PCSY-D-24-00055

Describing Medellín as a complex tropical high Andean urban system

PLOS Complex Systems

Dear Dr. Hoyos,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Complex Systems. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Nov 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at complexsystems@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jingtao Ding, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Jingtao Ding

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Both reviewers expressed a positive view regarding the interesting idea of conducting an interdisciplinary analysis that integrates methods from complex systems theory and urban studies. However, they also highlighted several important issues that require further revision. Specifically, Reviewer 1 expects a more in-depth explanation of the presented results. Reviewer 2 finds the paper lacking in methodological novelty and significant theoretical insight, and suggests expanding the theoretical framework and providing a more comprehensive justification for the methodological choices. Based on these comments, I recommend a major revision of the paper.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?<br/><br/>PLOS Complex Systems does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

5. Review Comments to the Author<br/><br/>Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper presents an analisys of Medellin in terms of a complex system (qualitative and quantitative fractal dimension, spatial entropy and fluid cartograms). Some results are quite interesting but need further discussion.

I would expect a deeper explanation of what do the authors define as qualitative vs quantitative fractality. and how are they going to measure/prove the qualitative fractality? Particularly, the qualitative analysis should be very-well explained in order to be reproducible (and to "provide an analytical framework for conceptualizing the organic urban landscape and functionality", as they state in the last sentence of the conclusions)

In the introduction, when defining the planned city (lines 30-33), the social ranking in 6 strata is particular of Colombia and cannot be generalized for other cities in the world (therefore it's not completely true). I don't think it should go in the introduction but in the context of the city of Medellin. Similar to this phrase there are other assumptions that are only valid for Medellín, Colombian cities or cities in developing countries, but the authors should emphasize when one of their aurguments is general and when is only valid in some cases.

I found somehow arbitrary the election of San Juan Avenue as one of the axis of the Cartesian plane proposed to analyze the city (in page 8). Why this particular avenue? Is there any particular reason? Why don't you use the Santa Elena and Iguaná streams? I ask this, because in Fig2 the cartesian plane is not highlighted or clearly spotted, and one can see those streams equally important to divide the city as the San Juan Av.

The emerging fractals proposed in caption of Fig2 are not clear. Where are them? how do you identify them? why are they fractal? How can one reader reproduce this analysis in the same or another city?

The analysis of the clusters found in the dendogram of fractal dimension of the proposed urban variables is very interesting.

The spatial entropy measure proposed is also sound and interesting. What is A and a_i? (I can infer it, but for the inexpert reader please define it within the paper). What area size do you use to measure this H(x_i; a_i)? (16 administrative units?) Does changing the area size would change the spatial entropy? could you discuss about it?

Figure 6 is an interesting result, but it would be worth explaining further how the fluid cartograms were constructed, and the references of the data sources from where the variables of interest were taken.

Minor revisions:

Some paragraphs are not easily readable (understandable). Please do some proofreading.

References:

i) many of the references are reports (gray literature) in Spanish (which are not fully accesible to all readers interested). I know many of them are relevant, but references should lean more toward peer-reviewed literature.

ii) References [43] and [48] are the same!

iii) References [15] in line 75 and [60] in line 446 are missplaced or do not support enough what the authors claim. Maybe they can explain further the inclusion of such references.

Quality of S2 Fig. is very bad. I could not read it well. Also quality of S3 Fig can be improved.

Conclusion:

The idea of this paper is very interesting, promising and it matches perfectly the scope of this journal, but the paper lacks the quality for being published as it is. However, I encourage the authors to keep on improving it as it has the potential after some revisions.

Reviewer #2: This research investigates the urban complexity of Medellín, Colombia, using fractal geometry and spatial entropy. These methods describe urban state variables' spatial distribution and organization, such as infrastructure and mobility patterns. The authors quantify deviations from the equilibrium by visualizing these complexities through fluid cartograms to highlight the contrasts between different city areas. The findings try to answer the tension between the organic growth and the planned development of Medellín.

