GIS-Based Progress Monitoring of SDGs towards Achieving Saudi Vision 2030
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.There are a lot of introduction on Saudi Vision 2030, but very few details on how GIS would facilitate the monitoring of SDGs. I recommend more case studies, for example one for each SDG that you emphasize.
2.The expert reviews are much too descriptive. It is difficult to extract effective information from them.
3.The structure of some chapters seem incomplete. For example, why is there a 3.3.1 and no 3.3.2?
4.Authors claim that current GIS-RS based SGD evaluations are focused on certain single SDG. But how is Saudi Vision 2030 integrating them? Respective evaluation of each single SDG does not make it the comprehensive evaluation of SDGs.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors seem infamiliar with the standards of the English language. For example,
1. Sentences should be double-checked. Some sentences are incomprehensible, such as "Using UAV data and fertilizer use optimization, assessed corn yield".
2.Punctuation should be corrected, e.g. "According to expert “C,” ..." should be corrected to "According to expert "C", ...". There are a lot of incorrect uses of commas and periods like this.
3.Incorrect mathematical expressions such as "km2"
Hence I highly recommend text polishing from native speakers or professional language services.
Author Response
Please see the attached response letter.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study utilizes the Scopus database and expert interviews to explore the obstacles and significance of implementing GIS and big data to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Saudi Arabia. The findings of this study may prove beneficial for future research in Saudi Arabia and related fields.
There are some minor issues. Please carefully check the SDGs in this manuscript. When mentioning SDGs in your research, aligning with United Nations SDGs 17 for consistency is essential.
․Please emphasize the research purpose, question, objectives, and limitations stated in the introduction.
․Lines 65-66, Please consider including the necessary citation to support the information provided. I suggest including a reference. “Estoque, R.C. A Review of the Sustainability Concept and the State of SDG Monitoring Using Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1770. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111770”
․Lines 78-79, kindly explain the relevant data collected in Saudi Arabia and any gaps and inconsistencies in the data.
․Page 5, could you please enhance the quality of Figure 2?
․Page 14, could you please enhance the quality of Figure 4?
․Line107, SDG3 is ” good health and well-being”.
․I noted some flaws in writing the 3.1 review results. Line 216, 3.1.1 Sustainability development goal#1:Zero poverty (incorrect). SDG 1 is “No poverty”.
Line 251, 3.1.3 Sustainability development goal #2 No hunger (incorrect). SDG 2 is “Zero hunger”.
Line 283, 3.1.3 Sustainability development goal #3 good health (incorrect). SDG 3 is “good health and well-being.”
․Lines 709-710, in the sentence “…… compare GIS analysis with other forms of analysis …...”, When comparing GIS analysis to other forms of analysis, it is important to consider the benefits and limitations of each method. Could you kindly provide a more detailed description or clarification for better understanding?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attached response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction:
In the initial two paragraphs of the manuscript's introduction, there is a notable omission in adequately emphasizing the significance of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their necessity, and the global efforts of developed countries towards their attainment. This deficiency can be attributed to an insufficient examination of the pertinent literature.
The content introduced between lines 39 and 43 lacks cohesion with the overall paragraph. It is advisable to rephrase this section for better integration.
Line 44: The phrase "in this research" employed at the commencement of a new paragraph may lead to reader confusion. Clarity can be enhanced by specifying the research or study to which you are referring.
Line 47: Rather than employing a reference [] style citation method, it is preferable to directly cite the authors of the referenced work.
Line 114: The meaning of (2) in this context is unclear.
Materials and Methods:
The methodological approach utilized in the study is presented in a cursory manner. There is a lack of clarity regarding how the collected academic studies were systematically classified and the extent to which they were employed. Furthermore, the methods used to collect expert opinions, whether exclusively through surveys, interviews, the content of questions asked, and the topics covered in conferences, remain undisclosed. Additionally, the process of data collection, evaluation, and classification, as well as the analytical and statistical methods employed for data analysis, are left unaddressed. Consequently, the reader may be left with numerous unanswered questions regarding the study's methodology. Regrettably, the materials and methods section does not provide the necessary elucidation.
Author Response
Please see the attached response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors present a potentially interesting paper on the application of GIS technology in the effective monitoring of the development of SDGs in urban and territorial plans, or national strategies and policies to enhance a single country, like the case of Saudi Vision 2030 here described.
In my opinion the paper is a case study and it should be written accordingly. In particular, I suggest to better define the methodology and the research steps, to highlight the main objectives and the research question(s) that should be followed all along the paper.
More detailed notes are:
1) section 1: reorganization of the chapter considering a more detailed cultural context, an in-depth analysis of the literature review (most of the references are in sections 3 and 4 instead of been here), a more specific description of the physical context of the case study (Saudi Arabia);
2) Figure 1: it is not clear the reseach methodology. Please define the logical framework describing the different colours of boxes and the different shapes and colours of arrows;
3) section 3 and Figure 2: if it is just a description of existing items it is not relevant in the so called "Results and Discussions" section and it could be add in the introduction. Otherwise, please specify the critical elements deriving from authors research;
4) sub-section 3.1: considering this section, it seems that the presented research is a review paper. Please explain clearly the additional and critical elements resulting from the authors research;
5) line 440: who are the "experts"? Scholars, professionals, public adimistrators, technicians from the government, other?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I strongly suggest a proofreading of the revised manuscript before resubmitting (especially for formatting and typos errors)
Author Response
Please see the attached response letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI had observed numerous issues pertaining to clarity in the previous version of the manuscript, It was very difficult to point out the problems independently of each other. I therefore concluded that the manuscript was inadequate for publication in RS. Despite the inherent significance of the undertaken research, deficiencies in effectively communicating the subject matter significantly in the previous version of the manuscript influenced my decision.
However, commendation is warranted for the authors' earnest endeavors in revising the manuscript for its second iteration. The revised version exhibits a notable enhancement in lucidity and fluency compared to its predecessor. I congratulate the authors for the radical changes that make me feel like I am reading a new manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors answer to reviewers doubts and suggestions in a satisfactory way.
In my opinion, the paper is now ready to be published
