Building a Diagnostic Model for the Development Phase of Gentrification in the Original City Centers of the Provinces in Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The language and grammar of the manuscript need serious attention. It must be improved with the help of a native speaker/author. Some of the points (only for example) are:
- Line 13: Replace “In this study, a study was” with “The present study was”
- Line 22: put a space after “Glass”
- Line 23: Replace “study” with “study entitled,”
- Line 24: Replace “middle” with “middle-” and “upper class” with upper-class”
- Line 43: Remove comma after “collapses”
- Line 106: Replace “These…became” with “All these three areas became”
- Line 148: David Ley (1980): The reference may be provided.
- 3: Smith (1979): The reference may be provided.
- References, as cited in Table 1, may be provided.
- References cites between lines 397-400 and 402-406 may be provided.
- Reference No. [7] and [8] seem to be missing from the text.
Author Response
Dear.Reviewer
Thank you for taking the time to review my paper.
I revised the paper well reflecting the opinions you gave me and re-uploaded the file.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Jang, Cheol-Jae Yoon
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is a good work, especially it focuses on the application of quantitative or mathematical/statistical modeling in applied fields, where quantitative models are not widely developed. Gentrification is one of the problems that are applied in several fields, but in an independent way for each field. The paper shows that such a concept may be extended to new fields out of commerce and urban problems when treated separately. I have just few remarks concerning the use of English langage. For example
- Page 2, line 36: ‘slightly different type of special type’ may be better to say ‘slightly different and special types’.
- Almost all figures should be more clear, especially Fig 11 as it contains important results due to the model applied. This figure is a copy paste from word document I think. More improvement is necessary to be readable.
- At the list of references I detected ‘Author 1’, ‘Author 2’ in many cases. Please give the exact names of authors.
Author Response
Dear.Reviewer
Thank you for taking the time to review my paper.
I revised the paper well reflecting the opinions you gave me and re-uploaded the file.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Jang, Cheol-Jae Yoon
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents the problem of gentrification in Korea, which has recently affected all regions and is manifested primarily in commercial zones, for which urban regeneration projects are being adopted. The importance of urban policies and instruments that can be applied to prevent the negative effects of gentrification is pointed out. An innovative proptech (property technology) methodology of the DISCO platform was offered and applied in three case studies. Four phases of the gentrification process have been identified. It is concluded that the type of applied urban regeneration project has a direct impact on environmental changes in these areas. The paper opens the perspective of developing a real - time monitoring system for identifying change and establishing management policies.
The work is well structured. The methodology is clearly explained and the results are presented in a clear way.
The following technical corrections are suggested to the authors:
-In the title, it should be added "... in Korea" at the end;
-The list of references should list all sources cited in the text (e.g. Ruth Glass, David Ley) and vice versa;
-Fig. 8 should be renamed to Fig. 7 (according to the text).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The work lacks novelty and reads rather monotonic in most parts due to the writing style that does not engage with the content at a critical level. More than half of the paper is general discussion and informative by nature, rather than enabling new grounds for thought or questioning existing assumptions. The subject area is rather rich in other contexts and several new works have developed in the past 10-15 years, especially in emerging and transition economics, which I would recommend the authors to engage with. The thin list of references evidences that a lot more work needs to be done and thoroughly so. The paper will have regional economy level policy recommendation if the work decides to take that route. Clarification and structure of the methodology needs revising also.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
After reading the paper, as a research or scientific manuscript, I find this paper problematic. Although there are certainly merits in this work, paper needs great revision. In its current form, I remain skeptical of the implications for academics and practitioners of paper findings.
A light touch on some existing papers would not justify its publication in a journal like Sustainability. So, in this version, the current paper is interesting as a technical report that analyzes gentrification in some target areas. However as a research paper, the paper needs to be improved. The literature needs to be integrated with the claims that the authors make in order to show the importance of their contribution. This is a common problem I found in each section.
Introduction should show paper motivation, paper purpose and which is the paper knowledge contribution. After reading it, the research objectives and their importance are hidden. Authors should improve introduction section showing (1) the problem that they are trying to solve better, (2) the paper objectives, and (3) justifying why their proposal is necessary and its benefits.
Theoretical background/Literature review. Paper reads like an internal report instead of an academic research paper. In fact, it looks to me more like a technical report of a case study. It does not discuss alternative approaches, and it does not discuss weakness and strengths. In a scientific paper the authors have to discuss their work in context of related work and they have to elaborate what the original contribution to the state of the art is. Unfortunately, this paper fails completely in all of these aspects. The literature review is short and the results should be presented in a different way.
All tables and figures should be commented
Discussion section. The contribution of the author’s approach to the literature is not highlighted. The literature review needs to be integrated with the claims that the author make in order to show the importance of its contribution. The piece is lacking in originality or a clear contribution to the literature.
