Research on the Evaluation of Coordinated Development of Tourism–Economy–Ecological Environment along the Silk Road Economic Belt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The innovation of this article is limited, and the author doesn't seem to know much about English writing norms.
The following are my comments on the manuscript:
1. An abstract is a short and objective statement of a paper. The abstract of this article is too redundant and does not clearly show the innovation and importance of the article.
2.The introduction is too redundant, and the author didn't explain the purpose and needs of this research clearly. The research background and significance need to be discussed in detail. Some existing research work needs to be mentioned. The logical structure in the introduction also has problems.
3.There is no basis for index selection. The calculation steps need to be more detailed.
4.The results of the experiment need further detailed analysis, so that what information can be mined instead of simply presenting the results. In addition, the data in the figure also needs to be discussed.
5.The discussion should emphasize the main findings, research contributions and future research scope. This article is currently missing.
6.The list of references is not sufficient, and it should be supplemented by recent literatures in related fields.
7.There are too many grammatical errors in the article, so it is necessary to find an English-speaking partner to revise them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, Thank you for the opportunity you gave me to read your manuscript.
The article presents an interesting topic. The overview is clear and well presented. I found that, in the current context, the topic addressed in the paper is certainly important.
- I think that a chapter related to "Literature Review" would succeed in linking the general information with the specific ones analyzed.
- Regarding section 4. "Results and Analysis", a more extensive detailing and an explanation of the importance of the information obtained through their detailing is necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Let me first congratulate you on your initiative to analyze such a topic.
Your article is quite interesting but needs major improvements, before it can be considered as acceptable for such a reputed journal as Sustainability.
1. The article has several grammatical errors and wrongly constructed phrases (e.g.; line 308: is or are? line 283: not clear: is it benign or malignant, etc.).
2. The keywords used have to be changed. How can you consider "Measurement" and "Coordinated Development" as keywords? Please have at least 5-7 keywords that are unique to your article and that can be used by researchers to access your article.
3. Line 61: What do you mean by "accomodate waste"? Please rewrite.
4. I think your literature review has to be updated and extended. It is very short for an article of this size. Also, please define the terms you use in the text via literature review (primary coordination, intermediate coordination, reluctant coodination, good coordination, verge of disorder, mild disorder, etc.)
5. Throughout the text you mentioned the tourism-economy-ecological environment. Have you defined it clearly in the literature review? What does it exactly mean? How was it measured in the past, by other authors?
6. Lines 158-179: What is the source of your data? Data source must be clearly be mentioned in this paragraph.
7. Throughout the text, your line spacing changes, from single to double. Please uniform the entire text.
8. Lines 260 to 270: Correct the line spacing. Your explanation would be better understood by the readers if it was in a tabular form.
9. Where are the results of the analysis? The results must be in tables, before your discussion on point 3. It is very difficult for the reader to digest your results in text (on point 3 and onwards) without having the data on a table or tables.
10. Line 726: Throughout the text you simply mentioned tourism, and here suddenly you mention ecological, green and low-carbon tourism. Have these been defined anywhere in the literature review? Either define them or remove them from the article.
11. Line 248: Table 1: What is the basis for the definition of the weights of each index level? How do you define if it is positive or negative? These two things must be clearly justified before this table.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Almost all the comments given earlier are addressed in a satisfactory mannner. Hence, I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript in its present form.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your detailed comments and constructive suggestions, which helped us a lot with the manuscript.
After this revision, we have checked the logic and language of the manuscript again.
We hope you are satisfied with our revisions and thank you very much for your guidance.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has made a lot of revisions to the article, and his work and attitude are worthy of recognition.
About the coupling and coordination mechanism of TEE system, the author can add a theoretical framework to better prove Tee system. I found that the PPM theoretical framework adopted in this article [1] (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115800) is more suitable for author. This article analyzes Greater Bay Area from the perspective of technology, economy and environment.
The author is advised to consider and quote this article. At the same time, the author can use PPM to support the construction of evaluation system.
4.1 section should be called the main finding
5. section should be called conclusion
If other reviewers have no other objection, I think that the editorial department can consider accepting it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations. I think your paper is pretty good now.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your detailed comments and constructive suggestions, which helped us a lot with the manuscript.
After this revision, we have checked the logic and language of the manuscript again.
We hope you are satisfied with our revisions and thank you very much for your guidance.
