Urban–Rural Continuum in the Gonda District, India: Quantifying Rurality Using Modified Fuzzy AHP

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable comments. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made every effort to address and resolve the issues you pointed out. We hope that our revisions have successfully corrected the concerns raised and have improved the overall quality of the paper. For your convenience, we have highlighted all the revised sections to ensure easy access and review.

Comments 1: Why did the researcher(s) choose this location? Is the doctoral student at a Japanese university an Indian who lives in the Gonda district area? Without a reasonable introduction, the paper does not provide
credibility; it brings curiosity and many questions

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comment. The doctoral student conducting this research is from the Gonda district and has lived there for 24 years. Gonda is one of the largest districts in Uttar Pradesh but ranks low in cleanliness and employment to name the few. This personal connection and the pressing need for improvement in the district motivated the student to develop a methodology that could assist bureaucrats and politicians in steering the district in the right direction. 

Comments 2: Abstract: Reformulate the paper’s aim, objective, motivation, and results.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have reformulated the abstract to clearly articulate the paper's aim, objectives, motivation, and results. The revised abstract now provides a concise and comprehensive overview of the study, effectively highlighting its purpose and key findings.

Comments 3: Table 1 has different thick and thin lines. Unify them

Response 3: Thank you for your observation. We have addressed this issue by unifying the line thickness in Table 1, ensuring a consistent and professional appearance throughout the table.

Comments 4: Table texts inside the box should be unified, either capital+capital or capital+normal letters

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the table text to ensure consistency, unifying the formatting to either capital+capital or capital+normal letters throughout the table, as recommended. 

Comments 5: Line 111: We developed. What does “we” mean? 

Response 5: Thank you for your question. In this context, "we" refers to the research team involved in the study. To avoid ambiguity, we have made changes accordingly . Line 117-120.

Comments 6: Line 156: What is “the Indian context?”

Response 6: Thank you for your question. "The Indian context" refers to the specific socio-economic, cultural, and geographical conditions in India that are relevant to the area and the study. We have made necessary changes and the revision can be found in line 161-164.

Comments 7: “Health care” (Figure 1) has 4 columns, while “health care” (Table 1) has 3 columns. It is the same case as "infrastructure.". Accordingly, this wrong position brings different interpretations and
outcomes to the analysis. 

Response 7: Thank you for pointing out the discrepancies. We have identified and corrected the inconsistencies in Figure 1 regarding the number of columns for "Health care" and "Infrastructure." The figure has been revised to ensure accuracy and consistency with Table 1. Please check the updated Figure 1 for the corrected information.

Comments 8: Line 197-209: The text line spacing is wider than the others. Correct them.

Response 8: Thank you for noticing this. We have adjusted the line spacing in lines 197-209 to match the rest of the document, and we have also checked the entire document to ensure consistency in line spacing throughout.

Comments 9: Line 227. Instead of %, write percentage (%).

Response 9: Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced the "%" symbol with the word "percentage (%)" as recommended, to maintain consistency and clarity in the document.

Comments 10: Line 233. Where can 0.08543 be found?

Response 10: Thank you for pointing out. The value can be found in Table 2. mentioned as C.I : 0.08543. We apologize for any confusion caused by the previous error.

Comments 11: Figure 2 and other figures should be clear to read. Link them to the original images when clicked.

Response 11: Thank you for your suggestion. We have ensured that Figure 2 and other figures are clear and easy to read. Additionally, we have linked the figures to the original high-resolution images so that they can be accessed when clicked for better clarity and detail.

Comments 12: Indicate what each colour represents.

Response 12: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a legend or annotations to Figure 2 and other relevant figures to clearly indicate what each color represents. This will help in better understanding and interpretation of the figures.

Comments 13: Line 272: Delete Authors

Response 13: Thank you. We have deleted the word "Authors" from line 272 as requested. Sorry for the error.

Comments 14: Lines 276 and 277: Where can these numbers be found? 

Response 14: The numbers mentioned in lines 276 and 277 and other in result and discussion section are part of the dataset we collected from various offices in the Gonda district. This data has been used for the analysis and is included in the supplementary materials. We have also referenced this in lines 282-286 for clarity. As these data are only issued to the author it can be made accessible upon the request of the reviewer.

Comments 15: Section 4: Check the text thoroughly. (Line 279) According to the table, rank 15 is Babhanjot; 16 is Mujehna. The failure continues throughout section 4. 

Response 15: Thank you for your observation. We have carefully reviewed and corrected the discrepancies, tallied it with Table 3 and thoroughly checked the entire Section 4 to ensure that all references to rankings and data are accurate and consistent with the table.

Comments 16: All images: Trim the outline with gray lines. It disturbs readers' eyes; the paper seems untidy; the researchers should imagine the readers’ possible irritation. Readers do not continue in reading of untidy papers unless they have to.

Response 16: Thank you for your feedback. We have removed the gray outlines from all images to create a cleaner and more professional appearance. This adjustment should make the paper easier and more pleasant for readers to engage with, minimizing any potential irritation.

Comments 17: Discussion: Go through all the elements and elaborate on their results. Combine the similar texts from here and those from the Conclusion. Move them to the Conclusion..

Response 17: Thank you for your detailed feedback. We have rewritten the entire Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, taking all your comments into careful consideration. Additionally, we have clarified the rationale behind the choice of location. We acknowledge that the paper could benefit from sharper analysis and a more critical approach. We have made revisions to ensure a deeper analysis and to enhance the overall clarity and depth of the text. Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed the document to ensure that all texts correspond correctly to the appropriate table numbers, and any discrepancies have been corrected. We hope these changes address your concerns and improve the overall quality of the paper.

