Industrial Park Renovation Strategy in a Poverty-Alleviated County Based on Inefficient Land Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well-written and organised. The authors have explained the major criteria and models involved in the renovation of industrial parks. However, I have few comments on this paper;

1. Motivation of this paper should be clearly discussed. The contribution of the proposed work needs to be reorganized. 

2. It is recommended to address recent works in the specific section.

3.  Line 63: Mention the appropriate reference. Line 277-285: The reference is missing

4. Only Figure 1 and Figure 5 have been cited in the text others are not. Also, check the same for all the tables.

5. Line 227: what do you mean by PLM, MES, and ERP?

6.  Check if all the citations in the article are listed under references and vice versa.

It is recommended to give attention to rewriting several sentences for improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I reviewed the draft with great interest entitled “Exploration of Industrial Park Renovation Planning Strategy in Poverty- Alleviated County Based on Low Utility Land Evaluation: Case Study on Shengfang Industrial Park in Lianhua County, China”. The paper deals with an interesting side of the research and structure well, however, I have a few comments for the authors:

1.       The study title is very lengthy, I will suggest precisely this.

2.       The abstract is lacking data source, data size, and data collection process.

3.       The current form of the article is not reader-friendly as the headings and sections are confusing while readings. I will suggest labeling the headings specifically for introduction, literature review, data and methodology, results and discussion, and lastly, conclusion and recommendation.

4.       Mainly the manuscript lacks a methodology section, authors should specifically develop this section which includes data source, data size, applied methodology, etc. Also, do not use the bold font in the text.

5.       Also, add the practical and theoretical implications of the study before the conclusion section.

 

6.       Lastly, add the limitations and future recommendations in a separate section.

 

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Upon careful evaluation of the paper titled "Exploration of Industrial Park Renovation Planning Strategy in Poverty- Alleviated County Based on Low Utility Land Evaluation: Case Study on Shengfang Industrial Park in Lianhua County，China" I regret to inform you that I cannot recommend its publication due to several significant concerns. While the topic of the paper is intriguing, there are notable deficiencies that impact its overall quality and scholarly value. I will provide detailed feedback on the specific concerns below.

 

One of the primary concerns is the lack of substantial evidence to support the assumptions presented in the paper. Throughout the manuscript, there is a noticeable absence of supporting data or empirical studies, which weakens the credibility of the arguments put forth. The inclusion of ideologically biased statements without proper evidential support further undermines the scholarly rigor and objectivity expected in academic papers.

 

Another issue lies in the methodology employed. The methodology appears to be broad and lacks a well-structured and solid approach. Insufficient citation of sources compromises the paper's academic integrity and inhibits readers from verifying the information presented. Moreover, the analysis of variables is shallow and fails to delve into sufficient depth, which is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. These methodological shortcomings collectively weaken the scientific rigor of the paper.

 

In addition, there is a lack of transparency and justification regarding the selection of regeneration methods. The paper fails to provide evidence or reasoning for the decision process behind choosing the three "modes correspond(ing) to three different regeneration methods." This arbitrary selection raises concerns about the reliability and validity of the research findings.

 

Furthermore, the paper introduces the "1+2+N" Model without adequately defining its parameters or providing empirical evidence to support its validity. This lack of clarity and empirical grounding weakens the theoretical foundation of the paper and undermines its overall credibility.

 

There are also instances where assumptions are presented without sufficient explanation. For instance, an assumption mentioned in Line 210 appears to be more aspirational than a well-defined policy or strategy. Without a clear rationale or supporting evidence, such assumptions remain unsubstantiated, which diminishes the overall credibility of the paper.

 

Moreover, the inclusion of an irrelevant slogan in Paragraph 4.1.3 detracts from the main content and distracts readers from the paper's core arguments. It is essential to maintain focus and coherence by eliminating such irrelevant content.

 

The paper's structure lacks clarity and certainty, while the use of bold formatting is unclear and does not effectively enhance understanding or readability. To ensure clarity, the paper should follow the widely accepted IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) model commonly used in scientific research papers.

 

Lastly, the discussion and conclusions drawn from the experiments lack coherence, precision, and a clear connection to the research objectives. It is crucial to ensure that the discussion logically follows from the results and effectively addresses the research questions posed in the introduction.

 

Additionally, the paper's limited focus on the Chinese case restricts its applicability, interest, and cultural depth. Expanding the literature review to encompass a broader range of cases would enhance the paper's scope and appeal to a wider audience.

 

 

In summary, while the topic of the paper is intriguing, the identified concerns related to the lack of evidence, ideologically biased statements, methodological issues, arbitrary assumptions, unclear structure, and limited focus on the Chinese case warrant the rejection of the manuscript. Addressing these concerns would significantly improve the paper's scholarly merit and enhance its potential for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be accepted for publication.

It is recommended to read the manuscript carefully and remove minor mistakes in English.

Author Response

Point 1: The manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Response1:Thanks for your response, we read the manuscript carefully and made grammatical changes as much as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article changed consistently with respect to the first draft. Despite these changes, the overall quality of the paper is still insufficient to be accepted for publication.

The changes are - despite the authors' comments - only formal and not substantial, and many of the issues highlighted in the first review are still maintained in the revised version. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf