OpenStreetMap as the Data Source for Territorial Innovation Potential Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study assessed the territorial innovation potential using OSM data and geoinformation technologies. Generally speaking, the idea is interesting. But, details on methods and results are not clear and the proposed method is also not convincing.

 

First, the authors used the proposed method without evaluation. What is the effectiveness of using the proposed method? Quantitative assessment is needed. Without knowing this, I believe most of readers cannot use it.

 

Second, which OSM type are used to assess the territorial innovation potential? The authors did not give out the details. More important, why the authors choose these types (100+)? In my opinion, the output results may be quite different if choosing different types. How to choose appropriate types for other study areas?

 

Third, the importance weights are used for each feature type. How to determine appropriate weights. The output may also be quite different if using different thresholds. But, the authors did not give out the method for determining the weight, and also they did not discuss how different weights affect the output results.

 

Fourth, I found there are too many serial numbers (i.e., 1., 2., 3., … or Ad1, Ad2, …). It is not normal for a journal paper.

 

Fifth, the structure should be revise. For instance, ‘three main specificities of this particular attractiveness assessment task 336 were defined’. The corresponding parts should be put in the ‘method section’ rather than ‘Results’.

 

Other comments:

1. Suggest to revise ‘2. Materials’ as ‘Related Work’.
2. Suggest to give out an individual section to introduce the study area and data.
3. All the OSM types used for the analysis should be given out.
4. How to check OSM data quality manually? How many are retained or removed? And why?
5. ‘a distance of 50km’ was used. How to determine the threshold? Is the threshold appropriate? How to verify this?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

/

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a novel approach to assessing territorial innovation potential using OpenStreetMap (OSM) data and geoinformation technologies. The study contributes to geospatial innovation assessment by leveraging open-source, high-resolution spatial data to identify regional disparities in innovation potential. However, several major issues must be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your work. It is very interesting, but before proceeding, I have some general questions.

The manuscript presents an interesting methodology for assessing territorial innovation potential using OpenStreetMap (OSM) data and spatial analysis tools. The proposal to overcome the limitations of aggregated statistics by employing more detailed geospatial data is an innovative and potentially useful approach for regional planning.

However, the study raises several questions regarding the quality and completeness of OSM data, which could significantly affect the validity of the analysis. Specifically, the author should clarify the following points:

1. Verification of OSM Data Completeness

   • Has an analysis of OSM data coverage in the study areas been conducted?

   • Have the data been compared with official sources to assess potential gaps?

2. Handling Data Heterogeneity

   • Given that the quality and quantity of OSM data vary depending on local community activity, what strategies have been adopted to mitigate this issue?

   • Have territories with incomplete data been excluded, or have corrections been applied to harmonize the dataset?

3. Assignment of Indicator Scores

   • What methodology was used to assign scores to amenities in the indicator calculation?

   • Were objective criteria used, or were the scores derived from subjective evaluations?

   • How was this scoring system validated to ensure its reliability?

4. Consideration of Universities with Multiple Campuses

   • If a university has multiple campuses, are they counted separately or considered as a single entity?

   • Does the model account for the actual contribution of each campus to innovation, or does it merely register physical presence?

5. Integration with Official Data

   • The manuscript mentions the potential future integration of OSM with official statistical data. Why has this integration not been implemented in this stage of the research?

   • Has the author considered using complementary data sources to enhance the reliability of the results?

Including a more detailed discussion on these aspects would improve the robustness of the study and enhance its replicability. Additionally, the author should assess the impact that potential data gaps may have on the classification of innovation attractiveness across different regions.

Overall, the study represents an interesting contribution, but addressing these points is recommended to ensure greater reliability of the proposed methodology.

Best regards

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for responding to all comments and for the corrections they made. The authors' answers fulfill most of the suggestions I made. Just please provide full directions for your corrections in the text of your responses in the future to help the reviewers understand your corrections. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscripts english is enough to understand.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ok