OTHER: Please adjust as required:
1. The introduction does not sufficiently articulate the specific research gaps in the context of existing smart city indices.
2. While it identifies broad limitations in standardized metrics, it does not clearly explain how this study uniquely addresses these limitations.
3. What are the theoretical research gaps related to measuring the socio-economic legacies in Eastern Europe? What are the significance of addressing these gaps?
4. There is a need to incorporate more studies on smart city indices and urban development to strengthen the theoretical grounding for this study.
5. There is no explicit discussion of the criteria used to select the cities included in the comparative analysis, which could affect the perceived representativeness of the sample.
6. A suggestion is to provide the rationale for city selection, addressing why these eight cities were included and whether they represent the broader European urban landscape.
7. The study also lacked information on the data collection process, its scoring methodologies and validation techniques for the benchmark figures, the tables.
The data sources and methodologies for benchmarking (e.g., how scores were calculated or aggregated) are insufficiently detailed, leaving questions about replicability. The discussion lacks depth in interpreting the results, particularly regarding the implications of specific metrics for urban policy and development.
8. The practical applicability of the model remains unclear. For example, it is not evident how cities or policymakers would operationalize the proposed metrics.
9. What is the rationale for the weighting of the model components (e.g., 20% for economic transition)?
10. The Discussion was very under-developed with not specific theoretical implications, specific policies and recommendations for policy makers or urban planners. Future research directions are mentioned vaguely, without identifying concrete areas for further exploration.
Add as many sources as needed. Use the attached file NNikolov_PAPER IJEM (2) and work on it!
Comments from Customer
PREVIOUS PAPER INSTRUCTIONS (#611504748): OTHER: Please adjust as required:
1. The introduction does not sufficiently articulate the specific research gaps in the context of existing smart city indices.
2. While it identifies broad limitations in standardized metrics, it does not clearly explain how this study uniquely addresses these limitations.
3. What are the theoretical research gaps related to measuring the socio-economic legacies in Eastern Europe? What are the significance of addressing these gaps?
4. There is a need to incorporate more studies on smart city indices and urban development to strengthen the theoretical grounding for this study.
5. There is no explicit discussion of the criteria used to select the cities included in the comparative analysis, which could affect the perceived representativeness of the sample.
6. A suggestion is to provide the rationale for city selection, addressing why these eight cities were included and whether they represent the broader European urban landscape.
7. The study also lacked information on the data collection process, its scoring methodologies and validation techniques for the benchmark figures, the tables.
The data sources and methodologies for benchmarking (e.g., how scores were calculated or aggregated) are insufficiently detailed, leaving questions about replicability. The discussion lacks depth in interpreting the results, particularly regarding the implications of specific metrics for urban policy and development.
8. The practical applicability of the model remains unclear. For example, it is not evident how cities or policymakers would operationalize the proposed metrics.
9. What is the rationale for the weighting of the model components (e.g., 20% for economic transition)?
10. The Discussion was very under-developed with not specific theoretical implications, specific policies and recommendations for policy makers or urban planners. Future research directions are mentioned vaguely, without identifying concrete areas for further exploration.
Add as many sources as needed. Use the attached file NNikolov_PAPER IJEM (2) and work on it!
COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS ORDER: PREVIOUS PAPER INSTRUCTIONS (#576004470): You can make a comparison between several cities – according to population, for example. To see how it is composed rating according to the other indices for the cities. Then to propose an adapted model for an smart index of European cities considering the eastern europe economiecs and other factors to be taken into consideration. To describe this model step by step, it is also possible to include in the model some criterion that was not considered in the basic smart indices. It is necessary to make such a model, because in the global base the indexation is done for the whole world, and we cannot compare, for example, Sofia and Singapore.
The model itself should be presented as layout . There should also be tables with data for comparison and other analysis. I am attaching the template for the article.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|