School Buildings in the Urban FABRIC as a Result of 21st-Century Suburbanisation: Case Studies on Two Middle-Sized Towns in the Agglomeration of Budapest, Vác and Dunakeszi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The article entitled "School Buildings in the Urban Fabric as an Effect of 21st Century Suburbanization. Case studies of two small cities in the Budapest metropolitan area," aims to investigate what landscape situations are created between the urban fabric and school buildings as a result of 21st century suburbanization.
After reading the article, I have the following comments and suggestions for improving the article:
Structure of the article
I suggest improving the structure of the article according to the LAND guidelines.
A new numbering of chapters should be introduced
1. Introduction
2. Literature review/theoretical background
3. Materials and methods
4. Results
5. Summary
ABSTRACT
I propose to improve to make it more readable. I propose to improve the abstract according to the journal "LAND". There is no information about the methods used, and the results of the study are not presented.
Introduction
This chapter needs major improvement. Important introductory information related to the development of education in Hungary is missing. I suggest describing education policy and its relation to the research area. In my opinion, it should be expanded to include the following news: why was this study undertaken? What research has been done so far, where? What conclusions have been drawn from these studies. Is this article a continuation of those conclusions, or is it based on your own observations?
Literature review
This section is lacking. It is necessary to review the literature in terms of the subject of the study.
Material and methods
A diagram of the research procedure is missing.
Information about the research area is missing.
Result.
The results are presented and described in a good way, they are very interesting.
Discussion
The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies conducted on this topic in other parts of Europe and the world.
Correct the literature according to the rules of the journal.
In conclusion, I recommend this work for publication in the journal LAND after making significant changes.
Best regards
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion, all answers see please in attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article clearly focuses on exploring and interpreting the distribution and architecture of suburban secondary schools in two cities. However, the authors do so in sociological terms. They have every right to do so; however, they have submitted the article for publication in a typically spatial journal. The journal Land publishes research results from the broader natural sciences that explore and describe space. Therefore, for an article to be published in this journal, it should undergo reorganisation and be revised and completed.
For example, spatial science articles are always structured with an 'Area of Research' section. Here, there is none, apart from the inclusion of any map. The schools studied are only listed in References (in the form of a footnote, No. 10). The authors should add an area of the study section, and there characterise the two towns surveyed (Vác and Dunakeszi), illustrate the distribution of the schools, list them, etc. It would also be useful to have a figure showing the study area against the background of city and national boundaries. This would help the foreign reader easily find the study area's location. The text covering lines 280-295 fits into the "Study area" section.
The “Materials and Methods” section combines a theoretical introduction and minimal information on materials and methods. It needs to be enriched and expanded, mainly the information on the methods used.
The Results section should present the results of the research carried out by the authors. This is not quite the case. Subsections: "3.1 Schools Design and Urban Sprawl"; "3.1.1. School in the urban fabric"; "3.1.2. The landscape of urban sprawl" - are rather introductory to suburbanisation and schooling. They should constitute a new theoretical section. Once reformulated, this text should be removed from Results and placed in a new section after the Introduction section and before “Materials and Methods” or “Materials, Methods and Study area”. What is conspicuously missing from the text is a separate theoretical section presenting the context of schooling in peri-urban areas in broader terms (other examples from Europe and the World).
Subsections: "3.1.3. The Giant villages of Budapest" and "3.1.4. Contemporary processes" are a background, an introduction to the topic of local research, but not the article's results.
The “Discussion” section does not confront and refer to the results of other works (by other authors).
Indeed the text from the line (539-542) should be there? "Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the 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 may also be highlighted."
Minor comments:
Errors in the literature: Notation of items 24 and 25. In addition, the removal of references describing events etc., in the literature and insertion of much of their text into the main text. Re-checking the literature for duplicate, misspelt items.
Author Response
Thanks for suggestions, all the answers see please in attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please look at the attached file (2 Land-2493699-peer-review-v1, Report for Authors).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The manuscript seems to contain grammar and spelling errors and non-native language constructions, which affect its readability. Please consider getting the manuscript checked by a native speaker.
Language quality includes 632 issues in grammar, mechanics and style, readability, and vocabulary issues, as follows:
 Grammar: 293 issues.
 Mechanics and style: 163 issues.
 Readability: 145 issues.
 Vocabulary: 31 issues.
As a result, there are several issues with the language that needs to be revised.
Author Response
Thank for you work, all of my answers see in attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Please, see my file attached for details.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Please, check spelling and grammar before re-submitting.
Author Response
Thanks for suggestions, see detailed in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been revised according to the reviewer's instructions. I have no further comments.
Author Response
Thank your for your replay!
Tamáska Máté
Reviewer 2 Report
Notes
The text requires meticulous review and re-reading. There are still many simple editing errors in the manuscript. These should be eliminated.
Line 210, subtitle "2.3. Contemporary processes" should be made even more specific and developed (so that the reader already knows from the name of this subtitle what the processes described below refer to).
Section "4.1. Study of the area" should be moved from "Results" to section "3. Materials and Methods" (and form a new subsection, e.g. 3.1.). It should be moved because it is not a research result but a description of the research area.
A shortcoming is the figure depicting the study area. It has been handwritten. Nowadays, in the digitisation era and cartographic software development (e.g. free QGIS), such "drawn" maps are not published in Impact Factor journals. This map needs to be prepared again if only with the help of an OpenStreetMap or Google Maps underlay with the city or its areas marked in a GIS or graphics programme.
Similarly, the above objections can also be made to Fig. 3b, including the lack of a legend.
Line 419, Error in numbering "3.2. Vác, the historic school town".
Line 494, 596, 693, Error in numbering
Lines 784-810 - duplication of text from preceding lines
Line 811 - delete completely.
Author Response
Thanks for your suggestions!
I changed the title:
Line 210, subtitle "2.3. Contemporary processes" should be made even more specific and developed (so that the reader already knows from the name of this subtitle what the processes described below refer to).
I replaced it.
Section "4.1. Study of the area" should be moved from "Results" to section "3. Materials and Methods" (and form a new subsection, e.g. 3.1.). It should be moved because it is not a research result but a description of the research area.
I changed with graphics programme
A shortcoming is the figure depicting the study area. It has been handwritten. Nowadays, in the digitisation era and cartographic software development (e.g. free QGIS), such "drawn" maps are not published in Impact Factor journals. This map needs to be prepared again if only with the help of an OpenStreetMap or Google Maps underlay with the city or its areas marked in a GIS or graphics programme.
Similarly, the above objections can also be made to Fig. 3b, including the lack of a legend.
I put new legends.
Line 419, Error in numbering "3.2. Vác, the historic school town".
I changed it.
Line 494, 596, 693, Error in numbering
Lines 784-810 - duplication of text from preceding lines
Line 811 - delete completely.
A deleted them.
Reviewer 4 Report
Please, check spelling and grammar again. I found some gaps within your text and some line gaps from one paragraph to another on some pages.
Lines 687-690: Who are the authors of these sketches? Sketch b is more relevant than (a). There are spelling and grammar mistakes in the caption(s)
Please, check spelling and grammar again. I found some gaps within your text and some line gaps from one paragraph to another on some pages.
Lines 687-690: Who are the authors of these sketches? Sketch b is more relevant than (a). There are spelling and grammar mistakes in the caption(s)
Author Response
Thank your for your replay. We checked the gaps, we put the names of the authors of these sketches.
Spelling and grammar check is in progress.
