Identifying Land Use Functions in Five New First-Tier Cities Based on Multi-Source Big Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. English should be modified by a native speaker. The description in the paper should be more objective instead of subjective. Some minor error appeared, for example some referenced figure in the content, also the logic in some words confusing.
2. The content of technical procedures can be refined, a little bit detail now; there should be more scientific description in the paper.
3. The weight of POI should be explained in detail. In table 3 and 4, no fields name given. The meaning of floor space and functional influence, the relationship between them, should be described.
4. The origin of equations in line 229, 230,273?
Comments on the Quality of English Language1.The description in the paper should be more objective instead of subjective. for example, "Thanks to the high-speed development of the economy driven by reform and open policy, China has achieved the world's largest urbanization"
2.Some minor error appeared, for example some referenced figure in the content, also the logic in some words confusing. for example, "Through the algorithm of TF-IDF this algorithm calculates and statistically finds out which type of POI data in the independent parcel units has the largest TF-IDF value, which means that this type of POI is the most important and also represents the dominant function of the parcel unit"
Author Response
We have made substantial modifications according to your valuable suggestions and comments. We hope that the responses and corresponding actions have clearly answered your comments and meanwhile enhanced the paper content.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Very interesting research. The adopted methodology is logical, and its description is quite precise. However, I have a few comments that should be taken into account to strengthen the scientific character of the manuscript. Here are the key substantive issues that need to be clarified:
1. There is a lack of research purpose in both the abstract and the introduction. The introduction lacks a research hypothesis/thesis that is tested during scientific proof.
2. In the description of the research area, there is a lack of visualization of the locations of cities within the country. This is essential for readers outside of China.
3. A big plus for choosing OSM. OSM is often an underestimated source of spatial data by researchers. It is worth emphasizing in the article that it is a sufficiently precise data source for research, even at the level of cadastral parcels, as demonstrated by: Kulawiak, M., Dawidowicz, A., & Pacholczyk, M. E. (2019). Analysis of server-side and client-side Web-GIS data processing methods on the example of JTS and JSTS using open data from OSM and geoportal. Computers & Geosciences, 129, 26-37.
Brovelli, M. A., & Zamboni, G. (2018). A new method for the assessment of spatial accuracy and completeness of OpenStreetMap building footprints. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(8), 289.
4. Please explain in the text on what basis buffers around roads of different categories were determined. Did the authors refer to a buffer or rather the width of the road?
5. Please explain in the text whether, after the reclassification of POIs, the authors obtained a comprehensive classification list for studying the functionality of areas in all cities worldwide or rather tailored to the research area?
6. There is a lack of discussion on identified main functions in cities. Primarily, the discussion of the achieved results should relate to the planning strategies adopted by cities and their differences. Do these differences result in variations in functional arrangements? There is also a lack of discussion in the area of comparability of the achieved results with the results of other scientific studies, especially those cited by the authors in the introduction.
Several technical comments:
1. Keywords should not be the same as in the title. Don't waste valuable space on repetitions.
2. VSM - explain the acronym.
Author Response
We have made substantial modifications according to your valuable suggestions and comments. We hope that the responses and corresponding actions have clearly answered your comments and meanwhile enhanced the paper content.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the manuscript is actual and the methodology is also justified.
The five new first-tier cities should be better presented for the sake of the global reader, and the related map of China as a whole should be presented at the beginning of the manuscript.
The authors write relatively little about the accuracy and actuality of OSM and POI data and about their limitations. How exactly did the authors verify them?
The authors should describe in more detail how the TF-IDF algorithm is used and its benefits in identifying urban land-use functions. How valid do you think your results are for other Chinese cities?
The study does not examine to what extent the urbanisation characteristics and urban land-use functions presented can be generalised in other cultural or geographical contexts in China (or maybe outside China). A little more could be written about this.
The authors mention some research limitations, but the scope could be expanded to get a complete picture of the limitations of the study.
Maps and diagrams are basically well-edited, but they should be enlarged to make them more visible.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript is mostly correct linguistically and stylistically. In some cases, however, authors use sentences that are too long, which should be simplified.
Author Response
We have made substantial modifications according to your valuable suggestions and comments. We hope that the responses and corresponding actions have clearly answered your comments and meanwhile enhanced the paper content.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback, which have helped to improve the comprehensiveness of the manuscript. We are delighted to hear that you believe this article is acceptable. Once again, we are grateful for your thorough reading and thoughtful consideration of the previous version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all my comments. Above all, the introduction has been strengthened and a proper scientific discussion has been constructed. The article has significantly improved in quality. I recommend the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback, which have helped to improve the comprehensiveness of the manuscript. We are delighted to hear that you believe this article is acceptable. Once again, we are grateful for your thorough reading and thoughtful consideration of the previous version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved.
Below I respond to some of your comments.
"Comparison with previous studies reveals relatively consistent identification results for land use functions in these five cities [50]-[54]". Here it would be worthwhile to specify in more detail what relevant results you have in your present study, and what results previous studies have, and to what extent and how they match.
"However, we have not yet reached a definitive conclusion on to what extent it is", then it would be worth mentioning a little more on why you have not reached a definitive conclusion yet. For example, what else is missing to generalize your research to other cultural or geographical contexts? Or perhaps could you describe what methods or data sources you would use for this mentioned generalization if you had them available?
The layout in the manuscript is sometimes incorrect, so care must be taken to ensure that there are no page breaks between the illustrations and the titles of the illustrations.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript reads relatively well.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback, which have helped to improve the comprehensiveness of the manuscript. We have made every effort to further refine the manuscript and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
