Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a well-crafted and professional report on the LBS2ITS Project, structured as a technical report. It should include the number of participants and their backgrounds.

Were they solely university teachers, or did they possess practical or operational knowledge of LBS and ITS?

The term "Location-based Services (LBS)" is frequently used along with other terms. Once an abbreviation is introduced in the early pages, it does not need to be repeated in subsequent pages.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review. We have addressed your comments as:

The article is a well-crafted and professional report on the LBS2ITS Project, structured as a technical report. It should include the number of participants and their backgrounds.

Response: The new section 2 ‘Introduction of the Sri Lankan Partner Universities’ is now included in the paper providing background information about the partner Universities.

Were they solely university teachers, or did they possess practical or operational knowledge of LBS and ITS?

Response: They were university lectures and had little or nearly no knowledge about the topics of the train-the-teachers courses. This is now also mentioned:

Some lectures of the partner universities were firstly trained for the topics of these TTT courses and the learning materials was quite new for them.

The term "Location-based Services (LBS)" is frequently used along with other terms. Once an abbreviation is introduced in the early pages, it does not need to be repeated in subsequent pages.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. This is now corrected.

Many thanks again for your review.

Best regards,

Guenther Retscher

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is about an interdisciplinary approach to curriculum development
in geomatics education.
I agree with everything in the article, but I did not need the article to know
what needs happen academically in geomatics.
The courses defined the article do not define any prerequisites?
The geographic information systems (GIS) standard of education is not mentioned?
Unfortunately 90% of the article is not about geomatics but instead about
very generic educational methods.  I thus feel it has so little geomatics in
it I do not feel it is appropriate for the journal.
The concept of multi-disciplinary in geomatics has been in existence for 50+ years.
The publication of this is premature.  Wait two years, show results, and focus
on geomatics and this will be a great future article.
The English is near perfection
Lines 1-84 devoid of any references though a lot of discussion that is
obviously not the product of the authors
Line 133-140 lots of external statements and no references
Line 283-284 This reads strange but I don't know how to fix it.
Line 286 Bloom needs a reference
Line 315 question mark is used for a reference
Line 378-379 This statement needs quantification as I cannot deem it to be true.
Line 382 Figure labelled by question marks
Line 457 "have progresses further" makes no sense
Line 477 ?? used for section number
Line 550 "learnt"should be "learned"

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your review. We have addressed your comments carefully. Please see the attached file for our response.

Best regards,

Guenther Retscher

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments in the first version have all been addressed.  The authors worked hard to implement my comments and this is deeply appreciated.  I feel the article is quite long for the average reader to truly absorb and as previously stated I feel it is not reflective of the geomatics industry's need for particular education in general.  Instead it is an opinion of what is required in geomatics education.