Logistic Network Construction and Economic Linkage Development in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area: An Analysis Based on Spatial Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Authors say that they have collected primary data. But the data is already available in the statistical yearbooks. Then how can it be primary data?

2. The methodology used in this paper lacks originality. Entropy is an old method to identify the weights. Merging entropy and TOPSIS does not make the method a novel approach. Moreover, many techniques are available in the literature, like AHP, ANP, CRITIC, etc. How can authors prove the superiority of their technique over others?

3. Authors mentioned that a modified gravitational model is used. Authors should mention what modification they incorporated in the existing one.

4. Literature review is very poorly written. I could not find any proper link between the literature and the keywords used.

5. No research gap is found. Originality and research gap must be properly illustrated. Authors also need to add an author’s contribution table. Overall, the context of the study is missing.

6. No research question is identified from the manuscript. Moreover, the objectives should also be properly written in the introduction section.

7. How sustainability is performed through this study is not clear. 

8. References are old, the authors are advised to replace old references with new one. No single reference was found from the journal sustainability, which indicates that your study is out of the scope of this journal.

9. Extensive English language editing is required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Your article "Logistics Network Development and Economic Linkage Development in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area: An Analysis Based on Spatial Perspective" is very interesting and relevant nowadays. However, I have a few comments about this work:

1. I suggest rewriting the summary, because it should not only be what is there, what methods are applied, it should first of all be based on your article, a new, formulated problem that you plan to solve, then the goal is set, and the tasks to be achieved are set. The summary must also mention the methods you will use in this article.
2. What method is used to determine the "Indicator weights"?

3. I suggest structuring the methodology part, i.e. providing a diagram or refine the steps of what and in what sequence you perform.
4. The "discussion" section is missing.

5. The conclusions of the article must be presented according to the tasks set to achieve the goal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author(s), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript entitled “Logistics Network Construction and Economic Linkage Development in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area: An Analysis Based on Spatial Perspective”.

The overall manuscript is well presented with minor spelling or grammar mistakes.

The overall work is very interesting, as the problems related to logistics linkage and logistics network characteristics of cities in urban spatial analysis are very essential for the economic development examination.  

Here are some issues concerning your paper:

1.      The overall purpose of the article is stated clearly in the Introduction (lines 97-102) and also underlined in the Abstract.

2.      The Abstract should contain the main methods briefly described or treatments applied as well as main results of the article.

3.      The literature review part presented is well organized, the gap knowledge is well explained here.

4.      In the part “2.1. Data sources and indicator system construction” it is not explained how the system was really constructed. Presenting the Table 1 one and statement “represents the evaluation indicator system of this research, established by combining qualitative and quantitative methods of the previous studies.” (lines 118-120) is not sufficient. How were the weights gained of the indicators? There is no literature reference to the previous studies.

5.      The Research process and methodology part is logical and very well explained.

6.      All maps in Figures and Tables are well presented and readable with appropriate citations in the main text.

7.      In the discussion on the obtained research results, there is no information on the current new results and an attitude to the existing research, which could emphasize the importance of the work done.

8.      Future research directions and the significance of the results of the research achieved are underlined and explained in conclusion part. It should also be extended.

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The present form of the manuscript can be accepted for publication.