Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their work and effort to address a relevant issue with significant societal implications: the conflictual relationship between the public sphere and digital technology and its consequences on society, specifically on young people’s everyday lives. The paper’s main contribution is to carefully delineate a narrative in which theoretical texts are analyzed and structured through specific topics that address topics such as publicness, digital media, identity, and sociality. This narrative leads to relevant discussions partially exemplified through empirical knowledge and experiences. Although it is a rich and theoretically well-grounded text, its structure is less sound and incoherent with the narrative in place.

General comments:

Overall, I find the paper to be an interesting contribution that fits well within the special issue call. I have enjoyed reviewing this piece and hope the following comments will enhance the paper, especially regarding its structure, and more clearly state the intention behind this analysis.

The article starts by effectively inserting the analysis topic within the current state of planetary crises and struggles. It also defines young people to be the study’s target group. From there, the paper introduces key topics and arguments related to the public sphere, digital media, and technology to set the background for the rest of the paper.

From this point on, the paper’s tone is uniform through a narrative that advances through the analysis of texts and exemplified by situations, which I find helpful in illustrating and contextualizing the arguments. However, the overall outcome is a discussion paper that mainly attempts to contrast the notion of public sphere with the integration of digital technology in the everyday life of young people. This aspect is clearly stated in lines 68-70 to summarize the introduction. Besides this paragraph, the rest of the text and even the materials, methods, and conclusion sections continuously introduce new arguments in a discursive manner that the authors carry on until the end. Although a structure of sections and subsections organizes the text, I struggle to see how these categories relate. The structure and titles used for the subsections are clear and relate to the narrative and the arguments, but the main sections do not correspond to what is being discussed. For instance, the Materials section does not explain how the study was conducted, nor does the Methods section describe the methods employed for this study.

Specific comments:

I find that the Introduction section is clear and elaborates quite well on the background of this discussion. However, after the introduction, the paper’s structure became less effective. I suggest the authors develop a new short section under the title of Materials and Method that explicitly declares the purpose and relevance of the study, states the research(s) questions, elaborates on why it focuses on young people as a target group, explains the methods employed for this research and how the rest of the paper is structured. Regarding the methods, the authors do not acknowledge the empirical dimension that the paper introduces through observation to interpret a carefully selected body of authors characterized by a solid theoretical emphasis. The paper presents an effective relationship between these two spheres, which is not fully acknowledged in the paper.

Then, I suggest the authors assemble an extensive discussion part that could first define some key concepts (currently sub-sections 2.1 and 2.2), leading to a rich discussion spanning from sub-sections 3.1 to 4.3. The authors’ three ‘intersectional premises’ defined in lines 76 to 78 could be how this long section is organized. In its current form, the conclusions section does not act as a place that wraps up the discussion. Instead, it continues the same narrative that introduces new arguments. I suggest the authors more explicitly summarize the main arguments of the discussion and state the contributions, the limitations of the research, and possible future pathways.

For instance, reflect upon the study’s limitation on the fact that the paper analyses this phenomenon mostly through written sources. It is not a case-based or contextualized analysis, but it leads the discussion on a broad level. Is part of the limitations of the fact that the authors discussed are primarily within a Western context? Would this discussion hold beyond a Western notion of public and digital spheres, for instance, in an Asian context? The paper’s final section should allow the authors to address their outcomes and limitations openly.

For example, in subsection 4.3, the authors mention: ‘Today, the use of public space for political initiatives, demonstrations or simply as a place to hang out is mostly taken for granted, as problems of another kind determine social coexistence.’ For this type of argument, I find it necessary for the authors to express the limitations and context in which these kinds of thoughts are made.

Regarding the paper’s content, I perceive an excessive binarism on how digital and physical spaces are treated and how digital technology arguably affects young people versus other groups. Although the authors provide data on why they chose this specific target group for this analysis, the paper fails to acknowledge that digital technology affects society (as a whole) and how we engage with the public sphere. The paper’s abstract is perhaps where this argument is more clearly mentioned, but within the text’s body, it is less clear. The paper should more clearly differentiate treating young people as the target group of the study versus the most vulnerable category to the phenomenon being discussed, or at least explain how it differs from other groups.

In subsection 2.2, specifically in lines 174 to 198, the authors make substantial remarks that are not sustained by literature or scientifically validated, especially the remarks on the behavior of young people. These arguments are then exemplified by observation and empirical knowledge, reinforcing the argument but should be further enriched by scientific knowledge. This also occurs between lines 393-410 of section 4.1.

