Detecting Changes in Perceptions towards Smart City on Chinese Social Media: A Text Mining and Sentiment Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well written scientific article, except table no. 4 and related text. Please explain table 4. In the text from line 491 you write that 90.5% were positive emotions on the Weibo platform from users. The total sum of emotions were 86511, positive emotions = 4805 (5.6%), NOT 90,5%; neutral emotions = 78327 (90.5%), NOT 5,6% and negative emotions = 3379 (3.9%). Either it is wrong in Table 4 or the entire text from line 491 is confusing.        

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper. However, a few areas of the manuscripts should improve. The authors are required to address the following comments:

Correct the referencing style

Provide a reference for the claim stated in lines 81 and 82. 

Add the novelty of research at the end of the introduction section. 

Avoid repetition. Some information in section 3.1 has been mentioned before. 

Some of the figures are not clear and legible, for instance, figure 2.  

Some repetition in the 2nd paragraph of section 4.1.2 should be eliminated. 

Some of the words used for analysis do not provide any insight (Table 2)t. The authors should use keywords instead of words. For example, the "Company" under technology company or "Era" under smart transportation. 

Authors should elaborate on selecting titles of each theme.

Why is a considerable difference between the estimated term frequency and overall term frequency in figures 5-7?

Provide the ratio of sentiment polarities for each subject in a percentage format. 

There is a discrepancy between the data in Table 4 and the discussion below in Table 4 and Figure 8. I believe there is an error in the heading of sentiment polarity (the positive and Neutral).

Section 4.3.2 can merge with section 4.1.2 since the majority of the discussions in these sections are similar. 

There is no discussion about the number of smart city policies and the nexus between that and user sentiment in section 4.3.2. 

It is better to cluster the themes and use colour coding in Figure 10.

Why do authors mainly focus on the negative comments in section 4.3.3?

"the study also found a strong correlation between the public's emotional inclination towards" smart cities" and the frequency of smart city policies, especially among individual user groups." The only support for this claim is figure 9. No discussion before this claim was provided by the authors. 

"This paper focuses on the government's guidance to promote positive public attention and smart city construction" in my view, the paper mainly focused on negative rather than positive comments. See my comments in section 4.3.3.

Some repetition in the discussion that should be removed (line 636). 

The last sentence, in conclusion, sounds like a recommendation. move to the next section. 

For the 1st time, some discussions appear in the conclusion section (lines 691-699). either should discuss in detail in the main body of the manuscript or remove from the conclusion. 

Thank you

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf