Regarding Smart Cities in China, the North and Emerging Economies—One Size Does Not Fit All

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has tackled a very interesting and important topic. However, I recommend some improvements that may give more scientific relevance to the article. In this line, the following aspects can be improved:

1. The sections are not numbered, so I recommend you to follow the mdpi template.
2. There are no keywords, I recommend you to include 5 keywords.
3. There is no introduction, you start directly with the method section, but the method is not defined and developed, so I suggest you to name the first section Introduction and to introduce a specific and concise section of the research method.
4. It is not a usual scientific practice to use quotes (line 9 before the abstract). If the quotation is of interest to the manuscript it should be referenced in the text.
5. The title is too generalist; you should specify that it focuses on the Chinese model. It must also be simplified and restructured orthographically avoiding double use of the colon.
6. The acronym for internet of things commonly used is IoT and not IofT.
7. Despite using the IoT acronym at the beginning, internet of things is still used throughout the document. I recommend to use the acronym in those cases (lines 44, 45, 58, 65, 80, 265, 267, 268, etc. ..)
8. Tables and figures should be referenced in the text. For example, table 1 is not introduce or specified during the text. In addition, Figure 1 should be removed as it adds little value to the manuscript.
9. The internet of things subsection within the The internet of things section is unnecessary, since there is only one sentence in it. There are also too many subsections, the text should be cohesive or the subsections simplified by expanding content.
10. On line 48, the bibliographic reference of the citation indicated should be inserted.
11. Some paragraphs require revision of style, since they are poorly readable. For example, on line 70 in the Big data subsection, there is only one point in the entire paragraph. Similarly, the double use of which on the same line in the last paragraph of the abstract.
12. Please define R on line 98 in the Urban Informatics / Analytics subsection.
13. On line 138 of the subsection Why China?, SDG appears but is not defined until the following subsection Making Sense of Chinese Urbanization on line 146.
14. On line 142, (If the new (potential) insights offered by urban informatics can help in that, then that is something that needs further research), the starting hypothesis should be specified and developed.
15. In line 145 in the subsection Why China?, it is stated that “Everywhere throughout academic literature about urban issues there is an obvious preponderance of articles are about China. That is an undeniable trend that cannot ignored”.  I recommend that this statement be justified with bibliographical references.
16. There are too many paraphrases in the text that should be replaced with bibliographical references without paraphrasing (lines 53, 180, 220, 260, and 388).
17. Reference 17 should be replaced by some scientific study.
18. In line 186, the bibliographical reference of the book should be inserted and the name of the book deleted from the text (A recent book entitled 'Big data support of urban planning and management : the experience in China). In addition, there are many scientific articles in the literature relating to the use of mobile devices and human mobility that could be provided.
19. Rewrite the title of the subsection One indicator of sustainability is urban air quality, or it could even be deleted as it is unnecessary.
20. Subsections of the conclusions should be deleted

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

As a "perspective" piece, this paper is interesting and acceptable. It should be improved along these lines: 

1. The Paper starts with Methods. Shouldn't it start with an Introduction?
2. The Methods should be elaborated in details. sources of the literature? from when to when? how are they collected and analysed?
3. There are numerous subheadings, nearly one subheading for one paragraph. simply too many and confusing. Why don't you put these subheadings in a sort of topic sentences of the paragraphs, and consolidate several paragraphs under one larger umbrella subheadings.
4. The pick of China is fair enough given the urbanisation and smart cities there. However, not many literatures have been published on smart cities in China. Here is a latest one that is worth consulting in the paper, and addresses several similar questions to this paper: Richard HU (2019) 'The state of smart cities in China: The case of Shenzhen', Energies, 12(22): 4375. 

good luck. This is an informative piece. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations for the work done. The responses to comment 6 and 7 do not match the suggestions I made, but I have verified in the manuscript that the suggested changes have been made. In general, the manuscript has improved its scientific format.

Just a few small comments:

Please check the justification of the text in the added paragraphs.

I would reconsider the paraphrasing, it is not frequent in scientific papers.

Before the table there is a different typeface (These have been adapted from Annex C (informative) Mapping of indicators to United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)).

Sections 1 and 2 seem to have different line spacing than the other sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx