The Ontology of Urban Governance: A Framework for Pathways to Sustainable Urban Transition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current structure of the article is outlined as follows: it begins by constructing an ontology of urban governance from various accredited documentation, regulations, and sources. It then conducts a specific bibliographic analysis and examines how the research fits into the developed ontology. Subsequently, conclusions are drawn from this alignment, identifying priority themes developed, as well as gaps in scientific research that are present in the ontology's development but not covered by scientific research.

I believe the structure could be significantly improved. The article should be restructured with the understanding that one of the major outcomes of the work is the proposal of the Urban Governance Ontology in India. The methodological section should incorporate an initial task of documentary analysis and teamwork for the development of the Urban Governance Ontology. This would be followed by the bibliographic analysis and its integration into the ontology. In any case, the ontological proposal should be enriched with the bibliometric study conducted, as it is likely to reveal approaches that could improve the initial proposal.

The process of ontology construction and the interpretation of the generated Urban Governance Monad Map should be explained in greater detail. Regarding bibliographic analysis, the use of bibliometric analysis tools (Bibliometrix, Vosviewer, etc.) is highly recommended to support the detection of developed themes (e.g., from keyword analysis).

Incorporate a methodology scheme The introductory section should include a State of the Art section showcasing works in the field of ontological and bibliometric analysis for urban governance. This section should demonstrate the real contribution of the article to covering a gap in the current scientific literature. The discussion section, in addition to developing the key themes detected in the literature corresponding to elements of the ontology, should integrate a critical analysis of the analysis performed, identifying limitations and future research lines. The discussion should also refer to the developed ontology and the contributions made from the bibliometric study. Furthermore, the work should incorporate some comments on the study's reproducibility in geographical areas outside India and highlight the advantages of its application.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I find your manuscript relevant for the Urban Science Journal because you approach a current topic from an interesting perspective (ontology). You approached an interesting topic focused on the analysis of urban governance in India between 2018-2020 to highlight the frequently, infrequently, and  less emphasized elements, dimensions, and pathways in relation with this topic.

The importance of this study is related also to the complex analysis based on the use of mixed methodologie s to find relevant results : PRISMA method, monad maps. Based on the in-depth analysis of selected relevant studies the authors identified selectivity and segmentation of the topic and the consequent gaps related to it.

Key words: you should avoid using key words which are also in the title (eg. Urban governance). Possible key words you can include:  monad map, governance of urban water and sanitation.

Introduction:

You can add few new citations in order to reflect that the topic approach is actual and is need more attention from both the researchers and decision makers:

"With urbanization projected to grow at a rapid pace, with an addition of 2.5 billion urban dwellers between 2018 and 2050 [1], new modes of governance are sought to   address its complex problems (new citation here). Conventionally defined as the sum of the many ways in- 30 dividuals and institutions, public and private, plan and manage the common affairs of the city[2, add new citations here], urban governance includes formal institutions as well as informal arrangements.  Recent literature has explored some of the key concepts, trends, and approaches in con temporary urban governance [3–5]. Yet, evidence suggests there is a wide gap between academic research focus and urban development reality [6, new citations here]. It needs to be deciphered both analytically and cartographically [7, new citations here]. "

"There is a need for research on urban governance to cover ‘administrative’ including legal frameworks, multi-scalar institutional relationships, and innovative policies, with ‘democracy’ perspectives on decentralization, autonomy, representation,  and inclusion [6, new citations here]. It needs to be deciphered both analytically and cartographically [7, new citations here]."

You mention that less emphasized elements related to urban governance in India were studied in the literature (Lines 70-72). Can you give some examples?

At the end of the introduction, you should formulate the importance of the study and research questions.

Discussions

I recommend you to include in this section the subsections:

(1)     importance of research: you can refer to the expected benefits and contribution of the study (methodologically and  implication for policy, practice);

(2) Policy suggestion 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors address the identification of the primary areas of interest and deficit in Indian urban government. The methodological approach is intriguing and full of thought-provoking components. The text reads well and seems to be well-structured. However, a few recommendations can be useful to strengthen the work's scientific foundation.

It is advised to include a diagram that illustrates the steps involved in the process, from screening to analysis to building monand and themes map, to make sure the methodological content more understandable. 

It's also beneficial to arrange the reference section in accordance with the journal's editorial guidelines and include additional references from the literature, particularly in the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

We appreciate the efforts you have made in addressing the comments and making revisions to the original submission. However, it is our opinion that the structure of the article remains unclear, which complicates its understanding. Please note that even though you mention that creating an ontology is not a goal of your work, it clearly emerges as one of its distinctive outcomes. This aspect is particularly relevant for readers of the journal who may not have a specific interest in the Indian context but are keen on the methodological process applied in the article. The goal is to ensure the reproducibility of your work.

Methodological Concerns:

As you have described, the methodology first involves the deployment of an ontology ("We have used policy documents, literature, administrative reform documents, and expert validation while formulating the framework"), followed by a cognitive mapping of the literature from which the research conclusions are drawn. This approach aims to examine the segmentation and selectiveness of research on urban governance in India and to propose a future roadmap.

However, the methodological section of the paper only discusses bibliometric analysis and does not address ontology generation. In this regard, we believe that the methodology section needs to be rewritten to accurately include the phases of article development: ontology development, bibliographic analysis, cognitive mapping (Monad Map), and theme identification. A graphical scheme would aid in understanding the phases and their outputs.

Results Section:

The results section should be divided into three parts: the ontology, the bibliographic analysis of scientific literature, and the integration of scientific literature with the ontology (Monad Map).

Discussion and Further Considerations:

It should be noted that the ontology has been generated from diverse documentation, as you have mentioned. However, the bibliographic analysis undoubtedly reveals issues that could complete the ontology. Therefore, in the discussion section, it would be beneficial to refer to those concepts that have been investigated and were not initially considered in the ontology. Your research is innovative and always provides evidence that can enhance the ontological development of a theme.

Additionally, the study period of the literature (2018-2020) is quite limited, making the findings somewhat outdated. If feasible, it would be interesting to update these to include findings up to 2023.

We believe that addressing these points will greatly enhance the clarity and impact of your work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduced changes have substantially improved the article.  Congratulations.