Study on the Spatial Structure of the Complex Network of Population Migration in the Poyang Lake Urban Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article looks at urban agglomeration in middle Yangtze River region. My primary concern with the article is where it is situated in the academic discourse. The authors need to provide a substantial review of literature to demonstrate their command of the academic literature and to situate their research in the larger academic discourse. Without this, I'm unsure how the research contributes to the academic community. I would suggest the authors review literature focusing on urban agglomeration and urban sprawl in China and other regions of the world. The research will be more interesting for a wider readership if you can situate your research in the larger academic community.
In addition, there are a few minor editorial comments throughout the paper. I'm not sure microscopic/macroscopic is the best word choice for urban research. If others have used this, reference their work. Also, your introduction and conclusion should not include numbered (bulleted) points but should be written in the style of a sentence. I found this to be awkward. There are also some other minor editorial issues throughout the paper. As you proofread the paper, you should be able to address them. For example, line 180-182 contains the directions for writing that section from the journal. This can be deleted.
Overall, this is an interesting topic. I'm curious to see how it fits into the larger academic discourse. Thank you for the opportunity to review your research. Best of luck in your research.
Overall, the English was fine. There were minor editorial issues throughout the paper. My only significant concern was the use of numbers/bullets in the introduction and conclusion. I would strongly suggest you write out your introductory and concluding points in complete sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The MS focused on the population migration in the urban agglomeration around Poyang Lake and analyzed the network characteristics and the spatial structure of population migration. The content of the MS is relatively substantial, the overall structure is clear. However, the following issues still should be attention.
1. I suggest that the abstract is rewritten to address each of the following points:
(a) the importance of field/issue/research problem;
(b) identified research gap(s);
(c) very brief detail on study aim and objectives;
(d) summary of study methods;
(e) key study findings/results; and,
(f) the technical or policy implications of key study findings.
2. The hierarchy among the research contents needs to be further sorted out for understanding clearly.
3. Check for additional recent publications relevant to this paper on urban agglomeration network (i.e. 2021,2022,2023).
4. More details should be added in “2.3. Study time and total data”.
5. The format of the formula needs to be further standardized.
6. The sentence “This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental
conclusions that can be drawn.” can be deleted.
7. I suggest the symbols of spatial structure like " 
" should be given a detailed written expression.
8. The conclusion needs to be more compressed to become more concise.
9. Discussion of the findings of the MS should be added between the results and the conclusion.
10. The English language should be checked and improved in the whole parts of the MS.
The English language should be checked and improved in the whole parts of the MS.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
There is no doubt that you have conducted a meaningful study on the spatial structure of the complex network of population migration by using the point-line theory in spatial network theory and the directed-weighted network theory. However, there are some weaknesses that require accurate inspection and review.
(1) The research area (Poyang Lake urban agglomeration) in the keywords should be placed last.
(2) The definition of urban agglomeration should be reflected in the introduction.
(3) In the introduction, firstly, the scientific issues of the study should be clarified, emphasizing its theoretical or practical value; Secondly, existing literature reviews on population migration should be added, simultaneously supplement corresponding literature; In addition, it is necessary to supplement the main innovative points of this study.
(4) 2.1 Research object should introduce the basic situation of urban agglomerations, such as natural, population, economic conditions, etc.
(5) Please explain why data from 2015 to 2018 was chosen.
(6) According to the selected research period, the attached figure should include immigration axis maps for 2015 and 2018, or the research period can be corrected in 2.3 Study time and total data.
(7) There seems to be a lack of discussion in the article, and it is recommended to add 5. Discussion to clarify the research significance, policy implications, shortcomings, and prospects.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank and commend the authors for addressing my comments in an outstanding manner. I really think you did a fine job contextualizing your research in the academic literature. I have two minor concerns in this draft of the paper. First, I think you could increase the interest of the academic community if you added a discussion in the discussion and conclusion linking your study to the wider research. I think you have an interesting and useful study, but I'm struggling to see how your conclusions apply beyond the Poyang Lake region.
Second, I think the article could benefit from one more round of proofreading. There are some significant redundancies in your word choices, especially in the abstract and introductory sections of the paper. I believe the content is fine. I just think your word choices influence the readability of the paper.
Overall, thank you for the improvements in this draft. I'm beginning to see where you paper fits into the research community. Best of luck in your future research. Thank you again for the opportunity to review your paper.
I would suggest an editorial read of your paper to address redundant word choices, especially in the abstract and introductory sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept after minor revision, including English language and the format
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has made effective revisions to this article based on the suggestions, and the quality of the article has been significantly improved. However, the clarity of some figures in the article needs further improvement. I suggest making appropriate modifications to the figures before accepting it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments on the previous draft. My only suggestion is to remove the title of the paper from the first line of the discussion section (line 431-432). I don't think it is necessary to include the title. The second sentence in that section is appropriate as the first sentence of the discussion section. Otherwise, I have no concerns about the paper in its current form. I think the paper adds to the academic discourse, is well researched and well written. Best of luck in future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
