A Megacities Review: Comparing Indicator-Based Evaluations of Sustainable Development and Urban Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See word

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be simplified

Author Response

Please see attached revisions note.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are several areas where this manuscript could benefit from revisions to improve clarity and accuracy:

 1. The manuscript contains an excessive number of transitional words, with as many as ten in some instances. Additionally, many of the keywords are repetitive and overlap with the title, reducing their effectiveness. It is recommended that the author eliminate redundant keywords.

 2. Some basic data in the manuscript should be carefully rechecked, as they seem implausible and likely contain errors. For example, lines 84-86 state, "For example, Paulo contributes 19% [23], Seoul ~50%, Paris ~30%, Mexico City ~27%, Shanghai ~14%, and New York City ~8% [24] to their host nation’s GDP, respectively." These figures are surprising and warrant further verification.

 3. The selection of articles based solely on language is problematic and may lead to insufficient analytical material, thus undermining the reliability of the conclusions. The manuscript's literature review primarily draws from English-language sources, neglecting research published in Korean, Japanese, Russian, and Chinese. This oversight could significantly affect the study's findings. As noted by the author, a substantial portion of the spatial distribution of urban samples is in countries where these languages are official. This could lead to considerable inaccuracies in the manuscript's analysis of temporal trends and spatial distribution.

 4. In the third section, the author references many highly cited or early published works. However, these often focus on large cities (which may not have had a population of over 10 million at the time) or analyze a single neighborhood within a megacity. Their research does not specifically target megacities (those with populations exceeding 10 million), which may limit the applicability of their findings to the author's study.

 5. Some conclusions in the manuscript lack sufficient evidence. For instance, lines 997-1001 state, "However, energy is not among the popular themes associated with indicator-based evaluations of urban resilience, which deserves increased attention from practitioners. Perhaps, this topic is 'unpopular' among scholars due to the urgency required of megacities to mitigate and adapt to disasters and emergencies related to climate change, such as flooding." While it is widely accepted that extreme weather events driven by global climate change pose significant challenges to urban living environments, attracting attention from scholars worldwide, it does not necessarily mean that the topic is unpopular.

 6. It is recommended that the manuscript be strengthened with more in-depth analysis and synthesis of key literature.

Author Response

Please see attached revisions note. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a fine (sufficient) job responding to extensive comments. They also seem firm yet have justifiable reasons about changes not being made. Thus, I feel that article in its current form is suitable for the journal. Thank you for your time and effort.