Research on the Development of Deserticulture and Desertification Land Use Benefits Evaluation in Ordos City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This topic is ok and has values. This version is not yet ready to be published, significant work should be added, some comments:
(1) The method is quite simple and no novelty. The authors created a index to evaluate the development in a specific area, but I can’t find any support to the index. I suggest the authors provide more information on the index to demonstrate that it could be used to indicate the development level.
(2) The paper seems quite short. There is no enough descriptions on why we need to make such index? Has anyone already done the similar job? Any other indexes could be used to evaluate the development process? Why this index is better than others. The authors need to prove the necessity and contribution of their study.
(3) Very few references, less than 20 papers were cited, and they can’t support the author’s opinions as well as the contexts. All of them are from Chinese scholars, and the research area and conditions are very narrow, which makes this paper less readable to international readers.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Expert, Journal of Land
I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback and insightful suggestions on my research paper titled [Manuscript ID: land-2434709, Title: Research on the Development of Deserticulture and Desertification Land Use Benefits Evaluation in Ordos City]. Your comments have been instrumental in improving the clarity and comprehensiveness of the manuscript.
Based on your suggestion (1), I have taken steps to provide additional information about the index used in the study to indicate the level of development. In the revised version of the paper, I have included a more detailed explanation of the index, its components, and the methodology employed to calculate it. This additional information aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the index and its relevance in assessing development levels across different regions.
Based on your valuable suggestion (2), I have expanded the paper to provide a more comprehensive description of the reasons behind the development of the proposed index. In the revised version, I have included a detailed discussion on the need for such an index, highlighting the limitations of existing evaluation methods and the gaps in the current understanding of development processes. This discussion aims to establish the relevance and necessity of the study in addressing these gaps.
Based on your insightful suggestion (3), I have expanded the reference list to include a broader range of scholarly works that are relevant to the research topic. I have actively sought out international literature to provide a more comprehensive and diverse perspective on the subject matter. By including a wider range of references, I aim to present a more balanced and well-supported argument that resonates with international readers.
Furthermore, I have paid close attention to the language used throughout the manuscript and made necessary adjustments to improve the overall readability and coherence of the content. I have reviewed sentence structures, grammar, and vocabulary choices to ensure a more fluent and polished writing style.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Wang
on behalf of the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
I send my comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Expert, Journal of Land
I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback and insightful suggestions on my research paper titled [Manuscript ID: land-2434709, Title: Research on the Development of Deserticulture and Desertification Land Use Benefits Evaluation in Ordos City]. Your comments have been instrumental in improving the clarity and comprehensiveness of the manuscript.
Based on your suggestion (1), I sincerely apologize for the errors in the incorrect display of the references throughout the entire paper. I appreciate your feedback, and I am committed to rectifying these issues to ensure the accuracy and proper presentation of the reference list. In light of your comments, I have thoroughly reviewed the paper and identified the source of the formatting errors. I will take immediate action to correct these issues by meticulously cross-referencing and matching each in-text citation with the corresponding reference entry. Additionally, I will ensure that the references are formatted in accordance with the required citation style guidelines.
Based on your suggestion (2), I have expanded the references to include relevant studies or research articles that explain the concept and application of the min-max standardization method. By incorporating these references, I aim to provide readers with a deeper understanding of the method and its appropriateness for the research. I have included references that explain the theoretical foundations and practical implementation of the Entropy method. These references will enhance the clarity and credibility of the methodology section, allowing readers to validate the use of the Entropy method in the research.
Based on your suggestion (3), I have added appropriate references to support the description of the study area. These references include relevant studies, reports, or publications that provide information about the geographical, ecological, or socio-economic characteristics of the study area. By incorporating these references, I aim to provide readers with a reliable source of information to verify and validate the description of the study area.
Based on your suggestion (4), to address your concern and provide more clarity, I have made the following revisions: I have expanded the explanation of the indicator selection process and the rationale behind the indicator layers and unit values. I have provided a detailed description of the criteria used to select the indicators, such as their relevance to the research objectives, data availability, and their ability to capture the key dimensions of deserticulture development and land use benefits. Additionally, I have cited relevant studies or research articles that have supported the choice of specific indicators and their unit values. These references will help provide a stronger justification for the indicator selection and values presented in the tables. I have made the necessary revisions to convert the units used in Tables 1 and 2, which represent the Evaluation Index System for the Development Level of Deserticulture and the Index System for Evaluating the Benefits of Desertification Land Use, respectively, to internationally recognized units. By adopting these internationally accepted units, I aim to ensure the consistency and comparability of the evaluation systems with other relevant studies and research conducted worldwide.
Based on your suggestion (5), In line 223:I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and made the necessary revisions to include additional data that support the arguments and implications presented in the paper. I have incorporated relevant data sources that provide a solid support for the statements made throughout the paper. These additional data points aim to enhance the credibility and rigor of the research findings.
Based on your suggestion (6), I have included a subsection specifically dedicated to providing an overview of the current state of the shrub area and forest coverage in the study area. This subsection now includes relevant data hat describes the existing shrub area and forest coverage and the number of days exceeding the onset of sandstorms. And, I have expanded the discussion on the impact of the annual increase in shrub area and the decrease in the number of days exceeding the onset of sandstorms on the ecological environment. I have included a more detailed explanation of how these changes can positively influence the ecological environment, based on existing research, expert opinions, or relevant studies. This addition will provide a stronger rationale for the suggested actions and their potential benefits for the ecological environment.
Based on your suggestion (7), I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and made the necessary revisions to include additional sources of information that relate to the results presented in the paper. I have expanded the literature review section to incorporate relevant studies, scholarly articles, and other authoritative sources that support and strengthen the interpretation of the results. These additional sources provide a broader context and enable a more robust analysis of the findings.
