Smart Sustainable Cities: The Essentials for Managers’ and Leaders’ Initiatives within the Complex Context of Differing Definitions and Assessments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study conducts comprehensive review and comparison of smart cities researches and aims to find the most important aspects and most common indicators to consider for smart cities. The manuscript is well written and organized with smooth logic and transitions, methodologies are sound, related literatures are affluent, and analysis results are presented with informative figures and tables.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer and editorial board
Thank you very much for your review and the valuable comments on the manuscript.
Kind regards,
the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper focused to identify and synthesize essential information, helping managers to de-fine and develop projects and initiatives within the context of smart cities. I have some reservation to improve this manuscript.
Abstract:
The authors need to add the policy implications.
Introduction:
Figure 2: Add the reference.
Table 1: Add the reference.
The introduction must be separated as introduction and literature.
Methodology:
The authors well explain this section.
Results:
This section is described well by the authors.
Discussion:
The authors can update this section by adding some previous studies.
Conclusion:
The authors need to add policy implications and practical implications.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer and editorial board
Thank you very much for your review and the valuable suggestions offered for the improvement of the manuscript. We have revised the article accordingly. Please see our answers in the attached file. You can also see the track-change version of the article, which will be submitted when authorized.
Thank you again.
Kind regards,
the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
· The authors have made the improvements indicated compared to existing. The paper has practical value and is applicable to scenarios. The authors should check the spelling and grammar, to improve the communication of the paper. I think it is suitable for the journal.
· Very limited literature is reviewed in this paper. The authors are suggested to extend the literature by reviewing recent literature on smart city security aspect
· The novelty of the paper related to the previous background literature is not given concisely. It is claimed that a new model is designed but what is seen in the article is several sets of many fig , which are taken from different places of the background literature, and which are not properly mutually linked to follow them. It is very unclear how the links are between the different parts of the main body.
· Add a section and provide descriptive analysis and details of the dataset used in this study.
· However, despite the above, this work still needs further improvement to convince the audience regarding their arguments. Especially in terms of the structural framework of the draft.
· The conclusions need to be expanded and written to include more discussion of further avenues for decision-making research.
· Please, define all abbreviations during their first use.
· More references are also required as the scientific background of the article is not strong. After adding new references, the authors should create a discussion section where they compare their results to existing ones in the literature.
· However, it would be nice if authors can provide a summary to provide the methods used in previous studies and the drawbacks and advantages of similar studies mentioned in the related work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer and editorial board
Thank you very much for your review and the valuable suggestions offered for the improvement of the manuscript. We have revised the article accordingly. Please see our answers in the attached file. You can also see the track-change version of the article, which will be submitted when authorized.
Concerning the check and spelling, we have hired the MDPI English revision services.
Thank you again.
Kind regards,
the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The review comments were addressed by the authors. Now manuscript moves to the next step.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer and editorial board
Thank you very much for your review and the valuable comments on the manuscript.
Kind regards,
the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