In subsection 3.1, the authors mention observation and evaluation regarding the topic of the discussion. It is unclear if these observations are part of a study. If so, the Materials and Methods section should mention and explain it.

Lastly, I recommend that the authors engage more with the recent literature on Platform Urbanism, such as the book by Sarah Barns: Platform Urbanism. Negotiating Platform Ecosystems in Connected Cities.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is well presented, yet the theme and subject may not be pertinent to the aims and scope of the journal "Architecture". It is probably more suitable for journals of sociological and psychological studies or communication and media studies, where the significance of the research would be better evaluated. The intended audience may not be Architecture journal readers, so I may not recommend its publication in this journal.

 

Besides, I am a little confused with:

Section 2 is not about the Materials used for this research, but instead more about a literature review or background introduction to the public and private spheres, digital technology, and its effects on physical perception and identity formation.

Section 3 is unclear about what the specific analytical method is in this research. It seems more like an introduction of the environmental influences on identify formation of young individuals (3.1) and of the potentially relevant resonance theory and neo-materialist approach (3.2-3), yet lacking a comprehensive explanation of how they are pertinent to the subject of this study and how these theory and approach could be combined for analysis.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your article for consideration. Below, I provide detailed feedback to help refine your manuscript and enhance its alignment with the scope and aims of Architecture journal.

1. Suitability for Journal Scope

Your manuscript presents an engaging theoretical exploration of socio-cultural themes such as identity, digitalization, and the interplay between public and private spaces. However, while these themes intersect with urban spaces, their direct connection to architecture, urban planning, or spatial design is limited. In my opinion, the journal’s focus is on the built environment, architectural practices, and spatial dynamics, which are not explored in depth in your paper.

Suggestion: Emphasize the spatial and architectural implications of your arguments. For example, discuss how urban design strategies or architectural interventions can foster "resonance" and "publicness" in youth-oriented spaces.

2. Originality and Contribution to Scholarship

The article synthesizes existing theories effectively and engages well with classical theorists like Arendt, Habermas, and Rosa. However, it does not present original empirical research or groundbreaking ideas. Instead, it primarily reflects on existing concepts without advancing scholarship in a significant way.

Suggestion: To enhance originality, consider incorporating case studies or specific examples of urban or architectural interventions (e.g., youth centers, public spaces for adolescents). Grounding your arguments in practical, spatially-oriented examples would significantly strengthen the contribution to scholarship.

3. Research Design, Methods, and Argumentation

The methodological framework is underdeveloped. Although you outline three intersectional premises (identity formation, extended sociality, and resonance), these are not clearly linked to a systematic method or data.

Suggestion: Clearly define whether the article is a conceptual paper, literature review, or empirical study. If it is conceptual, explicitly justify this approach and structure your arguments accordingly. Ensure the methodology is robust and clearly articulated.

4. Engagement with Recent Scholarship

The manuscript engages deeply with established theoretical frameworks but lacks sufficient reference to recent research in architecture and urban planning. This reduces its relevance to contemporary architectural debates.

Suggestion: Integrate references to recent works or case studies in public space design, urban planning for youth, or the spatial implications of digitalization. This will strengthen the manuscript’s relevance to Architecture Journal.

5. Coherence and Relevance of Arguments

The arguments are compelling and logically structured but remain abstract. There is a weak connection between the theoretical concepts presented and their practical application in architecture or urban design.

Suggestion: Develop stronger links between your theoretical reflections and practical architectural solutions. Discuss how these concepts can inform specific architectural or urban interventions to address issues such as youth identity formation or publicness in digitalized societies.

6. Clarity and Structure

The structure is coherent, but certain sections are overly dense with theoretical references, which may overwhelm readers. Additionally, key ideas are repeated, reducing succinctness.

Suggestion: Streamline the discussion to reduce redundancy and ensure a clear focus on your central thesis. Avoid tangential discussions that detract from the main argument.

7. Presentation of Results

The "Results" section does not offer substantive findings or practical implications, reading instead as an extension of the theoretical discussion.

Suggestion: If your results are theoretical, state this explicitly and organize them to provide actionable insights relevant to architecture and spatial practices.

8. Conclusion

The conclusion raises important questions but feels inconclusive. It lacks a summary of key findings or actionable insights for architectural and urban planning practices.

