CLLD in the 2014–2020 EU Programming Period: An Innovative Framework for Local Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is important for socio-economic development, the most important dimension of which is local development. Therefore, there is definitely no basis for the analysis undertaken in the theory of local development and in numerous studies conducted in the field of local development, the activity of local communities and self-government, and LAGs.

This paper is good but lacking literature/references. You can use those keywords to search relevant references: local delvelopment, local actions, local government activity, local society activeness, self-government  activeness, leader programme

I recommend to cite following publications:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169123

http://rs.unitbv.ro/BU2013/2014/Series_V/BULETIN%20V/III-01_ALBU-CHITU.pdf

https://www.economics-sociology.eu/files/4I_1001_Guzal-Dec_Zbucki.pdf

https://rnseria.com/resources/html/article/details?id=194238&language=en

The methods are relevant. The results were presented in a legible way, but one table requires minor correction: Table 3. Urban CLLD LAGs in 2014-20 - there is no information what kind of data is in the table: numbers, percentages or other. I guess there is the number of LAGs, but it is not clear from the title (the table is not very precise in terms of description)

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. We have included reference to local development, rewrote the parts that were too similar to a previous publication and changed the title of the diagram.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study presents actual and really useful results related to rural development. The content is valuable, and the findings are good. However, the reviewer strongly lacks a scientific research framework. The construction of the chapters is also completely different from the usual structure of the journal. The scientific readership would also miss the hypothesis, literature review, methodology, and discussion. Thus, I recommend the article for a major revision.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. We have changed the structure and aligned it more closely to the usual structure, and added more academic references

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, read joined file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. We have rephrased the section on the urban dimension and explained CBC AT-IT

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer accepts the corrections and improvements.

Author Response

Comments made by the academic editor have been included