Sustainable Strategies for Urban and Landscape Regeneration Related to Agri-Cultural Heritage in the Urban-Periphery of South Milan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very well written and informative. Manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner.
Aside from minor copy editing corrections, I have no major concerns/corrections.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments!
There is no major concern/correction expressed, therefore there is no major response from the authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, this research represents a very interesting topic, the manuscript however shows some weaknesses which require a further review and a careful revision of the language through the text. However, the captions in Tables should be amended. In addition, English is decent but I suggest a thorough review of the manuscript before accepting it for publication. To further improve the text, I suggest the following changes in the manuscript.
• Abstract: Abstract should be written in concise. I would suggest listing only some of the most important results to justify the implications and conclusions of the study.
• Keywords should not be included in the title. Please remove or substitute.
• The background of an introduction should be revised accordingly. This section must be upgraded with some latest references. I will suggest to read these articles and cite properly,
• The introduction is very good. It doesn't reflect the goal; please rewrite it again,
• Objectives of this study must be included at end of introduction part more clearly.
• What is contribution of this work to existing literature?
• It has been observed that the authors have used old references and ignored the latest studies. So it is suggested to add recent references. Please check reference section some references are missing.
• The policy implications also required elaboration. The implications should go along with the results and the course of action should be discussed in this part.
• Research Limitation and recommendations must be included in conclusion part.
• In some places, some grammatical errors are found that need to be fixed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Line 2 – A more explicit title could be: “Sustainable strategies for urban and landscape regeneration related to agri-cultural heritage in the urban periphery of southern Milan”
Line 4 – Please delete the dot.
Line 11 – Add a statement for introducing the research problem.
Line 25 – Why are there keyword written with capital letters?
Introduction: Please make a more concise and abstract introduction, maybe with a length of 6 paragraph compose of about 11 lines.
Line 29 – Please change “cities and their regions can” by “human settlements and infrastructure may”
Line 31 – A space is missing between the cite and the beginning of the sentence.
Line 33 – Please add this paragraph with the following one.
Line 34 – Please divide this long sentence in two sentences.
Line 41 – Add a cite.
Line 43 - Please add this paragraph with the following one.
Line 55 - Please add this paragraph with the following one.
Line 60 – Delete this return.
Line 103 - Delete this return
Line 149 – Delete this return
Materials and methods
Line 186: remove the word “the”
Line 188 – indicate if Milan is a municipality and the state and country.
Line 190 – Map needs a north arrow, scale bare, as well as, the legend of the polygons.
Line 191 – Figure caption needs to be auto-explicative
Results:
Line 323 – Please divide this long sentence in two sentences.
Line 351. Maps needs a north arrow, scale bare, as well as, the legend of the polygons.
Line 191 – Figure caption needs to be auto-explicative
Line 381 – Idem.
Line 413 – Idem.
Discussion
Line 543 – This is not necessary, instead add a sentence to state the importance of this study, a general contribution, overall findings, among others key sentence to highlight the sense of this article.
Line 753 – That’s not necessary. Please remove it.
Line 752 – What about “cities and their regions”? Please add a conclusion of the focus of this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Suggesting " Major Revision"
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
accept
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your comments that actually gave us the opportunity to improve further our work initially . As far the English language has been checked one more time by Geoff Bond, professional translator and proof reader.
Best regards
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
Thanks for improvement you made on your revised manuscript.
However, this manuscript need still revision due to some problems exist in some figures. Therefore, I would request author to correct the problems areas. The manuscript can be accept after Minor correction.
My specific comments are:
1. Introduction part is still too long, try to summarize the text and references it properly.
2. In Each figure i.e. (1, 3, 4, 5) including sub-figures need to include tick mark with coordinate information at the boundary.
3. Some full stop in the text are not necessary as you cited references, you should check entire manuscript from abstract to references and remove those where it exist.
Wish you good luck
Thanks
Reviewer
Date: 13 May 2022
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks a lot for the second comments that actually gaves us the opportunity to improve further our work. Firstly the English language has been checked one more time by Geoff Bond, professional translator and proof reader.
Below are the 3 points that you are raising and our responses:
Point 1: Introduction part is still too long, try to summarize the text and references it properly.
Response 1: The introduction was summarized further . Now its length is 1047 words instead of 1408 [before the 1st round of reviews it was 1821 words long].
Point 2: In Each figure i.e. (1, 3, 4, 5) including sub-figures need to include tick mark with coordinate information at the boundary.
Response 2: This comment does not make clear what exactly we need to do to the figures, therefore we have failed to accomplish response to this comment; please specify further what should be done, if the changes are considered necessary.
Point 3: Some full stop in the text are not necessary as you cited references, you should check entire manuscript from abstract to references and remove those where it exist.
Response 3: the whole manuscript was checked and the unnecessary full stops were removed
Best regards
