Assessment of the Governance Dimension in the Frame of the 2030 Agenda: Evidence from 100 Spanish Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The topic addressed is very up to date and pertinent.
2. The perspective adopted is questionable, but acceptable since the composite indices that have been widely used here establish an oversimplification of reality and, at the same time, raise some doubts about their usefulness (Greco et al., 2019).
3. It is believed that the article has left many points to be clarified, such as:
1. What is SNSD and why is it relevant?
2. Main objectives for the comparison of the performance of the 100 Spanish cities 
3. Best explanation for the use of strategic planning concept 

4. I also think that the Theoretical Framework and the Discussion section should be expanded to ensure greater solidity of the basic concepts, but also in the methodology that lacks supporting references. Only 21 scientific references from articles out of a total of 54 could clearly be improved...

5. In the formal aspect, there are flaws in the references of the figures, which makes reading difficult
6. The authors were very imprecise in their proposals for governance indicators. There should be more investment in explaining these proposals

 

In my opinion acceptance of the article should be subject to clarification of these aspects

Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M. et al. On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness. Soc Indic Res 141, 61–94 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article raises important issues. It is clearly written as well as it is interesting from the reader's point of view. The reasoning is logical and the methodology is correct. Its added value is a reference to current problems. For the benefit of the quality of work it would be worth considering the following issues to be done:

1) a discussion part should be enriched. It should refer to the other studies on a similar topic and the methodology used as well as indicate the similarities and differences in the approach

2) further research directions and directions of development should be indicated

 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think an enormous amount of work went into the initial text and now I think that the paper can be published in its present form.  It only warned of the existence of several messages "(Error! Reference source not found.)" that left me not knowing what they were referring to.