Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is based on a relevant and timely premise: the contribution of museums in the sustainability of cities. To address this topic, the article analyses two museums located in different contexts. However, in my opinion, the article is overly ambitious in its scope. The methodology proposed (or at least the information provided in the article) does not ensure the replicability of the research, nor does it guarantee the objectivity of the results. For this reason, I believe the article is not suitable for publication.

 

Introduction

The introduction presents an interesting approach to the sustainable development of cities. However, it places too much emphasis on the European context. Given that the article analyses both a European and an Asian museum, it would be necessary to also include an approach that considers the Asian reality.

Furthermore, the introductory section does not clearly explain how the article contributes to the current state of knowledge.

Attention should also be paid to line 26, where an unnecessary line break occurs. Additionally, some expressions need revision, such as in line 40: “to role of museum”. Is “the role of museums”?

 

Literature Review

Section 2.1 is somewhat confusing. It refers to “two primary theories” and “three fundamental models”, but fails to explain how they are interrelated. Moreover, the theoretical framework is overly focused on museums. It is unlikely that museums alone will achieve the urban sustainability goals presented in the article.

A significant portion of this section is devoted to European cultural programmes. However, these are only marginally related to the topic under discussion. For example, the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) has a very limited connection with museums, instead prioritising other forms of events (meetings, exchanges, etc.). And once again, the focus is excessively European.

More importantly, my primary concern is that the article focuses on the sustainability of museums, while the title refers to the sustainability of cities. Either the theoretical framework or the overall focus of the article should be adjusted accordingly.

 

Methodology

It is not clear what motivated the selection of the two museums analysed. A brief mention is made in lines 202–203, but this is insufficient to justify the relevance of the choice.

Nor is it clear how data collection was carried out. What data were collected, at what time, by whom, using which methods—these are all aspects that may result in subjective and hardly replicable findings.

Attention should also be paid to formal inconsistencies, such as varying font styles.

 

Research Development

The discussion of some aspects of sustainability is overly descriptive, while other important aspects are overlooked. Moreover, the understanding of sustainability presented in this section is limited and, in fact, should have been outlined earlier in the previous sections.

The article’s approach to sustainability tends to focus only on certain dimensions. For instance, aspects such as social sustainability, economic sustainability, or sustainability in the management of the facility are not addressed.

Furthermore, the structure of the sections dedicated to each of the two museums differs, which hinders the comparison of results (for example, the Singapore museum section does not address public image). This discrepancy makes it difficult to understand the findings presented in Table 2. For instance, the concept of “urban integration” is mentioned, but to adequately address this, it would be necessary to consider the museums’ locations and their relationships with the surrounding environment—an aspect that is not discussed in the text.

Likewise, the connection between museum sustainability and urban sustainability remains unclear. The research allows, generously speaking, the conclusion that museums may themselves be sustainable (in certain respects), but it does not support the transposition of these findings to the sustainability of cities.

 

Conclusions

In my view, RQ1 is not demonstrated. No information is provided to support this research question.

RQ3 is also not addressed. Tourism is scarcely mentioned—so how are these conclusions reached?

Similarly, RQ4 cannot be supported, as there is no consideration of the urban context.

The discussion section raises points that are difficult to substantiate based on the article’s content. For example, the claims made in lines 549–553 are not demonstrated.

As for the actual conclusions, they are overly brief and do not include recommendations or explain how the article contributes to the existing literature. These are all elements that should be improved prior to publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments

We are doing our best

All the best

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below is a revised single-paragraph peer review:

This manuscript investigates the interdependence between museums and sustainable urban regeneration, using qualitative case studies of Athens (Acropolis Museum) and Singapore (National Museum) through content and comparative analysis across social, economic, cultural, technological, and environmental dimensions. The topic is timely and significant, linking cultural policy to urban sustainability aligns with current global discourse. The abstract requires some refinement for clarity and impact as it omits any concrete findings or conclusions, leaving the reader uncertain about the study’s actual contributions and insights derived from the comparative framework. To strengthen the abstract, I recommend stating the implications for cultural policy or urban governance. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comments

We are doing our best

All the best

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The draft script highlights how museums contribute to sustainable urban development with a focus on cultural, economic, social, technological, and environmental aspects through a comparison of Athens’ New Acropolis Museum and Singapore’s ArtScience Museum and their impact on city regeneration, identity, and growth.

The article addresses an important and underexplored area and demonstrates strong potential. However, it requires more clarity and theoretical depth, as well as methodological rigour, to be a valuable contribution to debates around culture, sustainability, and urban development. The below suggestions aim to make the transcript more effective and target a broader audience.

• It is recommended to consider simplifying or slightly modifying the title for more impact, such as ”Museums and Urban Sustainability: A Comparative Study of Athens and Singapore.”
• The abstract summarizes the research; however, it needs a clear aim and articulation of the key findings with research objective to reflect the comparative methodology more explicitly and highlight core findings rather than general statements about museums
• The introduction needs to clearly identify the research problem statement and research gap with emphasis on the article's unique contribution to the museums’ role to cultural identity and sustainable urban development
• Research methods and data are well described. However, the chosen methods need more clarification and justification, whether in the abstract or in the introduction.
• Authors can add a short summary highlighting the key research methods and their relevance as well as the key criteria (lines 75-77) and after (section 3.2, A Combined Analysis).

• To enhance research method rigour, incorporate details on the “combined analysis” that is useful but vague in parts. The rationale of sources selection criteria is not clear, and what was the unit of analysis, and how was the coding process applied in content analysis? It is essential to specify more clearly how each method (case study, content analysis, comparative study) was conducted and triangulated.

• Section 4. The case studies In brief, it contains a lot of descriptive data that can be shortened or summarized. It is recommended to unify the brief of each museum under the same headings. For instance, the Athens Museum brief contains subheadings such as Introduction to the Acropolis Museum, The Museum as a Social Agent, Public Image, etc. While Singapore Museum’s subheadings such as Exhibitions, Programs and Workshops, Promoting Psychological Well-Being and Human Awareness…etc.
• The literature review is comprehensive; however, theoretical anchoring is somewhat descriptive rather than analytical. Strengthen the theoretical foundation, especially in the literature review and discussion sections. Frameworks such as cultural sustainability, identity politics, and urban semiotics are mentioned but not deeply engaged.
• It is recommended to add a line or two after the findings of the literature review as an introductory lead to the research aim.

• Some images look distorted to fit the page, such as Figs. 3, 5, and 6. Additionally, they could be redesigned or supported with clearer captions or legends.

• Research questions need to be implemented within the abstract and introduction, not by the end of the research paper—Line 501. It is recommended rephrasing section “6. Answering research questions” to be part of the discussion section rather than setting it as answering research questions.
• Add a critical reflection subsection to the discussion that addresses potential challenges, such as commercialization, inequality in access, or contested heritage.
• Consider summarizing key takeaways in text before or after each table, as the tables are information dense.
• The conclusion is somewhat generic and reiterative; it needs clarity in presenting key insights, and it does not always link findings back to the research objectives.
• It is highly recommended to revise the conclusion to include more actionable insights or policy implications as well as suggest how this framework could be applied to other cities or types of museums.
• Consider breaking some sentences into shorter, more direct sentences, as some are lengthy, making it difficult to follow. Overuse of passive voice and overly long paragraphs reduces clarity.

• There are several grammatical errors. It is required to have a proofread to improve the article’s coherence.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments

We are doing our best

All the best

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version has addressed most of the comments.

There is another comment to consider: 

Tables need to be re-names. There only two tables in the article. Tables 2 and 3 –(Line 490) should be tables 1 and 2.