Is It Possible to Establish an Economic Trend Correlating Territorial Assessment Indicators and Earth Observation? A Critical Analysis of the Pandemic Impact in an Italian Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your research and for working to share it with a larger audience. 

It would be really helpful to give the purpose and structure of your paper at the beginning. The point of the paper is not clear at the outset, which make the rest of the paper confusing. The abstract helps, and you should incorporate some of it into the introduction to the paper. 

If you can give an outline of your paper’s purpose and structure early on it will help the reader as they read.

I started reading line by line, but a better restructuring of the paper to make it understandable to someone not familiar with your research is what is needed. I include some specifics below, but I stopped after a bit.

L. 17 - Write out the abbreviation for (STeMA) as it may not be known to the general reader.

L.23-24 - The abbreviations here should be written out or explained somehow too.

 

L28-31 - This first paragraph needs to be rewritten. It is very hard to understand.

L. 44-45 - Explain what an Add Value indicator is.

L. 46-67 - Can you rewrite these bullets so someone unfamiliar with the European Territorial Cohesion Index and other subjects in the list can understand what you are discussing?

If you can improve this introduction, I could better understand what you have done with the rest of the paper. 

Tables 2 and 3 are not readable nor understandable. All the different columns and lines need to be explained, or the tables should be omitted.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I understand that your first language is not English. Each sentence taken on its own is good English, but the flow of sentences together is confusing. 

Each paragraph needs a topic sentence. Each section needs to be structured so the reader can see where you are going with your writing. 

Author Response

It would be really helpful to give the purpose and structure of your paper at the beginning. The point of the paper is not clear at the outset, which make the rest of the paper confusing. The abstract helps, and you should incorporate some of it into the introduction to the paper.	Thank you. I modified abstract and paragraphs 1 and 2 to make the text more clear.
If you can give an outline of your paper’s purpose and structure early on it will help the reader as they read.	It has been included in paragraph 1
Previous L. 17 - Write out the abbreviation for (STeMA) as it may not be known to the general reader.	Done in both abstract and text.
Previous L.23-24 - The abbreviations here should be written out or explained somehow too	Done
L28-31 - This first paragraph needs to be rewritten. It is very hard to understand.	Done
L. 44-45 - Explain what an Add Value indicator is.	Done Directly in the text: L. 49-51
L. 46-67 - Can you rewrite these bullets so someone unfamiliar with the European Territorial Cohesion Index and other subjects in the list can understand what you are discussing?	Done in brief: L. 542-544. It is a composite index. It measures disparities between regions in the EU, and is also a valuable tool for calculating the Added Value. It is explained in detail by the quoted Reports.
Tables 2 and 3 are not readable nor understandable. All the different columns and lines need to be explained, or the tables should be omitted.	Thank you but I do not agree, because the tables are the STeMA application to Latium region and contain the ex ante and ex post values coming from the assessment. Values are explained and related to described indicators (table 1). It was the scope of the research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented paper entitled "Is it possible discovering economic trend correlating Territorial Assessment and Earth Observation? An Analysis of pandemic impact" is relevant but has several comments:
1. The abstract should be revised and contain:
- a specific study aim that needs to be improved for better understanding.
- no need to list the parts of the article (lines 16-21), it is enough to display this in the Introduction.
- specific results.
2. The Introduction should also be cleaner, for example, what does "..health should remain the primary concern, have had a significant impact on .. confidence and uncertainty" mean? It is not clear what "confidence and uncertainty" means.
3. Considering the issues of "digital instruments and the recourse" it is desirable to expand on research on: Digital challenges in the economy and their impact on regional development.
4. Expanding the Introduction in the direction of Innovative Models of Green Entrepreneurship: Social Impact on Sustainable Development of Local Economies is desirable.
5. In the Discussion, providing more detailed critical comments on the correlations observed with the EO data is necessary. What were the main problems and limitations?
6. When analyzing the ex post assessment of Latium Region ROP policy choices, it is desirable to highlight the most significant economic indicators that emphasize the region's adaptation to new economic models.
7. Should the Conclusion be expanded and include concise research results related to the EO assessment and explanation of the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic?
8. In the Reference, 23% of citations are self-citations by the author (Prezioso, M), which requires reduction.
9. Brief explanations upon first use should accompany the use of abbreviations (ROP, SEA, etc.).
10. English polishing is required to clean up grammatical errors in the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

1. The abstract should be revised and contain: - a specific study aim that needs to be improved for better understanding. - no need to list the parts of the article (lines 16-21), it is enough to display this in the Introduction. - specific results.	I made the suggested corrections. Thank you
2. The Introduction should also be cleaner, for example, what does "..health should remain the primary concern, have had a significant impact on .. confidence and uncertainty" mean? It is not clear what "confidence and uncertainty" means.	I clarified
3. Considering the issues of "digital instruments and the recourse" it is desirable to expand on research on: Digital challenges in the economy and their impact on regional development.	Thank you, but this was not the scope of the paper.
4. Expanding the Introduction in the direction of Innovative Models of Green Entrepreneurship: Social Impact on Sustainable Development of Local Economies is desirable.	Thank you, but this was not the scope of the paper.
In the Discussion, providing more detailed critical comments on the correlations observed with the EO data is necessary. What were the main problems and limitations?	Done
When analyzing the ex post assessment of Latium Region ROP policy choices, it is desirable to highlight the most significant economic indicators that emphasize the region's adaptation to new economic models.	Done in part, because the scope of the paper was analysing the COVID impact on GDP by correlation between statistical and satellite data.
Should the Conclusion be expanded and include concise research results related to the EO assessment and explanation of the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic?	I modified conclusiomn
In the Reference, 23% of citations are self-citations by the author (Prezioso, M), which requires reduction.	I reduced auto-citations, also if there are not additional contribution on this topic.
Brief explanations upon first use should accompany the use of abbreviations (ROP, SEA, etc.).	Done.
English polishing is required to clean up grammatical errors in the text.	I hope to have cleaning all grammatical errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have made substantial edits and have responded to my comments. The clarity of the writing and English grammar have improved. It would still be helpful to a uniformed reader if you would rewrite the Abstract to simply state your results in language that is understandable. Using the abbreviations and trying to explain the background as you do there might be better placed in paper itself. 

