Modeling Strategic Interventions to Increase Attendance at Youth Community Centers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article focuses on the issue of attendance at community centers, using a case study from Boston to conduct a field analysis study that identifies key factors affecting attendance and makes targeted policy recommendations. Although the study is relatively short in length, the content framework of the study is complete and has strong social reference value. I believe the publication of such research should be encouraged.
The main suggestions for improvement are as follows:
1. In the introduction part, increase the number of references appropriately. The research on the accessibility of public service facilities can be appropriately categorized in a more detailed way and supplemented with some newer literature. At the same time, what are the advances in detailing the relationship between the methodology proposed in this study and the established studies?
2. 2.1 Data and 2.2 Modeling section, the article has already explained in detail, and the usage of data and modeling are appropriate and do not require significant modification.
3. Subsection 2.3 reveals the key factors affecting attendance at community centers, and this section should be the key finding of this study, which is recommended to be treated as a separate section and discussed with appropriate in-depth analysis.
4. The research on the intervention is valuable. However, it needs to be made clear on what methodology the simulation of the intervention effects was generated based on, which model was used and what key parameters were used.
5. The discussion in the last section is largely rational.
Author Response
- In the introduction part, increase the number of references appropriately. The research on the accessibility of public service facilities can be appropriately categorized in a more detailed way and supplemented with some newer literature. At the same time, what are the advances in detailing the relationship between the methodology proposed in this study and the established studies?
We have now added new sources of information in our literature review and expanded our introduction. However, we do wish to emphasize that we are writing this paper primarily because there is little to no work out there on the subject, and it is thus difficult to find relevant literature.
- 2.1 Data and 2.2 Modeling section, the article has already explained in detail, and the usage of data and modeling are appropriate and do not require significant modification.
We thank the reviewer for this comment.
- Subsection 2.3 reveals the key factors affecting attendance at community centers, and this section should be the key finding of this study, which is recommended to be treated as a separate section and discussed with appropriate in-depth analysis.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and have made subsection 2.3 into a new section, adding more detail
- The research on the intervention is valuable. However, it needs to be made clear on what methodology the simulation of the intervention effects was generated based on, which model was used and what key parameters were used.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and have expanded throughout the paper.
- The discussion in the last section is largely rational.
We thank the reviewer for this comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsInitially, I would like to thank the authors for preparing this manuscript. The overall quality of the manuscript is lower than the expected standard of scientific studies for publication in Smart Cities. Therefore, I regret to inform you that I cannot recommend it for publication at this stage. Here are some of the main weaknesses associated with this paper:
1. In the title, it is suggested not to introduce ‘BCYF’ as an abbreviation for the first time; since it is not a common term for the general public and international readers.
2. The Introduction section is very short and needs to be supported by further evidence. The general context of the study, the problem statement, and the research originality need to be much better developed.
3. Research questions for this study need to be formulated.
4. This study has not drawn attention to the relevant literature review, which is a critical issue.
5. There are only 16 references for this paper, and, surprisingly, only a couple of them are journal papers. This is insufficient for publication. A minimum review of 40-50 journal papers published in the last 5 years is recommended.
6. In its current form, the manuscript reads more like a report than a scientific research paper.
7. It is uncommon to include images or tables in the Introduction. Case studies should be introduced after the methodology section.
8. The rationale for developing two models, including the entire population and individuals aged 5-17, needs to be explained. What is the relation to your research objectives?
9. A flowchart outlining your research design and its steps needs to be formulated and visualized to make your research process more understandable.
10. Figure 2 needs to be further interpreted and elaborated.
11. How can your findings be generalized?
12. How do you suggest changing walking accessibility to centers? Does it require alterations in urban design?
13. The results are still raw and need further interpretation with practical implications.
14. There is a lack of scientific discussion associated with this study, which is a vital flaw.
15. It is advised to include a set of pictures from the interior spaces of these communities to make them more tangible for readers and audiences. This could relate to the spatial attributes of the outcomes of this study.
16. Develop a set of implications for policy and planning.
Author Response
- In the title, it is suggested not to introduce ‘BCYF’ as an abbreviation for the first time; since it is not a common term for the general public and international readers.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and apologize for the oversight. We have now fixed it
- The Introduction section is very short and needs to be supported by further evidence. The general context of the study, the problem statement, and the research originality need to be much better developed.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and have expanded our introduction, particularly in terms of our literature review.
- Research questions for this study need to be formulated.
We thank the reviewer for this comment.
- This study has not drawn attention to the relevant literature review, which is a critical issue.
We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have now added more papers in our literature review. However, we do wish to emphasize that we are writing this paper primarily because there is little to no work out there on the subject and is thus difficult to find relevant literature.
- There are only 16 references for this paper, and, surprisingly, only a couple of them are journal papers. This is insufficient for publication. A minimum review of 40-50 journal papers published in the last 5 years is recommended.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and believe we have fixed this issue with the previous comment.
- In its current form, the manuscript reads more like a report than a scientific research paper.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and believe we have fixed this by expanding on sections.
- It is uncommon to include images or tables in the Introduction. Case studies should be introduced after the methodology section.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and have now rearranged the introduction and methodology so that the case study is not introduced in the introduction.
- The rationale for developing two models, including the entire population and individuals aged 5-17, needs to be explained. What is the relation to your research objectives?
We thank the reviewer for this comment and have now expanded on the rationale behind this in our methodology section.
- A flowchart outlining your research design and its steps needs to be formulated and visualized to make your research process more understandable.
We thank the reviewer for this comment.
- Figure 2 needs to be further interpreted and elaborated.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and have expanded on the figure.
- How can your findings be generalized?
We thank the reviewer for this comment and have now included this in our conclusion section.
- How do you suggest changing walking accessibility to centers? Does it require alterations in urban design?
We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have expanded on this in our conclusion section.
- The results are still raw and need further interpretation with practical implications.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and believe we have fixed this by expanding on sections with previous comments.
- There is a lack of scientific discussion associated with this study, which is a vital flaw.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and believe we have fixed this by expanding on sections with previous comments.
- It is advised to include a set of pictures from the interior spaces of these communities to make them more tangible for readers and audiences. This could relate to the spatial attributes of the outcomes of this study.
We thank the reviewer for this comment but we cannot do this due to privacy reasons. Nevertheless the location photos are on the respective center websites which we have linked through the paper.
- Develop a set of implications for policy and planning.
We thank the reviewer for this comment and believe we have fixed this by expanding on sections with previous comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research presented in the article is one of the very current and necessary scientific activities with a significant implementation aspect. The topics taken up in the research are extremely socially important. The application of methods used in commercial areas to public entities seems to be the right direction. The research methodology and conclusions are appropriate and clear.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for this comment and their kind words.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article has been significantly improved and is recommended for publication.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their final decision.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnfortunately, the paper still suffers from critical flaws and drawbacks, and I cannot recommend it for publication based on my viewpoints. Therefore, the definitive decision for this paper is to reject it.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their final decision.
