Impacts of Various Connectivity Processes in Central Asia on Sustainable Development of Kyrgyzstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an article written in a simple and well-structured way, methodology and adequate sequential results, although its applicability, in practice, leaves some doubts about the economic scope and management of resources.

The introduction was written well and the methods were described adequately. The results were presented well and the conclusion is supporting the results. However, there are some suggestions to further improve the manuscript (see the below comments). 

The article wins if there is more discussion, comparing the results obtained in this work with other works published within the same theme. In the paper are too few references from scientific journals. The new recent references can then be discussed in the text to improve the review quality. New references could be add in the methodology (e.g. PESTEL - doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102646, etc.). Please add measurement units in all graphs (especially on the OX axis).

Author Response

Thank you very much for these recommendations. The manuscript went trough significant language revision by the native English language editor. We also expended the text by further adding the recommended sources and scientific studies. We also added the measurement units for all graphs.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editorial Board, Dear Authors,

The chapter Discussion is missing. I suggest introducing this chapter and presenting the results of the work in relation to the results of other authors. What tangible benefits does this work bring? I suggest answering the research questions posed There is a table 2 in the conclusia chapter, I suggest moving it to the Discussion.

Technical errors that need to be removed: 

• [108 and 109] - Please change the picture to Figure in accordance with the requirements of the  journal Sustainably    

•  

Kind regards,

Author Response

We included the discussion section about tangible benefits. We also included the table 2 into the discussion section and corrected language mistakes regarding the figures and pictures.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is potentially publishable research. However, I would like to see the following improvements to the manuscript  before making a concrete decision:

1. the authors should emphasise their contributions to the existing literature.
2. the authors use qualitative data but it is not clear how this survey was conducted, and how these respondents were selected when it was done. The methodology section should be improved substantially.
3. the authors should provide a copy of the survey questions.
4. the authors should provide the limitations of this research and some guidelines for future studies in this research area.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We provided information on how we contributed to existing literature. We also included information on how stakeholders were selected. We also included the limitation of our research and directions for future research. We submitted the text of the survey separately to be included as an annex. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept as is