Next Article in Journal
Videogames and Innovation: Fostering Innovators’ Skills in Online-Learning Environments
Next Article in Special Issue
Bill Hillier’s Legacy: Space Syntax—A Synopsis of Basic Concepts, Measures, and Empirical Application
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Preservation and Reconstruction of Old Cultural Elements in Augmented Reality (AR)
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Scientific Approach to the Densification Debate in Bergen Centre in Norway
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Relationship between the Spatial Configuration and the Fourth Sustainable Dimension Creativity in University Campuses: The Case Study of Zernike Campus, Groningen, The Netherlands

Sustainability 2020, 12(21), 9263; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219263
by Isabelle Soares 1,*, Claudia Yamu 1 and Gerd Weitkamp 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(21), 9263; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219263
Submission received: 27 September 2020 / Revised: 18 October 2020 / Accepted: 4 November 2020 / Published: 7 November 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good paper. Some minor revisions

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read and review my paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

While interest to readers is very high, I would encourage authors to embark a moderate revision with the aim at making their article more attracting.

I have several minor questions, making the revision in-between moderate and major.

I would suggest: 1) to clarify the disciplinary framework of the paper. Architecture, design, landscape and sustainability are the keywords of your study, but they do not appear in the formal key words.

2) A better motivation of the study area should be inserted at the end of the discussion section. Is the study case representative of what?

3) The take home message (conclusions) is really opaque. Can you clarify and focus better on the value of this paper?

4) I suggest you to clarify the methodology, irrespective of the technique used, in an appropriate section. Even if you have used field work and your own, subjective expertise, I would encourage you to write formally this part.

5) I suspect literature review can be broaden substantially but I leave you taking the last decision on this point.

Thank you.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments and review.

Please see attachment for the details. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A very good paper, well designed and written. The purpose is clear and the methods rigorous.

Only advice, related to a VGI issue. In their VGI survey, authors asked questions about what already exist (place, infrastructure...). Did they try to ask question about what people expectation could be ?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comment.

We agree with the suggestion of asking about future expectations and desires. We agree that is important and interesting, however, this research is interested in the present situation of the campus. According to our research questions, we were interested in the geo-referenced ‘patches’ of human perceptions, and that is why we asked about “possibilities of spontaneous encounters, socialization and meeting people from outside the campus” to understand the status quo of the campus public spaces and how people use them.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good revisions overall. thank you.

Back to TopTop