Suggestion: Refocus the conclusion to summarize how the expanded concept of publicness could influence architectural or urban design practices. Provide specific recommendations or implications for future spatial development.


Overall recommendation

If you can significantly strengthen the spatial and architectural focus of the manuscript and integrate recent, relevantscholarship in these areas, it would better align with the aims of Architecture journal. Alternatively, the paper may be more suitable for a journal specializing in sociology or cultural studies.

I hope these suggestions are helpful, and I look forward to seeing the revised version of your manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language The English is generally clear but could benefit from editing for conciseness and grammar. Certain sentences are overly long and convoluted, making them harder to follow. Please edit the text for clarity and brevity to improve readability.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision and communication. The manuscript has been well revised and improved and can be published for further discussion. 

Author Response

Comments: Thank you for the revision and communication. The manuscript has been well revised and improved and can be published for further discussion. 

Response: Thank you for your support - we revised a few more aspects in the section of "arguments and discussion of findings". Hopefully this will enhance the quality of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript for review. Below, I provide feedback based on the changes made and areas that still require improvement:

1. Abstract
The abstract needs substantial revision to align with academic norms. It lacks a clear and structured presentation of the research's scope, objectives, methods, findings, and implications. The following points should be addressed: Scope and Objective, Methods and Findings, and Implications.

2. Presentation of Text
Large portions of the text remain highlighted or marked, which diminishes clarity and professionalism. This may confuse readers and obscure the key points. I recommend:

-       Removing unnecessary color coding and underlining from the main text.

-       Ensuring all revisions are incorporated seamlessly into the manuscript without visible editorial marks.

3. Structural Concerns
While improvements have been made, the manuscript still has areas that require attention, e.g. there is a lack of connection to Architecture (a main focus of the Journal) and Urban Planning. Therefore the focus remains heavily theoretical with limited practical application. Please integrate detailed case studies or concrete examples of architectural interventions that align with your arguments.

4. Additional Concerns from Prior Review Certain points from the prior review remain partially addressed:

-     Methodological Framework:

The revised methodology shows clear improvements, particularly in its robust theoretical foundation and interdisciplinary approach, integrating key concepts from Löw, Haraway, and Rosa. The section is more comprehensive and aligns well with the article’s focus on public space and youth needs.

However, key gaps remain:

-Research Type: The study type (conceptual, literature review, or empirical) is unclear and needs an explicit definition.

-Application of Theory: The operationalization of concepts like resonance is insufficiently detailed.

-Practicality: The methodology lacks concrete steps or examples to bridge theory and practice.

-Connection to Results: The link between methodology and findings remains weak.

Overall, the improvements are commendable, but further refinement is needed to enhance clarity, rigor, and applicability.

 

-     Results and Practical Implications: The results section is overly theoretical and lacks actionable insights, e.g. for decision-makers such as municipal authorities, city planners, local government officials, architects, or urban planners. Clear recommendations for practice should be included.

-     Conclusion: The revised conclusion improves on summarizing the key findings but still does not provide strong, actionable insights for architecture or urban planning practices. This could benefit from specific, targeted recommendations.

The manuscript is not yet ready for publication and requires further refinement to align with the journal's scope and academic expectations. I encourage the authors to address these issues comprehensively before resubmission.

Kind regards,
Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for your consistent support - we have made further revisions as listed below.

Comment 1: Abstract/Scope and Objective, Methods and Findings, and Implications.

Response 1: we revised the abstract

Comment 2: Presentation of Text

Response 2: we cleaned the text

Comment 3: Please integrate detailed case studies or concrete examples of architectural interventions that align with your arguments.

Response 3: we added examples of structural interventions

Comment 4.1: Research Type: The study type (conceptual, literature review, or empirical) is unclear and needs an explicit definition.

Response 4.1: in chapter 2.1. we explain our study type as conceptual study type

Comment 4.2: Application of Theory: The operationalization of concepts like resonance is insufficiently detailed.

Response 4.2: in chapter 3.3. we added examples to illustrate how to operationalize the concept of resonance

Comment 4.3: Practicality: The methodology lacks concrete steps or examples to bridge theory and practice.

Response 4.3: in chapter 3.3. we explain in what ways theory and practice can bridged

Comment 4.4: Connection to Results: The link between methodology and findings remains weak.

Response 4.4: in chapter 4. we refined the link between methodology and findings