Spatial–Temporal Correlation between the Tourist Hotel Industry and Town Spatial Morphology: The Case of Phoenix Ancient Town, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Your manuscript entitled "Spatial-temporal correlation between the tourist hotel industry and town spatial morphology: The case of Phoenix Ancient Town, China" needs major corrections as described below:
Abstract
Paragraph 19: where are the results? You did not give a proper explanation about the results in the abstract.
Keywords can be reduced and only the most important ones be mentioned.
26 – 34 This paragraph should be improved. The logical connection between the components was not well arranged. It is better to describe the town/urban spatial morphology and its elements.
Introduction: In general, it is better to have a brief and more effective / structured introduction and mention the most important issues related to the research. In some parts of the introduction, additional descriptions are given that need not be mentioned, such as: "The hotel industry is one of the three pillars of the tourism system. The tourist hotel industry, which represents landmarks within cities, attract a large number of guests to form new consumption and economic space" or "Towns are the essential carriers of the development of the industrial economy"
Methodology and data:
It is better to list the research flowchart first, and then the methods and formulas in a separate table with references.
The method used is not well explained and the reader has to read the long text to get the desired information among the additional explanations. the indicators and elements are not well introduced and shown in the text.
Finally, it seems that the manuscript needs major correction and should be rewritten according to the Journal format and guidelines.
Good Luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Topic of the manuscript (the spatial-temporal correlation between the tourist hotel industry and town spatial morphology) seems quite interesting, as well as the accompanying case study. However, technically, the manuscript seems quite bad and this should substantially be improved before reconsideration of the manuscript. Some technical shortcomings are listed below:
- When the reference is cited, it should usually be separated by 2 comas (one before, and one after the citation), such as “, [5],” (or “, [5].” if the citation is placed at the end of sentence).
- In the first equation, the expected average distance D_n of the nearest neighbor and the observed average distance D_R of the nearest neighbor must identically be represented in the equation and within their explanations in the first sentence after the equation. As well, the text placed after this equation begining with “where” should be the part of the sentence begining before the equation and, therefore, such sentence should be part of the same paragraph (instead to be separated in 2 paragraphs). Finally, the notation “NNI” must be separated from the word precede it (i.e. this part should be written as “where NNI” instead “whereNNI”). Furthermore, if NNI (or D_n or D_R) is written in italic representation in the equation, it should identically be noted (in italic representation) everywhere. The same rules should be applied to each equation from the manuscript.
- Figures representation should be improved. In detail, legends given in the figures should be enlarged. In current form, they are not always clear.
- English language usage isn’t bad, but a lot of type-errors should be removed.
Further, the manuscript contains great number of references (almost as the review papers). Most of them are quite actual, but their number are great. Maybe, some older references could be removed? Are the authors agree?
Author Response
Please
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study, spatial-temporal correlation between the tourist hotel industry and town spatial morphology was explored using average nearest neighbor index, spatial Getis–Ord G*statistic, space syntax model, standard deviational ellipse, and buffer Analysis in Phoenix Ancient Town, China. Some points need to be clarified and the writing needs to be improved further. Here are some of my concerns.
1) Line 11-14: Research gaps and corresponding research methods are not clearly expressed.
2) Line 15-16: “different characteristics in different periods” the significant differences need to highlight.
3) Line 20-21: the proposed strategies should be pointed out here.
4) Line 91: “Cró, &Martins, 2018”, the reference format is inconsistent with others.
5) Line 165: why used a 50*50m grid?
6) Conclusions and discussions should be split into different sections.
7) Grammatical errors need to be corrected in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the authors for reviewing the article, but the reviewer's expectations for the overall revision of the article have not been met.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has substantially rewritten. Authors have tried to satisfy my suggestions given on the initial manuscript version. The manuscript looks much better now, but also it can be noted some additional shortcomings. In addition, the revised manuscript version is given with track changes that makes the manuscript reading significantly harder.
Newly created Table 1 that includes formulas and their explanations makes the manuscript more clear and more readable. However, in this form, it has not sense that explanations begin with “Where”. This should be corrected.
Representations of figures included in the manuscript are improved. However, legends given in figs. 1, 4-6 should additionally be enlarged to improve readability.
English language should be checked once more (again by native speaker).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The conclusion and discussion sections in the revised manuscript should be reversed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the authors for their efforts.
But the article still does not have a proper form, especially in the literature , discussion and conclusions sections. The results are not practical and the abstract still has fundamental flaws.
With Best Wishes
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have again tried to satisfy my suggestions given regarding the 1-st revision manuscript version. However, this isn't always well perform. For example, I have commended introduction of Table 1 in the 1-st revision manuscript version and have also suggested it's modification. Nevertheless, authors have extended Table 1 with 2 new columns (columns “Method” and “Significance”), but 2 columns (earlier “Formula” and “Explanation of formula” columns) from the 1-st revision manuscript version are condensed in one column. In my opinion, Table 1 created in this way isn't fully appropriate. Newly introduced columns are very useful (especially column “Significance”), but the unified column “Equations” must be divided in 2 separated columns (named, for example, “Equation” and “Equation explanation” or “Equation description”), where in column “Equation”, only equations would be placed, whereas in column “Equation explanation” (or “Equation description”), the explanations for NNI, D_R, D_n, … would be placed.
In addition, the manuscript technical presentation must be improved. For example, names of section 2 and subsections 3.2 and 3.4 are placed at the bottom of pages 2, 5, and 7, respectively.
In accordance with precede notations, I recommend revision of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has no practical results. Also, different parts of the manuscript such as literature, background, research method and results are not acceptable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have satisfied my suggestions given regarding previous (initial, the 1-st revision, and the 2-nd revision) manuscript versions. The manuscript looks much better now and, in my opinion, is acceptable for publication. Maybe, only the English language should be checked (by native speaker, if possible).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
