Analysis of the Evolution of the Policy of Linking the Increase and Decrease in Urban and Rural Construction Land in China Based on the Content Analysis Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, I believe that the presented text of the paper has not yet been developed to the point where it can be recommended for publication in a scientific journal of global scope with an Impact Factor. The main point is that :

1) There is no clear indication of the purpose of the research, which would be relevant to an international readership;

2) Most importantly, the policy under consideration is not presented by the authors in a way that is clear and understandable to an international reader. It is not really clear what this "Policy of Linking Increase and Decrease of Urban and Rural Construction Land in China" is about. Without an understanding of this policy, it is difficult to assess the usefulness of this research from an international perspective. 

3) In the context of the above, the quantitative research methodology adopted based on the 'content analysis method' loses its scientific (objective) character acquiring only apparent usefulness. In any case, the content analysis method becomes controversial with apparent usefulness, which does not bring original content elements as a result of the research carried out. 

4) Conclusions and recommendations are somewhat over the top as they are largely not based on the research carried out. Furthermore, the conclusions should identify statements of a utilitarian nature that are of value to the international reader. The paper would then become of international value and could be reconsidered in the journal Land.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editor,
       Thanks for your important comments on this manuscript. The authors appreciate the constructive comments and technical questions provided by the reviewer. Those comments have been very helpful for the authors to improve the quality of this manuscript. The authors tried to answer the questions in this revision and improve the quality of this paper. The point-to-point responses to the comments by reviewer are listed one by one. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good evening, the file contains some comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editor,
       Thanks for your important comments on this manuscript. The authors appreciate the constructive comments and technical questions provided by the reviewer. Those comments have been very helpful for the authors to improve the quality of this manuscript. The authors tried to answer the questions in this revision and improve the quality of this paper. The point-to-point responses to the comments by reviewer are listed one by one. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting analysis, which takes into account several elements.

The abstract provides information that could be better structured. I recommend a restructuring of the abstract so that the components of the research (study) are reproduced. It's too elusive. The subject is very interesting and can be rendered much more clearly.

The introduction is clear, it provides a lot of information from the specialized literature that provided support to the research in order to obtain the results.

The methodology is very clear, but it may require a broader explanation for each of the parties. For example. 2.5. Text frequency statistics, the method of collection and interpretation is shown, but an additional explanation is also needed.

The results provide sufficient information, as does the Discussions and recommendations section.

Overall, it is an interesting research, but it needs wider (extended) methodological explanations.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editor,
       Thanks for your important comments on this manuscript. The authors appreciate the constructive comments and technical questions provided by the reviewer. Those comments have been very helpful for the authors to improve the quality of this manuscript. The authors tried to answer the questions in this revision and improve the quality of this paper. The point-to-point responses to the comments by reviewer are listed one by one. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes an analysis of the policies linked to the increase and decrease in rural construction land in Chine, using the content analysis method.

The paper has some weaknesses that need to be improved. In the following some suggestions:

 ·      Lines 11-12: It is written “in my country” and “of my country” but the authors of the paper are three people. I suggest using the word “China”.

 ·      Lines 61-62-63 and others: there are some typos about the references [1011], [1314], [1516] instead of [10, 11], [13, 14], [15, 16]. But these are only some examples: check typos in the paper.

 ·      Pragraph “2.1. Content analysis”: many papers have been published about content analysis in urban studies. The authors present no literature review on this topic, describing what the method consists of, what cases the method has been used for, and how it has already been used. The literature in the paper refers almost exclusively to Chinese authors, whereas references should be made to international studies on the approach of content analysis.

 ·      Line 131: The authors refer to Table 1, but at this point in the paper the Table is not understandable without first introducing what is later reported in lines 140-141. It is suggested that the reference to Table 1 must be deleted here.

 ·      Lines 140-141: It is suggested to better describe the meaning of the “Test Numbering-Specific Clauses/Sections” rule. It is unclear what operation was performed and thus the meaning of the numbers in the “Coding” column of Table 1 and how these numbers were obtained.

 ·      Lines 144-148: Do not just list the 11 keywords but associate meaning with them. For example, what does balance of occupation and compensation mean? or reasonable planning? or linkage procedure? etc. It is necessary for the reader, not necessarily familiar with the Chinese context, to be clear about the meaning of all the terms used.

 ·      Table 2: The keyword column is not readable.

 ·      Table 3, Table 4 and Figure 3 do not have the reference in the text and therefore reading becomes uncomfortable in some cases.

 ·      Figure 2: This figure is not easy to read, and it is suggested that it be replaced with graphs (e.g., histograms, even three-dimensional ones) to highlight the relationship between time periods and policy distribution.

 ·      Paragraph 3.3 Analysis of the evolution of policy content”: This paragraph consists of only text that is very boring for non-Chinese readers. it would be more appropriate to summarize the text and include some graphs able to relate the policies of the three time periods considered in view of the fact that they were activated at the national, provincial, city and county level.

·      Paragraph 4 “Discussion”: This paragraph also presents only text and some graphs capable of expressing the changes that have occurred over time in the keywords that characterize the policies could be useful.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check typos.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editor,
       Thanks for your important comments on this manuscript. The authors appreciate the constructive comments and technical questions provided by the reviewer. Those comments have been very helpful for the authors to improve the quality of this manuscript. The authors tried to answer the questions in this revision and improve the quality of this paper. The point-to-point responses to the comments by reviewer are listed one by one. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The controversies suggested earlier have been somewhat reduced but some doubts remain. However, after the amendments made by the authors, I believe that the reviewed article is eligible for publication in Land

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account my previuos suggestions. I do not have more comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good.