Social Capital in Neighbourhood Renewal: A Holistic and State of the Art Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is potentially a very good paper, but it needs to be thoroughly revised by a native English speaker before it can be accepted. I will restrict my comments to the first 100 lines, since it is not my job to correct the English:
Line 23 – ‘was retrieved’ – should be were retrieved
Line 45 – ‘conflicts public and private sectors’ – do you mean conflicts between the public and private sector?
Line 64 – ‘Social capital can be defined as the source lies in the relationship among actors’ – this makes no sense
Line 70 – ‘have affected their completion’ – should be has affected
Line 83 – ‘the social capital’ – should be social capital (not the)
Line 98 – should be Aldrich and Meyer (not Daniel, P. A., and Michelle, A. M.) – this needs to be corrected in the references too
I will happily look at the manuscript again when it has been revised.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
The authors would like to thank you for the invaluable comments on our manuscript LAND-1814949. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise this manuscript. The manuscript has been checked and revised by a native English speaker to reflect the reviewer’ comments.
Thank you for your support. May you have a happy life.
Best regards,
Prof. Guiwen Liu
School of Management Science and Real Estate，
The Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is very successful conceptually and fills an important research gap in the absence of an up-to-date literature review on urban revitalization/renewal and the role of social capital in it. I have a number of rather minor comments that would improve the value of the article and which I have applied to the text (PDF).
I also have one more serious comment regarding the design and content of the conclusion. After the very successful earlier parts, this "Conclusion" is disappointing. There are not many specifics here. I would suggest two alternatives:
1. Shorten and move this section to the beginning of the current "Discussion" section, which might better be called "Conclusion and avenues for future research." An explicit "discussion" section is not needed in this article, as the entire Chapter 2 fulfills its role.
2. Expand "Conclusion" with more specifics and add an "avenues for future research" section.
Thus, this is a fairly major suggested design change, but simple enough to achieve that overall I give the note "minor revision".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
The authors would like to thank you for the invaluable comments on our manuscript LAND-1814949. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised to reflect the your comments.
Thank you for your support. May you have a happy life.
Best regards,
Prof. Guiwen Liu
School of Management Science and Real Estate，
The Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I have read the work with great interest. Congratulations on the investigation, I find it a very interesting and attractive topic, and of course it fits perfectly in this magazine.
It seems to me that the work has a very interesting objective, however, I believe that it has not been sufficiently achieved, and it is necessary to make some improvements to the paper.
I think they are details, because I insist, the text is very well prepared, follows a clear methodology where the steps taken are presented and allows the reader to fully delve into the investigation.
The figures are clear, they explain well the process or theory that it is intended to represent. As a matter of aesthetics, the first detail is the excess of epigraphs. I do not see a Heading 1 necessary if there is no text in this heading and heading 1.1 is created. This happens again in heading 2. I would recommend not having so many headings because even 2.1.1 would not be necessary, for example. Also, the titles could be more representative of the rich theory presented in the text.
Delving deeper into content, although a very good bibliographic review is presented by the authors, I have a question regarding section 2. Critical Review.
You indicate that you carry out a critical review, but I have felt a lack of this criticism in your work. I do not detract from the work done, but I miss more presence of the authors criticizing the theories presented.
Perhaps it would be interesting to read previous conclusions at the end of each epigraph of epigraph 2. That would demonstrate that critical debate that is proposed with the title. What I want to say is that the bibliographic review carried out clearly presents the texts that they want to discuss, but there is no perceived debate by the authors towards that critical work that they intend to do.
Finally, I believe that the conclusions of the work diminish the quality of everything presented by the authors up to that moment. I have missed implications of the findings about this social capital for society. How does social capital influence management? In the policies? In the day to day of the community? If a “cultural manager”, for example, works for you, what can knowing the functioning of social capital in your neighborhood contribute to you? Perhaps insist on improving the conclusions of the work, not only related to the conceptualization of social capital, but also to its implication for the functioning of society.
Once again, thank you very much for the reading opportunity and I hope that the work grows to the point of being admitted to the magazine.
Greetings and good luck…
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
The authors would like to thank you for the invaluable comments on our manuscript LAND-1814949. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised to reflect the your comments.
Thank you for your support. May you have a happy life.
Best regards,
Prof. Guiwen Liu
School of Management Science and Real Estate，
The Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a timely, well-researched, and well-written paper which makes an important contribution to the field. One minor criticism - research is singular, so it should be 'had', not 'have', throughout.