I would like that authors show better the consequences for academics and practitioners of the results. It has to be showed in the conclusion section
In conclusion, I believe the proposal has some merit, but I do not believe the paper in its current form demonstrates this potential as a research paper
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I do not see any changes made following my previous review. The work still lacks novelty even after very minor edits of the language and structure. While some new literature has been cited, they are not knit cohesively. The descriptive approach of the work does not help in shaping the paper to the standard required for this journal. Most sections remain unchanged as before. Some suggestions would be to firstly, identify one or two particular aspects that the work is aiming to add knowledge to, and secondly, change the writing approach using a more analytical and critical tone rather than sound descriptive and informative; thirdly, re-examine the findings section to discuss the core findings a bit more in-depth instead of covering several of them.
Author Response
Thank you for your detailed advice.
The revised contents are as follows.
1. I reinforced the composition and contents of Chapter 1.
: We revised the purpose and necessity of the study in more detail.
2. I added a review of literary theory in Chapter 2.
The background and contents of the analysis focused on the supply and demand perspectives were further analyzed.
We reviewed the flow of studies that have been conducted since gentrification was mentioned.
After reviewing each perspective, I mentioned the necessity of my research by identifying limitations.
3. By adding Chapter 2, we changed the composition of the entire paper to Chapter 7.
4. Chapter 6 mentioned the analysis by applying the stage model to each region.
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper has been improved. However, although there are certainly merits in this work, paper needs great revision in contents and structure. I suggest that authors organize the paper in the following sections: introduction, literature review, research method, authors’ proposal (I think that according with authors’ claim in section 1.3 it should be the “diagnostic model”, case studies, discussion, and conclusion). Now, all is mixed and consequently, paper contributions are obfuscated because of this limitation.
- Only sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 should be in the introduction section. In addition, section 1.1. Background and purpose, do not show the purpose of the paper. It has been showed in section 1.3. Therefore, introduction section should be re-written.
I suggest that authors follow this structure: firstly, they should describe the problem that are trying to solve. Secondly, they should describe the paper objectives and purpose. And thirdly, they should justify why their proposal is necessary and its benefits. In addition, I suggest that do not use subsections in the introduction section. Finally, authors have to justify better their claims during the introduction section. More references have to be added. Currently, there is only one. Please, see how other authors write the introduction section of a research paper.
- A literature review section is necessary. Describe here all the concepts that are going to use in the paper.
- Research method or material and methods. Authors have to describe here the research method that have used to develop the “diagnostic model”, nor the diagnostic model
- Diagnostic model. Authors should show and explain here the different steps of their diagnostic model.
- Case study. Authors should describe here the three case studies (the Spatial scope, etc.) and the findings of applying their diagnostic model to the three areas
- A discussion section section is necessary. The contribution of the author’s approach to the literature is not highlighted. The literature review needs to be integrated with the claims that the author make in order to show the importance of its contribution. The piece is lacking in originality or a clear contribution to the literature.
- I would like that authors show better the consequences for academics and practitioners of the results. It has to be showed in the conclusion section.
In conclusion, I believe the proposal has some merit, but I do not believe the paper in its current form demonstrates this potential as a research paper
Author Response
Thank you for your detailed advice.
The revised contents are as follows.
1. I reinforced the composition and contents of Chapter 1.
: We revised the purpose and necessity of the study in more detail.
2. I added a review of literary theory in Chapter 2.
The background and contents of the analysis focused on the supply and demand perspectives were further analyzed.
We reviewed the flow of studies that have been conducted since gentrification was mentioned.
After reviewing each perspective, I mentioned the necessity of my research by identifying limitations.
3. By adding Chapter 2, we changed the composition of the entire paper to Chapter 7.
4. Chapter 6 mentioned the analysis by applying the stage model to each region.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Following revisions, it is still not clear what value and novelty this paper is going to bring in this subject area. The author/s have identified additional literature that has been added to the text in this revised draft, but it still reads descriptive and does not contribute to the overall objective of the paper. The idea is to bring out the essence of the studies rather than listing them in context. Despite the scope of the paper looking a lot more optimised than before given the new additions, it is still difficult to read and understand what new knowledge is being added to the given field. The abstract is not clear and needs rewriting. The data is presented descriptively without connecting to the larger aims of the paper. One immediate suggestion would be to clearly establish the objectives and contributions of the paper early on, especially where it fits in the subject area while maintaining coherency in the analyses of the work and presenting the same in a more pointed writing style. The numbering of sections are incorrect in some places, e.g., is it 5.2 or 6.2? this is also another section that needs a better explanation keeping in view what promises were made earlier in the paper. At this point, it is about going deep to learn what is it exactly this paper would bring to the field by clarifying the larger objectives rather than adding new content further.
Author Response
Thank you for your advice on the direction of the revision of the paper.
The number and title of each chapter have been revised, and the detailed corrections are as follows.