Comments 18: Conclusions: Write the researcher’s critique of this outcome, compared to what was expected. What is future research? What is this paper’s contribution that can be actually implemented? 

Response 18: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the Conclusions section to include the researcher's critique of the outcomes compared to what was initially expected. We have also outlined the directions for future research and clearly articulated the practical contributions of this paper that can be implemented. This information has been integrated to provide a comprehensive conclusion that addresses these important aspects. All the section where revisions have been made are highlighted. 

Comments 19: References: 23 and 24 are the same, although they are in different locations. Is there any other way to avoid referencing it twice? 

Response 19: Thank you for your observation. We have removed the duplicate reference and ensured that the references list is accurate and free of redundancies. The citations have been updated accordingly to avoid referencing the same source twice.

Comments 20: Make balance between texts, tables, and images

Response 20: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to create a better balance between the text, tables, and images. This adjustment ensures that each element supports the others effectively, improving the overall readability and flow of the paper.

Comments 21: Moderate editing of English language required.

Response 21:  Thank you for your observation. To address this, the manuscript was sent to two native English speakers and a professor for thorough proofreading and moderate editing to ensure the language quality.

Comments 1: In the first paragraph of the article, when describing the historical phases of rural India, it is suggested that the author should provide relevant literature to support the definition of different historical phases.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have cited the work in question, as the information regarding the historical phases of rural India is derived from a single source. Hence, only one citation has been provided to ensure accurate attribution. The correction section has been highleted for your reference. Line 30-39.

Comments 2: When describing Gonda's multi-level policy choice approach, it is recommended that the article give examples of specific policies of the central and state governments.

Response 2: Thank you for your input. We have added the policies being implemented in Gonda district, both directly and indirectly, by central, state, and district levels. These details can be found in lines 55-67, which have also been highlighted for your reference.

Comments 3: It is suggested that the article should be supplemented with the shortcomings of the new methodology developed, e.g., difficulty in covering all rural indicators and poor derivability.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. The shortcomings of the new methodology, such as the difficulty in covering all rural indicators and poor derivability, have been explicitly mentioned in the abstract, methodology, discussion and conclusion sections.

Comments 4: It is suggested that the article should be supplemented with a detailed step-by-step approach to the use of indicators and a clear description of the process of applying the methodology.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. This has been rewritten to make it easier to understand, and can be found in lines 132-159. The article includes a detailed, step-by-step approach to using the indicators, along with a clear description of the process for applying the methodology in the methodology section.

Comments 5: Moderate editing of English language required.

Response 5: Thank you for your observation. To address this, the manuscript was sent to two native English speakers and a professor to ensure the language quality.

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable comments. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made every effort to address and resolve the issues you pointed out. We hope that our revisions have successfully corrected the concerns raised and have improved the overall quality of the paper. For your convenience, we have highlighted all the revised sections to ensure easy access and review.

Comments 1: A thorough (re)reading of the text content and grammar is necessary. 

Response 1: We have thoroughly reviewed and revised the manuscript for grammatical consistency and clarity. This should enhance the readability and reduce any perceived noisiness in the text. We asked two other native English speakers from USA and Canada to read and hep in correction.

Comments 2: (Keywords): Add the district area. India is too vague.

Response 2: The keywords have been revised to include a more specific district area (Gonda), providing a clearer representation of the study's focus.

Comments 3: (Abstract and text) Restrain using “rural” all the time. We know the paper is dealing with this issue.

Response 3: We have adjusted the terminology and eliminated certain instances to reduce the repetitive use of "rural." As a result, it now appears only 17 times throughout the paper.

Comments 4: What is the difference between rurality and rural? 

Response 4: We have clarified the usage of "rurality" versus "rural" within the context of the paper. The difference between "rural" and "rurality" lies in their usage and scope. "Rural" is a term that describes areas or characteristics associated with the countryside, such as "rural communities" or "rural landscapes." It directly refers to aspects typical of non-urban environments. In contrast, "rurality" is a noun that denotes the quality or state of being rural. It encompasses the broader characteristics and degree to which an area is rural, including factors like population density, economic activities, and lifestyle. While "rural" describes, "rurality" defines the extent and nature of rural characteristics. 

Comments 5: (L155) 7 experts; (L208) seven. Standardize the expression. In general, until ten, it is used word. After that, it uses numbers.

Response 5: Numerical expressions have been standardized throughout the paper, following the convention of spelling out numbers from one to ten and using numerals for numbers above ten.

Comments 6: (All figures) Do not forget to link it to an original image to see it clearer

Response 6: We have provided the original images and the source information for clearer interpretation.

Comments 7: (L218-219 and further) Need space between the figure, table and text. At this moment, the paper needs to breathe. In principle, we make the figure, table, etc. smaller than the main text. And not a bold type.

Response 7: Spacing between figures, tables, and text has been adjusted to give the paper more visual breathing room, improving readability. Bold type for figures and tables has been removed to maintain a consistent layout.

Comments 8: (L169) (L242) (L246) and further Referencing is different. (21) (22) or (21-22)? 

Response 8: All in-text citations and references have been revised for consistency, adhering to the selected referencing style throughout the document.

Comments 9: (Table 3) Reformulate the table; make 1-16 as one column.

Response 9: Table 3 has been reformulated accordingly.

Comments 10: (L493) (L508) Locate the reference to the correct position.

Response 10: The placement of references, particularly earlier on lines 493 and 508, has been corrected to ensure accurate citation and positioning within the text.