Market-Driven Rural Construction—A Case Study of Fuhong Town, Chengdu
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer considers that the topic and its processing do not reach the level of the journal's profile. The theoretical framework is not well established, the methods are not clearly presented. A description of the interview and questionnaire questions is also missing. Some of the results are of particular interest to Chinese readers only. The true international relevance of the article has not been elaborated. There is no discussion chapter in which the starting points would be confirmed or refuted. Overall, the study is not yet a coherent scientific paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your suggestions, and I submit my reply in a WORD file.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper used a mix approach to explain what a proposed problem in a case – the Fuhone Town, Chengdu, for understanding the market-driven rural construction. And especially, this paper has a cooperation with e Sichuan Hesheng Investment Co., Ltd. (in the paper is called "the HS Company").
My comments are following:
This paper is not following the format of journal, especially, the footnote is not used in the assigned format and all references in the paper.
In section 2 is Literate Review not the section of Methods and Procedures. And this paper has no specific theory to support all proposed framework, especially what the sustainability how in the rural construction has no any description.
The Methodology, it should be included data analyzed process, but this paper only data collection no data analysis, how reader can know what the data reliability and validity.
Section 3 may the Result but may not, because the title of section is difficult to understand what the paper wants to say.
I do not know the Figure 1 is no any useful meaning in the paper.
Where can find the Figure 3 its description.
Where can find the Table 3 its description.
The section of Conclusion has no limitation and future work.
Totally, this paper looks like a company’s report for concerned problem. of cause, this paper is using academic article format to descript what the proposed problem how to solve and develop, but as my personal opinion, this belongs a business proposal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your suggestions, and I submit my reply in a WORD file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is much more coherent, with good additions and improvements. However, many linguistic errors remain in the text. Right at the beginning of the abstract: "therefor" for example. A thorough English proofreading is still needed, because of spelling and infinitive mistakes, and hard sentences in the text.
Author Response
Comment 1: many linguistic errors remain in the text. Right at the beginning of the abstract: "therefor" for example. A thorough English proofreading is still needed, because of spelling and infinitive mistakes, and hard sentences in the text.
Response:
Thanks for your valuable suggestion. We carefully check our grammar, vocabularies and sentences, modify expression of some sentences especially spelling and infinitive mistakes you mentions, as well as revise some long sentences to short ones.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks authors' efforts.
This paper is my second time to read. It has more different than the first time I read. Some of my suggestions have been careful and made a revised version.
Only one thing is too many footnotes. If them can change to reference may better than now.
I think that this paper is suitable to be published on the journal.
Author Response
Comment 1: Only one thing is too many footnotes. If them can change to reference may better than now.
Response:
Thank you for this valuable advice. All the footnotes are same with the reference, so we delete these footnotes and only keep reference at the end of the paper.
