A Deep Transfer Learning Toponym Extraction and Geospatial Clustering Framework for Investigating Scenic Spots as Cognitive Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this manuscript is interesting and solid, attempting to explore the human cognitive region of its famous scenic spots with deep transfer learning toponym extraction and geospatial clustering techniques. Here are some comments.

1. It would be better to add more details in terms of methods and data. For exmaple, for the tourism text note data, how do you get the true tourist attraction name label for each note? Does every note have a labelled attraction name by the user? Or you assign the tourism name label based on the geolocation of the note? If the true tourism name is set by the user, can user have set multiple tourist attraction names for the same text note? Or if you assign the label based on location, does every note has the geolocation data?

Author Response

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the study provides a well-organized analysis of the perception of toponyms through social media data in the case area of China. The content of the study, analysis procedure, and methodology are well-structured, and the interpretation of results for the case area is appropriate. However, some parts need to be refined, and Section 4.4 requires a clearer description

 

Line 52 : Taking the West Lake scenic region as an example, tourists visiting the West Lake scenic region often take pictures and check in at the regions next to the West Lake, such as the Huawai Tongwu scenic region, which is located on the west side of the West Lake scenic region but is not well known.

-> As a reader, it may be difficult to fully comprehend the situation being described in the paper due to the sudden introduction of the Chinese study area. While the authors intend to emphasize the methodology, the West Lake Scenic Region in China was used as a case study to demonstrate the validity of the concept. Thus, providing a brief background explanation before delving into the details would help readers better understand the context and purpose of the study

 

Figures 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 : The letters in Figures 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 appear to be too small to be clearly identified. It may be beneficial for the authors to increase the font size in these figures to enhance readability and ensure that the information conveyed is easily discernible.

 

Line 238 : The path score consists of state scores and 238 transition scores

-> While explaining Equation (2), the authors state that the path score is comprised of state scores and transition scores, and Formula (2) is expressed as Si= EmissionScore + TransitionScore. It is unclear what is meant by the term 'EmissionScore' as it is not defined in the text. Therefore, it would be helpful if the authors could clarify the distinction between state scores and EmissionScore to help readers better understand the concept

 

Line 255 :

-> The authors mention using the CLUENER2020 dataset, however, they do not provide any explanation or description of the dataset. It would be useful if the authors could provide a brief overview of the CLUENER2020 dataset to help readers better understand the data used in the study.

 

Figure 3 : What are the units for the x-axis and y-axis?

 

Line 412 ~ line 420 :

-> The authors state that a chi-shape algorithm was used to extract place names from social media data, and a perceptional vague region was derived by comparing these names with the TAZ region. However, to improve clarity, it would be helpful if the authors could provide a more detailed explanation of how the chi-shape area, the boundary of the TAZ area, and the intersect results were derived step by step. This would allow readers to better understand the process leading to the mapped representation shown in Figure 5.

 

Line 417 : Through spatial overlay analysis, feature transformation, and other operations, we finally generate TAZ (Traffic Analysis Zone) regions for tourism attractions

-> The authors mention deriving TAZ results, but it is unclear what these results are or how they relate to the study. It would be beneficial if the authors could provide more information about the TAZ results and perhaps display the results on a map to aid in visualizing the spatial relationships

 

Line 418: Finally, we intersect the chi-shape regions with the TAZ regions to obtain the final result, shown in Figure 5

-> Upon comparing Figure 4 and Figure 5, it is unclear how the authors were able to derive the same shape in Figure 5 using any method. It would be helpful if the authors could provide a more detailed explanation of the overlay analysis performed to create Figure 5 in order to better understand how the results were obtained

 

Line 419: The union region of orange and yellow represents the TAZ region, and the light yellow region represents the vague cognitive region of the tourism attraction.

-> The analysis methodology used to generate Figure 5 is not clearly explained, and the lack of a legend on the map makes it difficult to interpret. Specifically, it is unclear whether orange, yellow, and light yellow represent different regions or different levels of intensity. Additionally, the authors refer to the light yellow region as a 'vague cognitive region' without providing a clear definition of what is meant by 'vague.' To improve clarity, it would be helpful to provide a legend for the map, including an explanation of the color-coding scheme used. Furthermore, Figure 4 and Figure 5 should be displayed on the same map scale to better facilitate comparison.

 

Line 500 :

-> The authors mention "4A-level tourist attraction in China" without providing a clear explanation of the grading system used. It would be helpful to provide additional context and explanation for readers who may not be familiar with the Chinese tourist industry.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on our paper. We have responded to each of your suggestions point by point in word.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

A solid work that will be of interest to a wide range of disciplines including geography, transportation, tourism, economics and environment.

Author Response

A solid work that will be of interest to a wide range of disciplines including geography, transportation, tourism, economics and environment.

Response：We are very grateful for your recognition of our article, and we have indeed done some exploration in using tourist place names to extract people's scenic perception areas.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript proposes a new method for spatial clustering of information using tourist attraction information. The topic is worthy of research; however, a major revision of the manuscript is needed. In the current state of the document, it is not in the format requested by the journal. The manuscript is well written, but it will need more scientific rigor. The manuscript has several major comments/changes that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

General comments

C1. The main concern is that the novelty of the research is not fully clear. If such novelty is not clearly highlighted, the risk is that the manuscript looks more a simple case study rather than a research paper.

C2. All sections of the manuscript are very complicated to understand, it is important to improve the syntax.

C3. What are the major contributions of this study? should be carefully mentioned in the discussion section.

C4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study?

C5. Authors could also emphasize particular strengths and limitations of the study for potential applications of their method in other regions. Add a section on strengths and limitations.

C6. There is a lack of a section on discussion, where a real comparison to other researchers of your results. It is necessary to carry out a thorough comparison, I recommend to include some relevant references, in order to improve the discussion on the novelty of your study, comparing to the others.

*The answer to these questions should be reflected in the manuscript.*

Specific comments

Line 49: Tourist value only? include others such as cultural, historical, etc.

Line 52: Where is "the West Lake scenic region" located? For international readers, it is important to provide more information about the geographic region, where it is located, add more data.

Line 67: What are these previous investigations? Include relevant references.

Line 68: Place relevant references on the model.

Line 68: To ensure repeatability, please provide in which software the model was implemented, operating system, model calibration, among other relevant details.

Line 81: The reference number is missing.

Line 82: The reference number is missing.

Line 83: From reference "[5]" (line 63), it jumps to reference "[33]", it is important to rearrange the reference numbering. See the guide for authors.

Line 71-84: This section appears to be Materials and Methods and not the introduction section, it is important to edit this in the manuscript.

Line 85-94: This section shows results. Edit.

Line 119-121: Please add references to support this idea.

Line 199: Please add a section on the study area. Description of the study area (demographic and other data), as well as a map of the study area.

Line 127-128: And what did you find?

Line 132: It is the first time the term "NER" is mentioned, write in full and abbreviate when it is the first time. Edit this throughout the manuscript.

Line 204: The image is of very poor quality, improvement is needed.

Line 248-252: Please provide link or website of the dataset.

Line 546-651: The references section is not in the style requested by the Journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on our paper. We have responded to each of your suggestions point by point in word.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It appears that all the issues raised during the first round of paper review have been successfully addressed. Thank you for your hard work in revising the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your approval of our paper revisions. We have checked the full text again and found some errors in English and formatting, which we have also corrected. Thanks again！