Empirical Analysis for Impact of High-Speed Rail Construction on Interregional Dependency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors examine the correlation between variables to address the
concern of multicollinearity and these results should be included in appropriate table in the paper 

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.

Future research directions should also be highlighted

Author Response

We really appreciate the reviewer’s detailed comments of the paper and positive guidelines for the revision. We have made a considerable effort and spent time to address each one of the reviewer’s comments in a comprehensive manner. We believe that thanks to all the reviewer’s suggestions we have been able to improve our paper significantly.

First, we improve the English language overall, and some expressions of results have been revised in Section 4 considering the reviewer’s suggestions about more well-justified descriptions.

Below, please find the specific replies to the reviewer’s comments.

Reviewer #1 - Comment # 1:

1. The authors examine the correlation between variables to address the concern of multicollinearity and these results should be included in appropriate table in the paper.

Reply:

We entirely agree with the reviewer’s comment about adding the results regarding the multicollinearity test, we now have corrected this issue and corresponding results have been added in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1 - Comment # 2:

2. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.

Reply:

We agree with the reviewer’s comments and thank the reviewer for pointing them out. We have revised the ‘Analysis and Results’ part, corresponding revisions have been made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1 - Comment # 3:

3. Future research directions should also be highlighted.

Reply:

We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have revised the ‘Discussion and Conclusion’ section and highlighted several future research directions in this part, which can be found in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the Authors for preparing a very interesting article. While reading them I have made a few observations. They are as follows:

• In the opinion of Reviever term “HSR club” (line 28) is not appropriate in the text, which has character of scientific publication. Please correct it.
• In my opinion in lines: 125, 129 and 131 there is a lack of bullets.
• Legend in fig. 1 should be improved, and there is a lack of source of figure.
• In the opinion of Reviever there is a lack of conclusions from table 4 and 5 on the end of point 4 of the report. I suggest completing this point with conclusions, with particular reference to the numerical values in Tables 4 and 5.

Author Response

We really appreciate the reviewer’s detailed comments of the paper and positive guidelines for the revision. We have made a considerable effort and spent time to address each one of the reviewer’s comments in a comprehensive manner. We believe that thanks to all the reviewer’s suggestions we have been able to improve our paper significantly.

Below, please find the specific replies to the reviewer’s comments point by point.

Reviewer #2 - Comment # 1:

1. In the opinion of Reviewer term “HSR club” (line 28) is not appropriate in the text, which has character of scientific publication. Please correct it.

Reply:

We agree with the reviewer’s comments and thank the reviewer for pointing them out. We have changed the “join the HSR club” to “started to provide the HSR service”. Thank you so much for your careful check.

Reviewer #2 - Comment # 2:

2. In my opinion in lines: 125, 129 and 131 there is a lack of bullets.

Reply:

The authors are thankful to the reviewer for this minute level observation. The corresponding bullets have been added in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 - Comment # 3:

3. Legend in fig. 1 should be improved, and there is a lack of source of figure.

Reply:

The authors are thankful to the reviewer for this minute level observation. We have revised the legend in Fig. 1 and the corresponding source of figure has been added in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 - Comment # 4:

4. In the opinion of Reviewer there is a lack of conclusions from table 4 and 5 on the end of point 4 of the report. I suggest completing this point with conclusions, with particular reference to the numerical values in Tables 4 and 5.

Reply:

We agree with the reviewer’s comments and thank the reviewer for pointing them out. We have revised the ‘Analysis and Results’ section, more contents regarding the results of table 4 and 5 have been added in the revised manuscript.