Based on your suggestion (8), I have provided clear explanations and context regarding the data sources and their significance in the respective analyses. By transparently referencing the data used and its origins, I aim to ensure transparency and facilitate the replication of the study by interested researchers.
Based on your suggestion (9), upon your suggestion, I have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made the correction on line 56, ensuring that "Land" is now properly capitalized.
Furthermore, I have paid close attention to the language used throughout the manuscript and made necessary adjustments to improve the overall readability and coherence of the content. I have reviewed sentence structures, grammar, and vocabulary choices to ensure a more fluent and polished writing style.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Wang
on behalf of the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting and could make an important contribution to the field, but unfortunately in its current form, which matches more a research report for the national authorities than an article addressed to the entire global scientific community of land sciences researchers. The manuscript lacks research depth, visible by a focus on the case study rather than the research issue, proved by poor introduction, discussions, and conclusions. Thus, the manuscript requires a strong development of these sections. In general, the manuscript presents too many results, without a clear indication of their contribution to the advancement of the field. Detailed comments are provided for each section of manuscript.
Introduction: The presentation of the case study does not belong to the introduction, but to the method section. In a scientific article the introduction critically analyzes the existing literature in order to identify their shortcomings (ambiguities, controversies, misconceptions or lacks), justifying the need for research, and emphasizing the novel and original elements of the current study.
Methods: Figure 1 shows the inability of authors to write up research. This is an article for an international journal, and not a report for the national authorities. The authors should present a map showing the location of the study area in an international context, making visible the neighboring countries with their names, so that a Brazilian researcher could understand it too. China is not the only country in the world!
The most important section of a research article, the Discussions, is insufficiently developed. The section is meant to emphasize the importance of research, justifying its publication. Normally, this section includes include (A) the significance of results - what do they say, in scientific terms; (B) the inner validation of results, against the study goals or hypotheses; (C) the external validation of results, against those of similar studies from other countries, identified in the literature; (D) the importance of results, meaning their contribution (conceptual or methodological) to the theoretical advancement of the field; (E) a summary of the study limitations and directions for overcoming them in the future research. Only the significance of results and methodological advantages and limitations are discussed. The section must be developed to include the missing elements.
Conclusions are not sufficiently broad in scope, and lack research depth, pertaining only to the case study and being in fact just a summary of the main findings. Conclusions are meant to deliver a scientific message, far away beyond the case study, to the entire scientific community, making a clear contribution to the theoretical (conceptual or methodological) development of the field. Conclusions must be developed beyond the case study.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Expert, Journal of Land
I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback and insightful suggestions on my research paper titled [Manuscript ID: land-2434709, Title: Research on the Development of Deserticulture and Desertification Land Use Benefits Evaluation in Ordos City]. Your comments have been instrumental in improving the clarity and comprehensiveness of the manuscript. I appreciate your valuable insights regarding the current form of the manuscript and its suitability for addressing the global scientific community of land sciences researchers. I acknowledge the need to enhance the research depth and the clarity of the introduction, discussions, and conclusions.
Based on your comments, I will undertake significant revisions to address these concerns and improve the manuscript. The following actions will be taken:
(1)Introduction:
Based on your valuable input, I agree that the current presentation of the case study within the introduction is not appropriate. I understand that in a scientific article, the introduction should primarily focus on critically analyzing the existing literature, identifying its shortcomings, justifying the research need, and emphasizing the novelty and originality of the current study. I have revised the introduction section to provide a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature.
(2)Methods: I understand the importance of providing a clear and internationally inclusive representation of the study area in order to cater to a global readership. So, I updated Figure 1 to include a map that shows the location of the study area in an international context. The revised map will clearly indicate the neighboring countries with their names, allowing readers from various regions to easily comprehend the geographical context of the study. By providing this international perspective, I aim to make the paper more accessible and relevant to researchers worldwide.
- Discussions:
- Significance of Results: I provided a comprehensive discussion on the scientific implications of the research findings. This will involve interpreting the results in the context of the research objectives and hypotheses, highlighting the key findings, and explaining their relevance to the field of study. By clearly demonstrating the scientific significance of the results, I aim to emphasize the value of the research.
- Inner Validation of Results: I explicitly evaluated the consistency of the findings with the study goals or hypotheses. This involved discussing how the results align with the research objectives and whether they provide support for the proposed hypotheses. By addressing the inner validation of the results, I strengthened the validity and reliability of the research outcomes.
- External Validation of Results: I compared the research findings with similar studies conducted in other countries, as identified in the literature. This comparative analysis allowed for an evaluation of the consistency or divergence of the results with existing knowledge.
- Importance of Results: I explicitly discussed the conceptual or methodological contribution of the research to the theoretical advancement of the field. This involved highlighting any novel insights, innovative approaches, or advancements in methodology that the study brings to the field. By emphasizing the importance of the results, I underscored their value and demonstrate the unique contribution of the research.
- Summary of Limitations and Future Research Directions: I provided a comprehensive summary of the study limitations, and addressed both the methodological and contextual constraints. Additionally, I suggested specific directions for future research to overcome these limitations and further advance the understanding of the topic.
By incorporating these revisions, I will ensure that the Discussions section is well-developed and includes all the necessary elements to justify the publication and emphasize the importance of the research.
Furthermore, I have paid close attention to the language used throughout the manuscript and made necessary adjustments to improve the overall readability and coherence of the content. I have reviewed sentence structures, grammar, and vocabulary choices to ensure a more fluent and polished writing style.
Your valuable input will undoubtedly contribute to the overall quality and impact of the paper. I appreciate your continued support and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Wang
on behalf of the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering my feedback. I handled corrections properly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed most previous comments and improved their manuscript.
