Construction of Rural Multifunctional Landscape Corridor Based on MSPA and MCR Model—Taking Liukeng Cultural and Ecological Tourism Area as an Example
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study examines the construction of a rural landscape corridor using the MSPA and MCR models with a rural cultural site as an example. The methods are somewhat 'old,' whereas the research object is somewhat 'new,' in that the authors have combined both natural and cultural resources in the model. However, a few points (most notably DISCUSSION) must be corrected before it can be accepted:
Title:
You do not have to include 'research on' in the title; instead, consider a title that is more concise and eye-catching.
Introduction:
1. lines 30-39 can be combined into one paragraph.
2. Lines 57-74 need more evidence/literature to demonstrate your statement, it is somehow subjective and descriptive.
3. The final paragraph should explain how you intend to address prior research gaps, your research aim and research flow.
Research methods:
The methods including MSPA and MCR are already very established models, do you have any advances on that? If there are, please highlight your innovation in methodology.
Discussion:
The research lacks proper comparison with prior studies; that is, are your research findings consistent with prior findings? How do your research findings differ from those of previous studies? What could have caused these disparities?
The current lines in your discussion section are LIMIATION, not DISCUSSION.
Contribution:
What are the theoretical and practical implications of your research?
Please provide more information.
Please use shorter sentences and breakdown sentences where appropriate (i.e., lines 75-83). Some grammatical errors (e.g., breaks in lines 87, 115) must be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Congratulations for your research, I appreciate your results. A well-structured paper. Overall a complex work, the analysis involving a number of important and varied components for the final result.
It is a very well designed study, with its justification very well presented.
Figures and tables is very suggestive.
I recommend detailing of the Discussion Section
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Research on building a rural landscape corridor based on the MSPA and MCR models has many benefits, such as preserving cultural and ecological heritage, improving tourism experiences, promoting sustainable development, bringing stakeholders together, making planning and management better, and boosting the economy. By applying these models to the Liukeng cultural and ecological tourism area, the study may provide useful insights and tips for making a landscape corridor that meets the needs and goals of the area. However, the paper as developed and written needs some modification before it may be accepted for publication.
Commments and suggestions:
1. In abstract, the objective objective of the research should be stated clearly and independently in a single sentence. Single out main findings here in the abstract. The last sentence should not be based on general statement. Please pick up your most important findings-based implication and state it at the end of the abstract.
2. The introduction section should be improved further by precisely incorporating the background, significance, research gaps in terms of methodology and problem statements, the contribution of this study in terms of minimizing the research gaps, specific objectives, and novelty of the research.
- The literature review is appalling. Numerous studies are available in literature, so the author must conduct a thorough literature review. In addition, it lacks recent literature and can therefore be enhanced. In fact, not a single reference is cited twice throughout the entire manuscript, indicating a lack of comprehensive literature search. Because there are always connections between the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, when a paper is cited in the introduction, it is likely that some of these studies should also be cited in the methods, results, or discussion section, which is not the case in this manuscript.
- The discussion section is extremely brief, and the findings are not supported by previous research. It is unusual that the discussion section contains no references!
- The conclusion is extremely very big. In conclusion, one paragraph should be based on the main findings, and the second paragraph should state the policy suggestions along with the future research directions in good order. Present policy suggestions are not very sound. Please provide a sound policy implications stemming from the main findings of this work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed most of my concerns. I have few minor points to add on.
The discussion section (especially sections 4.2 and 4.3) lacks comparisons with previous studies; are your findings consistent with previous studies? If they are not consistent, what accounts for these differences? The way you write this section is more of a "methodology" where you repeat how you did the work rather than discussing the work.
Although I have pointed out the language problems in the previous version, some of the changes are still too long for academic reading. Scholarly works generally favour short, concise language, occupying 2-3 lines. Some of your sentences use too many Attributive Clauses and Compound Clauses (e.g., lines 99-110, lines 465-472)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The overall quality of the manuscript has been improved to some extent in the revised version. However, there is further scope to improve the discussion section. Improving the discussion section of a manuscript is essential for providing a comprehensive and insightful analysis of your research findings. The discussion section allows you to interpret your results, relate them to existing literature, and draw meaningful conclusions. Remember, the discussion section is your opportunity to demonstrate your analytical skills, critical thinking, and understanding of the broader implications of your research. So, you can craft a strong and insightful discussion that adds value to your manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
