Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author/authors,
I read your manuscript with interest, the topic of which is still relevant today and suitable for scientific processing. However, I have several suggestions for editing and supplementing your manuscript.
Do not use the term country (it is only a geographical entity) but the term state, because the subject of your research is examining the situation in selected states as subjects of international law. In the case of municipalities, cities and self-government, however, it is necessary to use the term resident, not citizen. The term citizen is linked to the state and there is only state citizenship as a relationship between a natural person and the state. This means that municipalities, cities, regions have their residents, not citizens.
Since you also cite legal regulations in the text, these must be better specified so that it is clear to which state they are linked. It is also necessary to add this fact to the reference, such as:
Slovak National Council. 1990. Act No. 169/1990 Coll. on municipal organization, as amended. Available at: https://www.slov-lex.sk/ezbierky/pravne-predpisy/SK/ZZ/1990/369/20240401
You have also very appropriately set six research questions in the third chapter on page 10. It would be appropriate to answer them in the fourth or fifth final chapter in this clear manner.
Add the fifth final chapter to the limits of your study as well as the subject of future research in this area.
Given the topicality of the topic, the sources listed in the reference list are of an older date. I recommend that the authors update them/or replace them with newer scientific works, ideally indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. It is also necessary to check the references because under No. 51 and 52 there is the same reference (the difference is only in the cited pages), which is unnecessary.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed feedback and constructive suggestions for improving the manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing the work.

The terminological issues you raised have been corrected, with "state" now used instead of "country," and "resident" consistently replacing "citizen" in the context of municipalities, cities, and self-governance. Legislative references have been clarified and updated to specify the relevant state, as exemplified by the Slovak National Council reference format you provided.

The answers to the six research questions set out in Chapter 3 have been explicitly formulated and added to the corresponding sections in Chapters 5. 

The reference list has been thoroughly revised, with outdated sources supplemented by newer, indexed works from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Additionally, the duplicate reference under No. 51 and 52 has been corrected by removing No. 52 to avoid redundancy.

Thank you once again for your valuable input, which has significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have read this article with great interest. The use of a well-defined comparative method among European states provides a clear framework for analysing the size of self-governing units.
The article draws on diverse sources and updated data from national statistical offices.
The application of qualitative and quantitative methods (including contextual analysis and statistical calculations) is well-justified and tailored to the research objectives.

I believe it would be beneficial to clarify the methodological limitations, for example, by explaining the impact of data gaps or language barriers on the results. A section on how the author ensured the validity and reliability of the data would lend greater credibility to the methodology.

The language used is academic yet accessible, making it appropriate for the target audience.
The structure of the article is logical, with well-defined and numbered subsections.

However, some sentences are overly long and complex, which might hinder understanding for readers less familiar with the subject. In the introduction, condensing the statement of the research objectives could make the article stylistically more engaging.

It would also be helpful to more clearly emphasise how the findings could be applied in current public administration reforms. The conclusions could include more specific recommendations based on the analysed data.

The academic language is generally appropriate. The correct use of technical terms and bibliographic references is commendable. Minor syntax errors and redundant phrases could be corrected to improve the text's fluency.

Finally, citing some comparative works with international impact could enhance the article further.

Best of luck with your work!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. I appreciate the effort you have put into reviewing the study. In response to your comments, I have added a section outlining the limits of the study and potential directions for future research. Additionally, I have formulated and included clear answers to the research questions, ensuring that they are explicitly addressed in the results and discussion sections. The text has undergone partial reformulations to improve clarity and readability. Moreover, I have included newer sources to enhance the quality and relevance of the references. Thank you once again for your insightful remarks, which have significantly contributed to improving the manuscript's quality and coherence.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am glad that I could read and evaluate your manuscript. The topic is topical and important, especially in today's electronic age. I note that the manuscript is prepared with maximum precision, respecting the principles of scientific work as well as the rules of the scientific journal and MDPI publishing house. The individual chapters follow each other logically, they contain sufficiently deeply processed necessary data. I particularly appreciate the methodological part, the consistent processing of which is the basis for high-quality and usable research results. I recommend the manuscript for publication in the form presented without the need to make any changes.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your very positive review and for taking the time to evaluate the manuscript. I deeply appreciate your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the quality of the work, particularly your recognition of its topicality and methodological rigor. It is truly gratifying to know that the manuscript meets the principles of scientific work and the standards of the journal and MDPI publishing house.

Your acknowledgment of the logical structure and depth of the individual chapters, as well as the methodological precision, means a great deal. I am especially pleased that you find the research results to be of high quality and practical relevance.

Thank you once again for your recommendation for publication without changes - it is an honor to receive such a positive evaluation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with the very important and current topic in the public administration field. The author  fully confirmed his great professional overview of the solved field. The methodology and structure of article is appropriate for it’s the main goal. All published results are clearly present in comprehensive text and tables.

The article is benefitial  for wide not only use by public and also by the univerrsity teachers and and students.

Thank you author, because  its article will bve a great resource for my personal use in my pedagogical practise.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind and positive review. I greatly appreciate your recognition of the importance and relevance of the topic and your acknowledgment of the professional insight presented in the article.

Your comments about the clarity of the methodology, structure, and results are truly encouraging, as are your remarks on the value of the article for both academic and practical purposes. I am particularly honored to know that the work may serve as a useful resource in your pedagogical practice and for a broader audience, including university teachers and students.

Once again, thank you for your thoughtful feedback and support - it is highly motivating and deeply appreciated.