A Comprehensive Evaluation on the Performances of China’s Information Technology Characteristic Towns Utilizing the Advantage-Oriented Competitive Evaluation (ACE) Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is of undoubted scientific interest. However, when choosing the methodology, the authors explain their choice and point out that ACE methodology is rarely used in the English-language literature. It seems appropriate to indicate other approaches and the limitations of their application for the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well structured, planned and documented. The work is interesting and useful in the evaluation of modern urbanization. The conclusions derived are useful and the scientific results stand in support of the conclusions.
The following minor points may be addressed before publication:
1. A more detailed description of the data set used in this study has to be included.
2. The data collection methodology and sanctity has to be discussed.
3. The drawback of the proposed ACE method can be included.
4. How can you compare ACE methods with other similar methods?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The characteristic town program is among the most important drivers of China’s new-type urbanization. This manuscript employs a novel “Advantageous-based Competitive Evaluation (ACE)” approach and selects 15 ITCTs as the representative objects for a performance ranking accounting for their diverged and distinct advantages. I have briefly read this manuscript. There are some low-level errors in this manuscript. Compared to other published research results, this manuscript appears very thin, and focuses on quantitative description. Overall, in terms of research depth, this manuscript has not reached the level of publication.
The main problems are as follows.
1. The abstract does not reflect this manuscript’s main research conclusions.
2. There are some low-level errors in this manuscript, such as “[16,16,17]” on line 94, “Hanghzhou” of S3 and “Nangjing” of S12in Table 1, “Recongnition” on line 203, etc.
3. The annotation order of relevant references on line 124 in the manuscript is discontinuous. Prior to this, I did not see literature [23-26], which are all in the back.
4. The sequence number of the formula is incorrect in “3.2. The ACE evaluation procedure”, such as (2).
5. The data in Table 5 and 6 is incomplete.
6. I only saw relevant quantitative descriptions in “5. Discussions”, without discussing or concluding.
7. I haven't seen any relevant conclusions and future directions in “6. Conclusions”.
8. The format of the references in “References” is not standardized.
9. The reference [27] is overquoted.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper has been prepared carefully, with a logical layout and significant scientific value.
However, some improvements are required:
- In Abstract - the major aspects of the entire paper should be presented including: the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated; the basic design of the study; major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, a brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions;
- In Introduction - the value of current research should be confirmed not only in relation to the country, but in the global dimension. It is advisable to indicate references to conditions/solutions from other countries (by way of similarity or contrast).
-The literature review should be extended to include the latest papers (2022-2023). I suggest adding the papers of authors presenting results from other countries, which will give the paper international scientific importance. Even if this method is "was rarely internationally cited for socio-economic in English-language literature", still results should be presented.
-In Conclusion – the limitations of the study should be indicated. Moreover, Conclusion (or Discussion) should contain BETTER explanation how the research has created knowledge or at least moved the body of knowledge forward.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The annotation form of references has been changed on line 98-105, 113-120.
2. References [31-34] in figure 2 did not appear before [35] on line 169.
3. “New urbanization community integrating industry, city and people” on line 175 should be “New urbanization community integrating industry, town and population”.
4. The language habits of the manuscript still do not meet the general requirements of English, and further improvement is needed.
The language habits of the manuscript still do not meet the general requirements of English, and further improvement is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The modifications made this time were okay.
The modifications made this time were okay.
