Transitional Morphologies and Urban Forms: Generation and Regeneration Processes—An Agenda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

”Transitional Morphologies. Urban forms: generation and regeneration processes. An agenda”  - an extremely interesting and comprehensive work at first sight. The graphics are expressive, pertinently illustrating the ideas presented; structure organization - relatively good.

My observations are:

In the introduction I recommend to establish the context related to the existing research in this case. 

The ”Material and method” section, in fact, does not describe the methods used by the authors in the research but briefly defines the ”Transitional Morphologies”. Data on the methods used appear in the Results section: for example rows 182-195; 359-361; etc.

Discussions cannot compensate for the lack of a section for conclusions.

The paper contains pertinent information but the way it was presented is confusing. The Results section has been divided into several sub-sections containing both research methods and results. I recommend a restructuring that allows an easy understanding of this research.

Author Response

We have improved to introduction adding references and background literature and establishing the context related to the existing research in this case. 

We restructured the whole paper to concentrate information about data and methods in the section “Data and methods” sections and only explain the outcomes of the research in the section “Results”. Please note that as the paper is illustrating several case studies, in the section “Data and methods” different kinds of methods and material, according to the different case studies are illustrated.

We add a conclusion paragraph that opens toward the next steps of the research as we are not presenting completed research but a position paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for reviewing paper titled "Transitional Morphologies. Urban forms: generation and regeneration processes. An agenda", but I'm very confused about this paper. 

The structure of the paper is no good. The language style is very unclear, and it makes the paper hard to read. Introduction has to contain some references of the previous studies and the goal of the paper based on them. There is no references in introduction here. Secondary there is no clearly stated what new the paper introduce to existing knowledge.

Chapter 2 does not provide efficient informations about methods and I didin't found any words about materials.

Chapter 3 should contain authors findings and results of calculations. It seems to be huge literature review/theoretical background supported with some authors figures. 

Also it's very hard to find the results and generl findings of authors study. There is no connectivity between goals from Introduction and findings in Discussion part. Also there is no Conclusions chpter in the paper.

Generally whole structure, goal and findings are very unclear.

Author Response

We have completely restructured the paper to clearly separate Data and Methods from Results.

The introduction has been improved with references to previous studies. Please note that the paper is a position paper for a new approach to urban regeneration toward urban morphology tool and therefore it refers even to extra-disciplinary fields such as biology or archeology.

The paper aims to be a position paper to define a new approach, more than new knowledge, on which to ground new knowledge in the future.

Chapter 2: we have gathered and here assembled all the information about materials and methods. We have to say that as the paper is illustrating several case studies, in the section “Data and methods” different kinds of methods and materials, according to the different case studies are illustrated, ranging from cartography to infographics.

Chapter 3: As the text is a position paper no proper findings are illustrated but more future work hypothesis and methodological positions.

A conclusion paragraph has been added to highlight possible developments of the innovative approach described in the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, this article would be a good contribution to the literature. Its strengths rest on the following qualities. 1. It tells a good story, meaning that it flows really well. This quality gives the reader a sense of the bigger picture, which could be useful for future researcher engaging with dimensions of urban morphology and the like. 2.  The article is well researched, and they present their methods, discussion, and conclusion soundly. At no point did I have to retrace my steps. 

While there were not any significant weaknesses that stuck out, there are a few suggestions that I would like to bring to the authors' attention that might modestly improve the paper. 1. Section 2 could be bolstered by including references for readers who are unfamiliar with such topics. 2. 

At the beginning of Section 4, this sentence could benefit form a citation:

"The term regeneration is nowadays an overused word and a new definition of the term is needed 473 not only to better describe, but more importantly to foster and drive, urban transformations of 474 declining areas or districts." 

Lastly, I have a suggestion that might enhance the author's appreciation for

Deleuze and Guattar work on assemblages. They might want to look into Manuel De Landa's book' A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity.

Yet, this point is merely suggestive. 

 

 

 

Author Response

We have improved section 1 to include more references, not only for people unfamiliar with this topic.

The sentence mentioned by the reviewer “The term regeneration is overused…”, is now on section5 line 529 and the citation can be found at line 65.

Thanks for the suggestion on the De Landa’s book, we had a look at it and it will help us in the future.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work - in this form - is much improved. The structure, graphics, bibliographic references, research methods and results build a coherent work. I consider that the paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

The paper has been submitted to an English native speaker review and editing

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors made big effort to improve the paper, whichi is much more suitable for publication than first version. 

Introduction should be ended by the goal of the paper. I suppose the goals are in chapter 2, so it should be moved to Introduction.

good luck with your paper

Author Response

we add the goal of the paper to the introduction as a conclusive sentence