You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
by
  • Javier Parra-Domínguez1,2,*,
  • Raúl López-Blanco2 and
  • Francisco Pinto-Santos2

Reviewer 1: Van Chien Nguyen Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Sir/Madam

The paper attempts to examine “ Approach to the technical processes of incorporating non-financial information. The case of a Smart City and the monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals”. After reviewing, I find that this paper is interesting. The paper is readable ragarding the case of a smart city as the more popular topic at this times.

The methodology of this research is acceptable. For better contribution to the literature, I have some revisions that are good for enhancing the quality of the manuscript.

1.      The paper does not explain the novelty of the research. It should be further confirmed in the analysis. Further, the characteristics of a smart city that is used in this paper.

2.      The quality of Figure 2, Figure 3 is too bad

3.      Basic principles of the Data Integration System in Section 2. The lessons for this analysis?

4.      The Figure 5 should be explained or referred the lines. In addition, the authors should have a sentence that can connect between Figure 5 and the analysis. Why maximum temperatures is highest at the time of (7-8) and (17-18)

5.      The limitations of this research should be discussed

Thank you

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please find attached a document detailing the attention to your comments.

Thank you,

The authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article contains original content, however, the authors need to highlight the contribution of the article.  The methodology section of the article is very shallow. The methodology should be explained in detail. The English of the article should be checked. The discussion section of the article should be re-written.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please find attached a document detailing the attention to your comments.

Thank you,

The authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Sir

I feel good with the revised manuscript. After revising, I think that the paper should be considered for publication.

I congrate to you and your team

Yours sincerely