- Modification of the composition of the chapter of the paper: The composition of the paper was organized in the order of introduction (problem presentation) -> theoretical review (previous research review) -> research method setting and analysis -> conclusion.
- Literature review session revision: The concept of gentrification was first explained in Chapter 1. In addition, the main analysis concepts of this paper, 'supply perspective' and 'demand perspective', was explained. Specifically, a theoretical review was conducted through several previous studies in Chapter 2, and the characteristics and limitations of each concept were described. Finally, each concept was explained by resetting it from the perspective of the researcher.
- Add an explanation of "Research Methods Used to Develop Diagnostic Models": The research rooms used for each perspective were explained in the front parts of Chapters 4 and 5 (4.1 and 5.1). Chapter 4 Regression Analysis was used from a supply perspective, and among them, "DID Analysis Method" was used, and Chapter 5 From a demand perspective, the index change values for the opening and closing business of commercial districts were analyzed.
- Explanation of the application of diagnostic models by case paper: Each step was explained in Chapters 4 and 5, and then comprehensively explained once more in Chapter 6. In Chapter 6, the explanation was supplemented by adding case-by-case application results for each step.
- Contribution of Discussion Session and Research: Chapters 1 and 6 describe the research results of this paper and its contribution to the field of urban regeneration in Korea. Gentrification is occurring worldwide, but the situation in Europe and the United States, and Korea are very different. Moreover, the characteristics of gentrification occurring in the capital city of Seoul and other local cities in Korea are different. It was described that the results of this study can be used to establish problems and countermeasures arising from changes in urban status in local cities due to state-led urban regeneration projects.
Reviewer 3 Report
Although paper has been improved some of my main concerns remain unsolved. Paper needs great revision in contents and structure. I suggest that authors organize the paper in the following sections: introduction, literature review, research method, authors’ proposal, case studies, discussion, and conclusion). Now, all is mixed and consequently, paper contributions are obfuscated because of this limitation.
- I suggest that authors follow this structure: firstly, they should describe the problem that are trying to solve. Secondly, they should describe the paper objectives and purpose. And thirdly, they should justify why their proposal is necessary and its benefits. In addition, I suggest that do not use subsections in the introduction section. Finally, authors have to justify better their claims during the introduction section. More references have to be added. Currently, there is only one. Please, see how other authors write the introduction section of a research paper.
- A literature review section is necessary. Describe here all the concepts that are going to use in the paper.
- Research method or material and methods. Authors have to describe here the research method that have used to develop the “diagnostic model”, nor the diagnostic model
- Diagnostic model. Authors should show and explain here the different steps of their diagnostic model.
- Case study. Authors should describe here the three case studies (the Spatial scope, etc.) and the findings of applying their diagnostic model to the three areas
- A discussion section section is necessary. The contribution of the author’s approach to the literature is not highlighted. The literature review needs to be integrated with the claims that the author make in order to show the importance of its contribution. The piece is lacking in originality or a clear contribution to the literature.
- I would like that authors show better the consequences for academics and practitioners of the results. It has to be showed in the conclusion section.
In conclusion, I believe the proposal has some merit, but I do not believe the paper in its current form demonstrates this potential as a research paper
Author Response
Thank you for your advice on the direction of the revision of the paper.
The number and title of each chapter have been revised, and the detailed corrections are as follows.
- Modification of the composition of the chapter of the paper: The composition of the paper was organized in the order of introduction (problem presentation) -> theoretical review (previous research review) -> research method setting and analysis -> conclusion.
- Literature review session revision: The concept of gentrification was first explained in Chapter 1. In addition, the main analysis concepts of this paper, 'supply perspective' and 'demand perspective', was explained. Specifically, a theoretical review was conducted through several previous studies in Chapter 2, and the characteristics and limitations of each concept were described. Finally, each concept was explained by resetting it from the perspective of the researcher.
- Add an explanation of "Research Methods Used to Develop Diagnostic Models": The research rooms used for each perspective were explained in the front parts of Chapters 4 and 5 (4.1 and 5.1). Chapter 4 Regression Analysis was used from a supply perspective, and among them, "DID Analysis Method" was used, and Chapter 5 From a demand perspective, the index change values for the opening and closing business of commercial districts were analyzed.
- Explanation of the application of diagnostic models by case paper: Each step was explained in Chapters 4 and 5, and then comprehensively explained once more in Chapter 6. In Chapter 6, the explanation was supplemented by adding case-by-case application results for each step.
- Contribution of Discussion Session and Research: Chapters 1 and 6 describe the research results of this paper and its contribution to the field of urban regeneration in Korea. Gentrification is occurring worldwide, but the situation in Europe and the United States, and Korea are very different. Moreover, the characteristics of gentrification occurring in the capital city of Seoul and other local cities in Korea are different. It was described that the results of this study can be used to establish problems and countermeasures arising from changes in urban status in local cities due to state-led urban regeneration projects.
