Parametric Reconstruction of Traditional Village Morphology Based on the Space Gene Perspective—The Case Study of Xiaoxi Village in Western Hunan, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please receive my relative review comments
1. Authors should demonstrate in the text the main results addressed by the research based on the results of the examining case study and how they are useful demonstrating future research perspectives.
2. Authors should demonstrate the topic's originality in the field,
addressing its importance in the relative investigating field.
3. Authors should demonstrate the examining subject area compared with other published material based on the literature.
4. Authors need to provide improvements in the paper regarding the
methodology how the used materials will be useful ? In relative data processing further controls should be considered about spatial texture and future research perspectives.
5. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
should be clear to address the main question posed in the paper.
6. An update and validation in recent relative references should exist.
7. Authors should demonstrate better linkage between the tables and figures, i.e. Table 9 and figure 12, table 10, 11 and figure 13.
8. Similarity found at next sources should be reduced
- https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8965
10%
- https://kdd.org/kdd2022/toc.html
6%
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article is good, but need some improvements. Especially the authors are mixing up the method in results. Maybe they can rearrange it. And below are my other comments:
1. Check your language, some are typos
2. Line 202-208: better to not put web address, but the source name only like citation
3. Figure legends cannot be read
4. Many figures are not clear enough to be read
5. No citation in discussion, and for explaining the results, the discussion is too short.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the possibility to review such an interesting and unique article! The authors put lots of effort to do this research, which is original and unique considering the developed methodology and achieved results.
At the same time, there are a few suggestions to make the article a bit easier to read and make it more attractive to a broader audience.
1. It is suggested to improve the abstract by putting a clear aim of the research. It is very well formulated at the end of the Introduction, but in the abstract, it is very difficult to get an idea, of what is the aim of all those listed steps. In other words, it would make more sense to simply state the aim of the article in the abstract, rather than putting a long sentence of complicated explanation of how it was reached.
2. The given Figure 3 is very hardly readable, it is too small. And also there is no explanation after placing the figure in the text. At least some sentences would add to understanding the purpose of doing so.
3. There are a lot of tables provided in the article, however, they are left without explanation, at least on the main findings or observations gathered from it. Just a few simple sentences on what the table says concerning the ongoing research would add readability to the article and it would make it easier to read it.
The rest, from the reviewer’s point of view, is fine. Congratulations to the authors!
Yours respectfully,
The reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
