Research on Range of Appropriate Spatial Scale of Underground Commercial Street Based on Psychological Perception Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

        The authors have done an interesting and novel job in the domain of spatial quality evaluation. Their research offers valuable insights and makes a significant contribution to the field. However, before publishing, I suggest revising the manuscript based on the following comments to enhance its clarity and impact:

·                  The writing could benefit from attention to grammatical accuracy, such as considering one space between all words and punctuation marks, and ensuring consistency between all keywords. Furthermore, I suggest that the authors start the reference numbering from [1], as shown, instead of beginning with [13]. It is recommended that the authors conduct thorough proofreading.

·              The introduction provides a comprehensive background and motivation for the research. However, it could benefit from a more concise and focused presentation of the research gap and objectives.

·         In the second paragraph of the introduction, the authors mention: “However, spatial quality evaluation suffers from redundancy, limited research approaches, and a lack of integration with real-world settings for experimentation. Consequently, it predominantly investigates issues from isolated dimensions, lacking systematic and scientific rigor.” I highly recommend that the authors support these statements with some related references, including scientific studies that have mentioned these limitations or recommendations.

·          Again, here: “Conducting research on street space quality solely through field research overlooks potential interfering factors in real environments, leading to highly variable research outcomes. Similarly, utilizing street maps and big data fails to integrate with actual scenes for in-depth analysis.”

·                  Methodology section: While the methodology is described in detail, more information on the demographic characteristics of the participants could enhance the study's validity.

·           Although the results section is rich in data, the discussion could be expanded to better integrate the findings with existing literature and emphasize the practical implications for urban planners and architects.

·         It is recommended authors emphasize the practical implications and potential applications of the research findings in the design and planning of underground commercial streets in the discussion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written and presents its ideas clearly. However, there are a few areas where the quality of the English language could be improved:

-          It is recommended authors to ensure the consistent use of spaces between words and punctuation marks. Pay attention to small grammatical errors that can affect readability. In addition, a thorough proofreading session would help catch any remaining minor errors and improve the overall flow of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review, your suggestions are very helpful for the article. We have answered the questions you raised in detail, please see the word document for more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is well written and argued; the references are current and effectively recalled. The methodology is interesting and well explained. The results are clear and the spin-offs on the project can only improve it. The text needs no further improvement

Author Response

It is an honour to receive your encouragement! We have further improved the content of our articles, please see the word file for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Topic, goals, logical structure and conclusions of the article are clear, so no radical changes or improvements are needed.
The authors are invited to improve only three aspects:
- Provide more information on sample characteristics and subject selection and recruitment procedures
- Propose reflections on the impact that the particular profile of the sample may have had on the results, also considering the peculiarities of the tools used
- Expand the reflections on the possible limits of the tools used in the experiment with respect to research that places the investigated subjects in real places

Author Response

We are honoured to receive your valuable suggestions! We have asked for additional information to further enhance the flow of the article, please see the word file for more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx