Reshaping Publicness: Research on Correlation between Public Participation and Spatial Form in Urban Space Based on Space Syntax—A Case Study on Nanjing Xinjiekou

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Reshaping Publicness：Research on urban design method based on space
syntax - a case study on Nanjing Xinjiekou

- consistent / good / adequate

 

Abstract:

- research objective was missing (making the objective “clear”)

- lack of scientific research methodology

- lack of reiteration of research conclusion

 

The text was written in the personal form (for example: “we”).

I suggest that authors revise the text leaving it in “impersonal form”.

 

Keywords:

- ok, consistent

 

Introduction:

- lack of reiterating research problems

- lack of reiteration of research question-problem

- lack of reiteration of manuscript objective (making the research objective “clear”)

- lack of reiteration of research justifications (or relevance)

- paragraphs was “broken” (without links / concatenations / connections between them)

 

Literature Review:

- not enough

- the Literature Review left to be desired (it is fell short of expectations in a scientific manuscript)

- the Literature Review is “not” coherent with Keywords

- few authors

- no international references

- texts without references

- Literature Review demands/requires: concepts, descriptions, types, classifications, and approaches (without it: no is Literature Review)

- paragraphs was “broken” (without links / concatenations / connections between them)

 

Research Methodology:

- the title of the Section must be: Research Methodology (not just “Methodology” - not to be confused with other kinds of methodologies)

- satisfactory

- to review References (quotes or source citation)

- to review reiterate Research Phases

- reiterate Observation Unit (documents or projects or websites or interviews or ...)

- reiterate “methodological procedures” and/or Research Protocol (or research criteria) … and respective research variables

- lack of / reiterate Research Period (time used for research)

 

3. Backgrounk and 5. Results and discussion

- detail the issues of "Reshaping Publicness" in more detail.

- deepen the themes of space-based urban design.

- expand practical-scientific issues.

- unstructured Development and/or Research Results and/or Discussions

- Development and/or Research Results and/or Discussions left to be desired

- further the research results according to the Research Protocol (or research criteria)

- reiterate summary of Research Results

 

Conclusion:

- despite “6. Results and discussion”, must be the Conclusion in the singular, like as in the Introduction (different from Final Considerations)

- Conclusion left to be desired

- lack of reiterate “contextualization with Section 1. Introduction

- lack of “close with objectives” *(failed to reiterate “rescue or closing with objectives”)

- lack of reiterated scientific contributions

- lack of reiterated contributions (for research location (city, prefecture, or organizations)

- lack of reiterated contributions to academia or to relevant studies or science

- lack of reiterated contributions to citizens (society) and urban managers or public or private managers

- lack of research limitations (scientific limitations)

- could include future works or additions to be explored

 

References:

- few references to a scientific document

- “old” References or outdated references to a scientific document

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

    Review   Research on urban design method based on space syntax - a case study on Nanjing Xinjiekou, by Mengyao Pan, Yangfan Shen, Qiaochu Jiang and Qi Zhou, Yinghan Li, presented for the opinion, is scientifically interesting, introduces scientific solutions to urban planning, using the achievements of regional studies , spatial geography. Thinking Notes: There are no clearly defined goals in the work, with their justification: the main goal and sub-goals. The sub-goals are: - a cognitive goal, which indicates, apart from the scientific achievements (i.e. in the literature review), what the presented study brings to the sciences, - Empirical goal, which should indicate the role and opinions of stakeholders in the process of proposed changes and implementation of new urban solutions. - Utilitarian goal - recommendations for other cities, indicating the specificity of the local environment. There are no clear-cut research hypotheses. In empirical research, if the researcher tries to check whether a hypothesis is true, a question of the decision can be formulated, whose falsehood or truthfulness will be determined by the test result. Such an assertion may be individual, take the form of a historical generalization or a general law of science. It depends on whether it concerns a specific, individual event, a regularity observed in a given time and space, or a regularity of a timeless and universal nature, I have not noticed such an approach in my work. Many disputes among scientists arise about the differently understood verification of hypotheses. There is no doubt that solving hypotheses is one of the fundamental issues in the conduct of research and development of science. Empirical decidability comes down to testing hypotheses, also in the paper there was no hypothesis testing. Empirical verification of a hypothesis in quantitative research may encounter the problem of representativeness. This is related to the conduct of research on a sample that does not always reflect the relationships in the entire population. Some scientists believe that a hypothesis is an essential part of any research approach, including research based on qualitative methods. A hypothesis is a necessary attribute of science. This seems to be due to the frequently used methodological pluralism of combining different methods to guide the research process. More and more often, mixed procedures are used in research projects, we assume that triangulation is the best solution and a way of inferring, generalizing and modeling, and it can be used in this article. There are no empirical studies among the city's stakeholders. Strengths of the study: Correct structure of the work, interesting literature review, logical justification of the proposed solutions.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

All the illustrations of the paper need to be fully referenced; 

In P. 5 ( bottom last paragraph Lines 202-207. More elaboration is needed and more illustrations are needed to support the paragraph argument);

In P. 7 (1st paragraph lines 252-258) so why the authors are not undertaking a thorough on site fieldwork;

In P. 8 (Lines 313-323); the authors need to shows these solutions and strategies by using maps, sections, elevations and 3D views etc.

In P. 9 (lines 326-330); this paragraph needs to be supported by illustrations and images.

6. Title needs to be changed to Conclusion and Recommendations.

Section 06 (conclusion) is very short and needs more elaboration and development. 

In general I feel the paper is too short and lacks profound discussion and conclusion. I believe 09 pages are not enough to well develop the argument of the paper by the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In this second version, the manuscript is suitable for a scientific document.
The requested changes and additions were satisfactorily met.

Author Response

Dear reviewer and editor,

 

Thank you for your professional review. Your comments gave us a lot of confidence and encouragement.

 

Thank you very much!

 

Best regards,

Mengyao Pan