Research on Digital Experience and Satisfaction Preference of Plant Community Design in Urban Green Space
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper evaluated the subject satisfaction regarding urban green space plant community in urban green space, by using the technique of virtual reality (VR) and PPG. This is an interesting and top trending research topic, which can reveal important implications for urban planning. While this research falls within the scope of the journal, it still requires several revisions. Below are some specific comments:
1. Please move the interpretations and discussions of the findings from the Result section to the Discussion section. The result section should aim at reporting the obtained results of the current study, while further interpretations should be presented in the Discussion section.
2. It is recommended to separate the discussion and conclusion. Furthermore, my sense is that the analyses are not robust enough; the interpretation and discussion of the findings should be improved.
3. Figure 5 and Figure 8: The axis title and legend should be presented in English
4. It is recommended that the authors work with a science editor who is proficient in the Native English language to polish the manuscript.
Author Response
We appreciate your precious time and kind comments on this research and also thanks for providing this valuable opportunity to revise our manuscript. We responded point by point to your comments based on the template provided. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper which makes an important contribution to the field. On the whole it is well-written, but there are a few issues that need to be addressed:
1) In places the in text referencing is incorrect. For example, line 46-47 - Jorgensen, A and Gobster, PH et al. - it is unusual to put the authors' initials in the text. Change to Jorgensen [9] and Gobster et al. [10] - and similalry throughout the manuscript
2) The references need to be carefuly checked. The list has clearly been generated by Zotero or Mendeley or similar software, and consequently is a bit of a mess, with lack of spaces after commas and semi colons. Some references are incomplete (e.g. 12 and 14 are missing issue and page numbers) and 42 should not be in capital letters
3) line 58 - heart rate variability (HRV)
4) line 113 - landsense ecology theory - this is the first time you mention it, and you don't explain what it is. I was not familiar with the term so I Googled it, and I see that it is a theory that originated in China in 2015. It needs to be explained to the rest of us for whom it is a new concept. (and thank you for having made me aware of it!)
5) there are formatting errors - for example on pages 9 to 11 the text is not formatted, and on pages 13 to 15 the text is in a smaller font
Author Response
We appreciate your precious time and kind comments on this research and also thanks for providing this valuable opportunity to revise our manuscript. We responded point by point to your comments based on the template provided. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
This work deals with a very hot topic, and its approach is very novelty. In fact, it was very interesting reading this manuscript and the used techniques applied by the authors. I genuinely believe this work could to this scientific thematic field and be the catalyst for similar studies to be carried out.
However, I propose the following improvements before the editorial accepts the manuscript for publication:
- the acronyms in the abstract should be explained (revise it);
- the journal referencing guidelines and template are not followed;
- the authors should consider adding a methodological scheme in order to help the reader to follow the used methodology.
Regards,
Author Response
We appreciate your precious time and kind comments on this research and also thanks for providing this valuable opportunity to revise our manuscript. We responded point by point to your comments based on the template provided. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the updated manuscript and the author’s responses. I believe the authors have done a good job of addressing the issues and challenges brought up in my first review. I do not have any additional concerns, and I believe the paper is in good shape to move forward towards publication.
