Institutional Collective Actions for Culture and Heritage-Led Urban Regeneration: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research is original and can be taken forward but the structure and content of the article are incomplete. The following issues are identified:
.-Errors of the form: incorrectly inserted references in lines 88, 90 and 125. incorrectly or unnumbered figures. The duplicity of the "results" section. Tables do not refer to sources.
.- Structure and content: The reading of the article is confusing, there are too many subsections.
.- The methodology section is not very well presented. It is not clear what method was followed and how the case studies were selected.
.- There is no explanation of the FsQCA method, among other methodological issues.
.-There are no conclusions.
Therefore, although it is considered that the aspect dealt with is novel and interesting, it requires a thorough revision, greater scientific rigour and a clearer and more complete structure. In short, it is consistency and comprehend also should be improved.
Author Response
In this updated version we have considered all the change requests from reviewers mainly related to content, explication of results, structure, and formatting.
Please, see the attachment for an explanation of how we reacted to the requests.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is not clear to what extent the co-governance concept is covered by the actual projects presented in the article, and if it is an actual practice, and not a general goal that is easy to be mentioned in applications and reports. The four value table sets a simple, somehow coarse hierarchy that is quite useful in doing the fuzzy set exercise, however, out of the five dimensions that were chosen, it is the most `political`, or the fuzziest, if you like. The theoretical part of co-governance brings in the general tenets of co-goverenance and the literature, but should also explain how this was used by the research team in their project.
The number of references exceeds the capacity of any referee to check the relevance of the sources, I think it is exaggerated and quite unnecessary to bring that much literature into the article.
Also, the fifth parameter, outcome, does not have a distinct paragraph that should operationalize it, even in a brief manner.
The four `configurations` are an excellent way to frame the discussion and this was well highlihted in the final section.
minor issues: 203-204 should be removed
209-210: The description of these 210 four-value fuzzy sets is shown in Table 2. - which is not labeled. Then you have the third table, which is labeled table 4...
Author Response
In this updated version we have considered all the change requests from reviewers mainly related to content, explication of results, structure, and formatting.
Please, see the attachment for an explanation of how we reacted to the requests.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very well-written paper on an extremely important topic, the question of institutional collaboration and its optimization in the case of heritage-led regeneration (and it is valid for other kinds of collaborations as well). The paper explores a number of relevant case studies to draw useful conclusions about the opportunities and limitations of institutional collective actions (ICAs). One minor suggestion is that I don't see the work of Bruno Latour discussed, ie. his actor network theory, which is relevant particularly in tying the network of institutions to the network of places and users. That is a minor quibble, and I commend the authors on the paper.
Author Response
In this updated version we have considered all the change requests from reviewers mainly related to content, explication of results, structure, and formatting.
Please, see the attachment for an explanation of how we reacted to the requests.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The scientific soundness of the article and the contribution to scholarship are in high level. The contents contextualization with respect to previous background can be improved.
Author Response
In this updated version we have considered all the change requests from reviewers mainly related to content, explication of results, structure, and formatting.
Please, see the attachment for an explanation of how we reacted to the requests.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
The article has been considerably improved. The structure is clear and the reading is consistent. I would just like to add one suggestion: Try to rethink table 1 so that it does not extend over 10 pages or at least repeat the table headings for better comprehension.
Otherwise, I would like to congratulate the authors for the novelty and appropriateness of the topic today.
