Inventory and Evaluation of Geosites: Case Studies of the Slovak Karst as a Potential Geopark in Slovakia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The abstract should be rewritten, as there is too much introduction in the background section, which does not highlight the importance of the research and lacks conclusions.
2. The literature review is too outdated, with few literature in the past five years.
3. The paragraph distribution is unreasonable, such as lines 63 and 64, which can be merged with other paragraphs.
4. Lack of discussion, which should include at least three parts: the marginal contribution of the research, the shortcomings of the research, and the future research direction or areas for improvement.
5.Figure 13 is not aesthetically pleasing enough, it is recommended to further optimize it.
6.Is it necessary to list Table 1-5? If it is listed, it needs to be explained in text.
7.Table 6 does not provide sufficient depth of explanation and requires further analysis.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf