Measurement of Land Ecological Security in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River Base on the PSR Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Improved the apresentation
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
According to the author's revisions to the paper, their writing attitude is poor. The author turns a blind eye to the fact that the workload is relatively low. In the discussion section, the author still hasn't solved the existing problems. It is recommended that the author first familiarize themselves with the requirements of writing standards for English papers.
no
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I suggest the editor(s) accept the publication of this manuscript. The revisions have addressed my previous concerns and improved the overall quality of this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The author's attitude towards scientific research is questionable, and the current manuscript is still insufficient for publication in this journal. The specific opinions are as follows:
1. The indicator system constructed by the author is unreasonable, and even after multiple modifications, there are still many misunderstandings. For example, the author believes that the natural growth rate of population is a negative indicator. In fact, China has begun to implement the policy of encouraging fertility. It is difficult to convince readers that the pressure level is still measured by the Rate of natural increase. From the perspective of weight, The rate of change in the comprehensive utilization of industrial waste, this indicator has the highest weight, even 20 times that of other indicators, making it difficult to convince readers of its rationality.
2. The author's map is extremely non-standard, with no scale indicated on the map and no legends added.
3.The reviewer has repeatedly reminded the author to pay attention to the discussion section. This is because the discussion section focuses on analyzing the similarities and differences between this study and previous studies, and comparing the internal reasons for consistent and inconsistent analysis results. By discussing with others, highlight the findings of the article, especially focusing on different research findings. The author's multiple revisions were completely self explanatory and did not understand the value and significance of the discussion.
4.From the author's references, it can be seen that the author has cited a large number of papers published in Chinese journals, which cannot be understood. When conducting a research, the author does not read international journals in this field, but mainly cites Chinese journals. Even the cited Chinese journals are not high-level publications.
no
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Although the author has made many modifications, there are still many problems in the paper:
1. Figures 1 to 6 show that the north arrow display is incorrect, and Shanghai has appeared twice. After repeated revisions, the article still experiences similar detail errors multiple times,
2. The author did not respond to the fact that natural population growth rate remains a pressure indicator. Similarly, natural growth rate is a negative indicator, while population density becomes a positive indicator, which contradicts itself and cannot convince readers.
3. As the author conducted the research at the provincial level, it is unreasonable to use economic density and population density as evaluation indicators. Shanghai is a special city, while the area of other provinces is much larger than that of Shanghai, including a large number of areas such as forests and mountains with very little human activity. How to persuade readers based on the evaluation of the indicator system?
4. The author made many errors in explaining the results, such as line 266. The author stated that the population density of Jiangxi Province is much lower than other provinces, so the ecological pressure in Jiangxi Province is relatively low. In fact, the author reflects population density as a positive indicator.
5. There are also many errors in other details, which makes it difficult to understand the author's repeated revisions and still ignores them. The decimal places in the entire text are inconsistent.
Author Response
Thank you for your continued attention and revision of the manuscript. In response to your comments, I have made the following changes and clarifications:
(1) Natural population growth rate. Concerning the negative indicator of the natural population growth rate, I have had extensive discussions with other members of the subject group. First of all, the natural population growth rate increases the dependency ratio of the population, which, to a certain extent, can stimulate consumption and promote economic development, thus playing a positive role. Although the natural population growth rate can generate economic efficiency, this benefit is long-term and uncertain because young children have a certain period to become a labor force and may move to other provinces due to population mobility. The most direct impact brought by the natural population growth rate is the impact on the carrying capacity of regional land.
(2) Population density. This indicator is mainly due to the regional talent pool or labor pool. Thus, this study does not consider the increase in population density due to natural population growth.
(3) The article has also been corrected in response to the reviewers' comments, such as standardizing the number of decimal places for the values, rewording the abstract, and other misrepresentations.
Finally, thank you again. I have learned a lot through this submission. Most importantly, I learned to adhere to a rigorous academic attitude and engage in every scientific research. I look forward to submitting another manuscript next time.
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
This study's scientific methods look legitimate. However, the significance of the study and the implication of the results can be largely improved. After reading the paper, my concern is "So， What?". I hope the authors can be enhance the discussions and address my concern in the next round of revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the paper has the following issues:
1. The paper is only at the provincial level, using simple indicators to measure land ecological security, and the workload is insufficient.
2. The writing standards of the paper are very non-standard, and the discussion section is entirely based on the writing style of Chinese papers, indicating that the author has not considered English paper writing at all.
3. The unreasonable construction of the indicator system has led to unreasonable results. From the results, Shanghai's score is lower than that of Jiangxi Province, and one important reason is that Shanghai's stress score is higher. For example, the indicator "Energy waste emissions per unit area" lacks scientific validity for areas with smaller administrative areas.
Extensive editing of English language required
Reviewer 3 Report
The work makes an analysis of secondary data and demonstrates the results in a poorly defined way. The indicators are simple with scores obtained without applying another methodology. The results are interesting but should be improved by applying other methodologies. The work has potential but lacks scientific exploration and should not be based only on the analysis of a statistical result.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
The main question is more or less defined. The issue of ecological security could be better defined because the text includes agriculture, social security and the environment. In the European Union we have a more restricted definition and it is due to the maintenance of areas of environmental protection and agriculture and forestry. This agriculture should be conservation and integrated into the security area of protected areas. This question should be better defined with technical parameters
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
Original no, relevant Yes
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
It has a simple methodology from a scientific point of view, it does not add much, it should be complemented with other research material. In particular, it demonstrates that the results are in accordance with the regions according to parameters to be defined by the researcher
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
Demonstrates that the results are in accordance with the regions according to parameters to be defined by the researcher
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
YES, but must be explain
6. Are the references appropriate?
Yes, at the moment,
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
The work should be developed with parameters to be defined by the researchers on how they effectively consider that ecological security is better in certain regions, but this justification has to do with what is considered ecological security.
