Identifying Unwanted Conditions through Chaotic Area Determination in the Context of Indonesia’s Economic Resilience at the City Level
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with a very important and current issue. The work presents a procedure that allows to determine the unwanted condition using a chaotic area approach.
The article is underdeveloped and requires thorough refinement.
Below please find a few shortcomings:
- Lack of a clearly defined purpose of the paper, e.g. presentation of the method, or recommendations??
Lack of explanations of the symbols used in the work (formulas),
- Using abbreviations without explaining them in advance,
- Repetition of content (eg lines 64 and 97).
- Weak development of the content in chapter 2.1. Economic Resilience. It is difficult to deduce what the author wanted to convey.
- A table that raises more doubts than delivers new content (chapter 3.2. Data Layout)
- Kind of broken and poorly prepared "Limitations and Recommendation" point.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I read the paper work entitled ,,Identifying Unwanted Conditions through Chaotic Area Determination in Context of Indonesia Economic Resilience on City Level” and I have some observations to make.
The Abstract begins with a statement that must be argued with reference to sources. The economic resilience does not mean only the existence of unfavorable conditions. The concept must be studied very well from theoretical point of view. However, given that in the Abstract it is not allowed to make reference to sources I suggest to reformulate the opening sentence. The fact that you study resilience in terms of unfavorable conditions is something else. In the Abstract you have to mention the research utility.
In Introduction, pp 44-45, you mention that ,,the national resilience index measured by Labkurtannas is economic resilience,,. Is that true? Please mention why an index is the same with an process or/and the source.
Please argue in what measure a research made on the particular case of Indonesia can be generalized (see the research objective).
I suggest theorizing the concept of economic resilience and the importance of this concept in international frame, in Introduction.
You mention again the objective of research but in a different way. A research has only one main objective. I suggest to respect the structure of a research. You do not have hypothesis either.
Literature Review must be ... Literature Review. In this case the Literature Review is not applicable. It is a superficial pot of conceptualization and methodology.
You have to argue the data you use (why), you have to explain in detail the methods you use. Also, the results must be structured for all methods used. To be clear. Analyze first Economic Resistance Index. I do not understand what is about Chaos (you have in title the concept of ,,Chaotic Area Determination” and it should be a strong point of the research). Then, Piecewise Liniar Regression, Rosenbrock Pattern Search, Hooke-Jeeves patern Moves. Develop each method, explain the results, make correlations with reality and with the results of other studies. mention the similarities and differences in the case of methods used.
Discussions must be based on results. The same in the case of Conclusions. You have to explain very clearly the novelty of research and the utility. References are a few. I recommend an in-depth study of the subject.
So, in conclusion, although resilience is a current topic, the study is superficial from one end to other. There is no component of the article that does not require attention in detail. Your article must be modified starting from structure to content, with emphasis on argumentation, theoretical frame, methodology, results and discussions.
Succes!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors present a quite interesting research about the economic resilience of cities and introduce a new method to assess it.
The general structure of the paper is coherent and easy to follow, I suggest a proof reading to make the language more fluent.
In my opinion the biggest issue is related to the discussion section: if authors have already data and materials, could be very interesting deepen the possible limitation of the presented method (as defined in section 5.2) and introduce more quantitative data to verify the assumptions.
Moreover, I suggest to explain the parameters in each equations.
It could be also interesting to see table 1 complete (as annex) and not just as layout.
Please insert a reference in line 218-219.
Finally, authors use the impersonal form in all the text but in lines 167-237-370: please homogenize the text in the impersonal form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the Authors for introducing important changes to the content and structure of the work. Thanks to this, the article gained the clarity of the presented argument.
Author Response
We are very grateful and very appreciative for the valuable review given. We learned a lot from the input you gave. We are aware that we may not be able to fulfill everything you expect, but we try our best to accommodate all the suggestions you submit. We are very happy to work with you; I hope you will be patient to keep sharing with us.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
After going through the revised version of your article, I have the following mentions:
In the Abstract, the objective of research is formulated much too vaguely in the conditions in which you carry out a study on a concrete case, that of Indonesia.
In the Abstract clearly specify the importance of research in the international context.
In Introduction I would prefer to present, briefly, the concept of resilience and to justify the reason why you chose to study resilience on a specific case. Your focus is on the resilience index that has no place in this part of the article. In addition, in Introduction we find elements related to Literature Review. It is not recommended to mix things up.
In part 1.2 you present the research problem in a very general way. I remind you that you have chosen to make a study on a concrete case, as it results from the title. Therefore, argue the research problem based on the specific case you are analyzing.
In the Literature Review section you have brought the necessary information, perhaps too extensive, which should be found in a completely different part of the paper. In this part you must give examples of similar studies and the results obtained. How can you draw conclusions about the novelty and importance of your work if you do not know the results obtained by similar studies? Do you do it intuitively or out of conviction that no one has researched the same subject, from other perspectives, and you have obtained generally valid and unique results? Please, mention that.
Does Part 2.2 fit better with the Methodology?
You are missing the research hypotheses.
In the Data collecting and data quality control section, present and motivate all the indicators used.
It is absolutely necessary to enter the Discussions section in which the results obtained should be related to reality.
You can take some aspects from the Conclusions but, you have to develop a lot this issue.
Unfortunately, the data analysis is limited to theoretical aspects without being related to the reality in Indonesia. Although you announce from the title and methodology that you are studying a particular case of Indonesia, you completely forget about it. It is one thing to make an introduction to the subject by presenting general data at a conceptual level and it is quite another to discuss and draw conclusions based on the data that characterize a concrete situation. The conclusions do not apply. Discuss the data, draw the correct conclusions with attention to the relationship with existing literature, novelty and importance. What you have written is insufficient and unsupportive, which does not add value to the work, on the contrary.
In conclusion, unfortunately, the work still has many shortcomings and I recommend major changes.
Success!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
It can be seen that you have made improvements to the last version of the paper, but in order to elaborate the final version, I recommend you to bring all the previously suggested changes.
Success!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