 

 

Title - Is not in correct English.

 Is it possible to discover an economic trend correlating Territorial Assessment and Earth Observation? An Analysis of pandemic impacts 

L. 13  exploresthe potential re lationship (explores the potential relationship)

L. 21 You need to not use abbreviations before you explain what they mean. NUTS is one of them and so are EC and CEMAT

L. 22 - economic trend

L. 32 - complicated instead of complexified

L. 57 - traditional GDP trend

L. 109 - however affect the 

L. 138 - It would be nice if the “following sources:” were integrated into the text and not in the note.

Table 1 - Write out the abbreviations as they are not explained: VESISP, IEIF, RIVuln, COCC, PFCL, SAAcPot, IpSSP

Table 2 - You do explain the A,B, C, D meanings in your text, but having them included with the Table title, would be very helpful. Your title also needs more explanation. You could add another sentence after the title.

L. 408  - “yellow”, not “jellow” . “Yellow - values that changed.” Put down the time period over which they changed.

L. 445-446  - Make your numbering the same for the GDP. I would just say “194 million euros..., 202 million euros ..., and 186 million euros.

L. 451 - Where do you discuss Graphs 1,2,3 in the paper?

L. 501-2 - Doesn’t the SteMA methodology offer a valuable approach to understand the “economic growth or decline of the EYE project?” 

L. 504 - Subsidiary instead of subsidiarity

L. 583 - The author would like

Comments on the Quality of English Language

She did a lot of work to improve the English in the paper, and I appreciate it,

Author Response

1. Answer to Reviewer#1

   You have made substantial edits and have responded to my comments. The clarity of the writing and English grammar have improved. It would still be helpful to a uniformed reader if you would rewrite the Abstract to simply state your results in language that is understandable. Using the abbreviations and trying to explain the background as you do there might be better placed in paper itself. Thank you I hope now it is more clear

   Title - Is not in correct English. Sorry, I do not understand well this comment. Anyway, I modified a bit the title.

   Is it possible to discover an economic trend correlating Territorial Assessment and Earth Observation? An Analysis of pandemic impacts.

   The new title is: Is it possible to establish an economic trend correlating Territorial Assessment indicators and Earth Observation? A critical Analysis of the pandemic impact in a Italian Region

   1. 13 exploresthe potential re lationship (explores the potential relationship) correction done
   2. 21 You need to not use abbreviations before you explain what they mean. NUTS is one of them and so are EC and CEMAT. I dissolved the acronym, but in an abstract it is a bit strange
   3. 22 - economic trend. Sorry, but I do not understand what is the suggestion. Economic trend is a typical expression in the economic language and it is calculated extimating indicators.
   4. 32 - complicated instead of complexified Now L 82. Thank you for the suggestion. Done
   5. 57 - traditional GDP trend. No I wanted to say exactly that
   6. 109 - however affect the. Now Line 160. No, thank you, but the right word is effect
   7. 138 - It would be nice if the “following sources:” were integrated into the text and not in the note. Thank you but this is no a note but a reference

   Table 1 - Write out the abbreviations as they are not explained: VESISP, IEIF, RIVuln, COCC, PFCL, SAAcPot, IpSSP 2. These are the acronyms but they are linked with the names of indicators in “pink” to the line above

   Table 2 - You do explain the A,B, C, D meanings in your text, but having them included with the Table title, would be very helpful. Your title also needs more explanation. You could add another sentence after the title. It is said at Line 359 and quoted references where this part is illustrated in deep. I added a specification in the title.

   1. 408 - “yellow”, not “jellow” . “Yellow - values that changed.” Put down the time period over which they changed. Thank you, done, and I am sorry
   2. 445-446 - Make your numbering the same for the GDP. I would just say “194 million euros..., 202 million euros ..., and 186 million euros. Done, thank you
   3. 451 - Where do you discuss Graphs 1,2,3 in the paper? Done in a nutshell
   4. 501-2 - Doesn’t the SteMA methodology offer a valuable approach to understand the “economic growth or decline of the EYE project?” I explained better
   5. 504 - Subsidiary instead of subsidiarity. No subsidiarity is the correct world
   6. 583 - The author would like. Done

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Section 2.1 is repeated.

2. It is not allowed to cite references in Conclusions. Conclusions must contain the author's results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer#2

1. Section 2.1 is repeated. Thank you, I changed the number of paragraph
2. It is not allowed to cite references in Conclusions. Conclusions must contain the author's results. Thank you, I removed them. It was only to remind to the reader the main point of initial discourse