Urban Community Resilience Amidst the Spreading of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): A Rapid Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper discusses the topic of a literature review regarding resilient urban communities during the covid-19 pandemic period. The paper's subject is interesting because it studies the topic from different perspectives. The methodology is well explained and the references are adequate to develop a review.
Following are some comments to improve the work further.
Comment 1
In the abstract, reference is made to the 47 articles considered, compared to the 703 articles analyzed. I recommend adding a brief description of the method explaining how you found and selected the references.
Comment 2
The introduction does not explain or emphasize why this literature review is performed. Are there other reviews present? How does the work enrich the existing literature?
Comment 3
There is a typo in Table 1: Copying or Coping?
Comment 4
Table 2 is not mentioned in the text.
Author Response
This paper discusses the topic of a literature review regarding resilient urban communities during the covid-19 pandemic period. The paper's subject is interesting because it studies the topic from different perspectives. The methodology is well explained and the references are adequate to develop a review.
Thank you very much for your view and interest in our article, we hope that it will be able to make a dent contribution to the wider community
Following are some comments to improve the work further.
Comment 1
In the abstract, reference is made to the 47 articles considered, compared to the 703 articles analyzed. I recommend adding a brief description of the method explaining how you found and selected the references.
Thank you for your recommendation, we have modified the abstract to follow your recommendation. We believe by following your recommendation will make the readers easier to understand how the 703 articles are being filtered to only 47 articles.
Comment 2
The introduction does not explain or emphasize why this literature review is performed. Are there other reviews present? How does the work enrich the existing literature?
Thank you for your insight. We have already inserted new current works of literature to show other reviews that are related to our review and we modified the sentence to accommodate why we do this review and how this review will extend the existing literature. Please refer to page 3 the last paragraph of the introduction section.
Comment 3
There is a typo in Table 1: Copying or Coping?
Thank you for the information, we would like to clarify that the “coping” is correct since it means “strategies taken to cope”
Comment 4
Table 2 is not mentioned in the text.
Thank you very much for your correction. Now, that it has been cited in the text, please refer to page no 9, the second sentence in the last paragraph.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript on this interesting and timely topic. Coronavirus Check Disease (City Communities in the Spread of COVID-19) Power:
This paper focuses on existing research on urban community service penetration rates related to the (COVID-19 pandemic) and raises the urgency of future presentations and pandemics to model community urban service capabilities in the next time (if any). Conformity was found after recording the records after screening and prioritizing 70 articles. The articles were composed of indicators that assessed its influence according to three criteria. The study is a research project and there are certain realities to see the authors make a huge effort to make the paper well written, but it requires revision, there is no denying that publishing this article requires consideration.
1. First, there are many problems with the format of the manuscript. Authors are advised to review the thesis template provided by "Sustainable Development" and modify the format of the manuscript (including font, font size, line spacing, etc.).
2. The introduction part contains too much content. I suggest that the author make some necessary deletions. The narrative in this part should not be too redundant, but should directly talk about the related research of Urban Community Resilience of Coronavirus Disease. Maybe you can refer to the literature: Analysis of the Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Urban Resilience and Its Influencing Factors: A Case Study of 56 Cities in China, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224442
3. The method part of the article too much detail, and these methods are easy for readers to understand, and there is no need to introduce too much.
4. The article is on a good topic, but it needs a moderate checking of its grammar and clarity.
5. Please check and modify some of the non-standard abbreviations in the text.
6. Some tables and figures in the text are bold, some are not.
7. All figures in the manuscript. Font size, style in charts do not match. This looks kinda bad...
8. The results of the article should be further sorted out, and the coherence is not clear enough.
9. One more question, taking these literature reviews together, what should the authors be talking about regarding the spread of the coronavirus in the community, and how to restore and strengthen the resilience of the community?
Author Response
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript on this interesting and timely topic. Coronavirus Check Disease (City Communities in the Spread of COVID-19) Power:
This paper focuses on existing research on urban community service penetration rates related to the (COVID-19 pandemic) and raises the urgency of future presentations and pandemics to model community urban service capabilities in the next time (if any). Conformity was found after recording the records after screening and prioritizing 70 articles. The articles were composed of indicators that assessed its influence according to three criteria. The study is a research project and there are certain realities to see the authors make a huge effort to make the paper well written, but it requires revision, there is no denying that publishing this article requires consideration.
Thank you for your generous comment and view about our article we agree that the current article requires revisions.
1. First, there are many problems with the format of the manuscript. Authors are advised to review the thesis template provided by "Sustainable Development" and modify the format of the manuscript (including font, font size, line spacing, etc.).
Thank you for your advice, however, we believe that the journal follows the “free format” system during the initial submission if we are not mistaken. Thus, we fully agree with you that eventually, we will adjust all format requirements from the journal accordingly.
2. The introduction part contains too much content. I suggest that the author make some necessary deletions. The narrative in this part should not be too redundant, but should directly talk about the related research on Urban Community Resilience of Coronavirus Disease. Maybe you can refer to the literature: Analysis of the Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Urban Resilience and Its Influencing Factors: A Case Study of 56 Cities in China, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224442
Thank you very much for your suggestion, especially for the reference to make the introduction section more. We have observed the mentioned article, however, we would like not to make any deletions of the introduction section. We believe that it will make the section keep integrated. We beg your pardon.
3. The method part of the article too much detail, and these methods are easy for readers to understand, and there is no need to introduce too much.
Thank you for your suggestion, however, we would like not to shorten the method section. We believe that it will make the section keep integrated and thus meaningful for the wider readership. We again beg your pardon.
4. The article is on a good topic, but it needs a moderate checking of its grammar and clarity.
5. Please check and modify some of the non-standard abbreviations in the text.
6. Some tables and figures in the text are bold, some are not.
For inquiry numbers 4, 5, and 6 as we thought they were similar thus we respond to those in one. Thank you for finding the unmatched format, grammar, and clarity, we have checked and modified those required that can be seen by the track changes service. We hope we did not miss one in the whole text.
7. All figures in the manuscript. Font size, style in charts do not match. This looks kinda bad...
Thank you very much for your meaningful critics, we have adjusted and modified the figures. Please refer to the new figure 1 and figure 2.
8. The results of the article should be further sorted out, and the coherence is not clear enough.
Thank you very much for your critique, we have made several modifications that can be traced in the whole text and figures. We hope that these modifications can make a wider audience comprehend the coherence even though no further sorted out for the articles included.
9. One more question, taking these literature reviews together, what should the authors be talking about regarding the spread of the coronavirus in the community, and how to restore and strengthen the resilience of the community?
Thank you for your question. In short, we would like to say that the COVID-19 pandemic as the lesson learned and the foundation for the community to be more adaptive and transformative with the use of technology to support social learning and transformation towards new realities related to how people live their daily life as a community. In the article, we believe these mentioned thought has been addressed in the last paragraph of the conclusion section and the first paragraph of further research implication that are depicted in figure 2 in general.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been revised according to comments, the article has been improved, and it is recommended to be published.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your very constructive and supportive comments to improve and make our article much better.
Regards,
Authors
