strictly stick to the presentation of the findings and leave all interpretation of these results to the discussion.
Example line 274ff: ‘Teachers' ratings for many specialized thematic levels were significantly lower than other respondents' ratings (Table A6). The online digital maps of forests and landscape features are relatively new, so teachers likely did not have enough time to research and incorporate them into their lectures.’
The first sentence presents the results, which should be part of the results section. The second sentence however presents possible reasons for the results, but these should be reserved for the discussion. This is just one example. The authors should consider which parts should remain in the results section and which should be moved to the discussion.
It is the purpose of the discussion to explain what the results mean. This has to be improved throughout the whole section.
Example line 352ff: ‘Janse and Konijnendijk [51] pointed out the weaknesses of GIS as a communication tool for decision support in forest management. Thematic maps are not easily understood by a wider audience. GIS tools are often perceived as complicated and inflexible during routine work. Therefore, the graphical interface of a web-based application must be intuitive and its tools must be well suited for specific tasks.’
Do you provide a better solution? Do your results support the hypothesis that your solution improves the situation? And if so, in what ways?
And ‘However, a multi-user web mapping application must include common tools for interacting with digital maps and managing user roles. The effectiveness of the graphical user interface is influenced by the layout of the web page, the graphical design of the controls, and the capabilities of the device [52].’ How do your results relate to these statements?
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
I would like to submit the revised paper for publication in the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information titled "Multipurpose GIS Portal for Forest Management, Research, and Education".
Thank you for your constructive comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript and for the encouraging words that will inspire us in our future work.
We have carefully considered whether it is possible to separate the results from their interpretation, as suggested by Reviewer 1. However, in our article, the interpretation of user preferences is crucial for the redesign of the web portal. The analysis and interpretation of user preferences were a basis for the redesign of the portal, web mapping tools, and applications. Therefore, we believe it is necessary that the analysis of user preferences precede the redesign of the portal. To improve readability, we have separated the analysis of user preferences from the redesign of the web portal in the results.
In agreement with Reviewer 2, we have included a visualization of user preferences in the paper that better illustrates how important each element of the portal is to different user groups. We have also retained the original tables of detailed data in the Appendix.
Tables A1, A3, A5, and A7 have been reformatted in accordance with Reviewer 3's comment.
Sincerely yours,
Milan Koreň
Reviewer 2 Report
As a general statement, I would like to offer my appreciation to the writers for the outstanding job that they have produced. The manuscript is evaluated with a high level of skepticism, as it should be. It is well written and organized, and it discusses all of the benefits and drawbacks of using a web-based GIS for forest management, research, and teaching. Because the issue highlighted in the manuscript is of critical significance to the community of GIS-Sciences researchers and foresters, this work has the potential to be of considerable use to experts, users, and educators working in this area.
The work is deserving of publication in its current form in the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information (IJGI), since it demonstrates a high level of scientific consistency. The reviewer believes it would be beneficial for the authors to include the tables in the Appendices, inside the manuscript, as figures. Other than that, the work is well written and organized.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
I would like to submit the revised paper for publication in the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information titled "Multipurpose GIS Portal for Forest Management, Research, and Education".
Thank you for your constructive comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript and for the encouraging words that will inspire us in our future work.
We have carefully considered whether it is possible to separate the results from their interpretation, as suggested by Reviewer 1. However, in our article, the interpretation of user preferences is crucial for the redesign of the web portal. The analysis and interpretation of user preferences were a basis for the redesign of the portal, web mapping tools, and applications. Therefore, we believe it is necessary that the analysis of user preferences precede the redesign of the portal. To improve readability, we have separated the analysis of user preferences from the redesign of the web portal in the results.
In agreement with Reviewer 2, we have included a visualization of user preferences in the paper that better illustrates how important each element of the portal is to different user groups. We have also retained the original tables of detailed data in the Appendix.
Tables A1, A3, A5, and A7 have been reformatted in accordance with Reviewer 3's comment.
Sincerely yours,
Milan Koreň
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript describes development of a GIS to support students, faculty, and researchers studying forestry in Slovenia. Their aim was to create a platform where people could find datasets not easily found elsewhere, while limiting duplication with existing GIS. In addition to the development of the system, a sample number of people was selected from each group to provide feedback on the organization, content, and ease of use. The results were analyzed statistically, and changes have been made based on this feedback. There was discussion of sensitive datasets and the need to provide limited access to them. Study results were used to design a new GIS for use in forestry by user groups represented in the study, with more limited datasets available to the general public.
I did not find any significant issues with this manuscript. It is well-written, describing the methods, analysis, and results with the appropriate detail. I suggest the authors change tables A1, A3, A5, and A7 to combine the mean and standard deviation into a more standard format (e.g., for table A1, Desktop for S would become 2.7 ± 0.6 and for R would become 2.5 ± 1.1. The current format is extremely difficult to interpret.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
I would like to submit the revised paper for publication in the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information titled "Multipurpose GIS Portal for Forest Management, Research, and Education".
Thank you for your constructive comments and efforts in reviewing our manuscript and for the encouraging words that will inspire us in our future work.
We have carefully considered whether it is possible to separate the results from their interpretation, as suggested by Reviewer 1. However, in our article, the interpretation of user preferences is crucial for the redesign of the web portal. The analysis and interpretation of user preferences were a basis for the redesign of the portal, web mapping tools, and applications. Therefore, we believe it is necessary that the analysis of user preferences precede the redesign of the portal. To improve readability, we have separated the analysis of user preferences from the redesign of the web portal in the results.
In agreement with Reviewer 2, we have included a visualization of user preferences in the paper that better illustrates how important each element of the portal is to different user groups. We have also retained the original tables of detailed data in the Appendix.
Tables A1, A3, A5, and A7 have been reformatted in accordance with Reviewer 3's comment.
Sincerely yours,
Milan Koreň