The paper is generally well-structured and logically organized. The writing style is appropriate for an academic audience. The images are clear and effectively support the arguments. The study utilizes public datasets from the Medellín city government and includes processed data in the supplementary material.

Without significant modifications of existing methods, this paper applies fractal analysis and spatial entropy to the city of Medellín and fails to provide new insights into either the unique urban context or the mechanism or dynamics of the phenomena. Although it is an interdisciplinary study that integrates methods from complex systems theory and urban studies, this paper provides only limited theoretical insight. Requires major revisions to match the journal's publication requirements.

1. What new theoretical insights or conceptual contributions does this paper make beyond applying established methods to a different geographical context?

2. How does the described tension between the organic and the planned growth relate to the fractal analysis and region imbalances? Does it mean that organic growth brings about fractals/imbalance? Or does the competition mechanism between the two lead to the fractals/imbalance observed?

3. In Line 219, the authors discussed urban qualitative fractals. How does the author identify fractals and self-organization from land use maps? Could it be a rather simple similarity?

4. In Lines 263-285, the authors clustered the fractal dimensions of different urban states. Are the 3 categories related to the tension between organic and planned? Does it mean the "planned" urban state is closer to a low fractal dimension? And why?

5. In Figure 5, bike paths show remarkably smaller spatial entropy. Is there any possible explanation? Especially compared with public transportation routes that also have “restricted spatial distribution”.

6. What insights does the analysis of spatial entropy make beyond the inhomogeneity of different regions? Are properties of entropy, such as extensivity, or relevance to thermodynamic processes, meaningful in the research? Can other measures like Moran's I be used to identify the inhomogeneous spatial distribution?

7. The related work section could benefit from a more comprehensive review that discusses the limitations of previous studies in more detail.

8. How does the use of fractal analysis and spatial entropy specifically advance our understanding of Medellín, compared to other potential complexity methods, for example, the network dynamics?

The paper lacks methodological novelty and significant theoretical insight, primarily applying existing methods to a new geographical context without sufficient justification. While the results are visually compelling and relevant to the context of Medellín, the contribution is mainly contextual rather than advancing broader scientific understanding or offering novel approaches. Given these limitations, I recommend a "Major Revision," suggesting that the authors consider expanding the theoretical framework and justifying their methodological choices more comprehensively.

--------------------

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

--------------------

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PCSY-D-24-00055R1

Describing Medellín as a complex tropical high Andean urban system

PLOS Complex Systems

Dear Dr. Hoyos,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Complex Systems. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Feb 22 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at complexsystems@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jingtao Ding, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Jingtao Ding

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Hocine Cherifi

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Complex Systems

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript, and the paper is now much stronger. Reviewer-2's recommendation for acceptance is noted. However, there are still two points raised by Reviewer-1 that I feel have not been fully addressed:

1. The reproducibility of qualitative analysis of fractality (first comment)

2. The reproducibility of emerging fractals in Figure 2 (fourth comment)

I suggest that the authors provide a detailed description of the analysis (and code if applied) for them.

Given these remaining points, I suggest a minor revision. Once these issues are addressed, the paper should be in a strong position for acceptance.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Complex Systems does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the authors' efforts in revising the article. While I am still not fully satisfied, I acknowledge and agree with their response regarding the innovative aspects of the article. The following suggestions aim to further improve the quality of the article:

1. Enhancing the Description of Qualitative Fractals: The current explanation of qualitative fractals remains insufficient. While the concept can be intuitively understood, the inclusion of schematic diagrams or referenced examples of fractal and non-fractal cases would significantly enhance both comprehensibility and reproducibility.

2. Clarifying the Use of "Dynamic": The term "dynamic" appears frequently throughout the article, often in the context of describing Medellín's urban life. However, this usage may lead to confusion, as it implies a connection to a dynamic system in the physical sense. To avoid potential misunderstandings, it would be helpful to carefully select words that more accurately reflect the intended meaning within the scope of the analysis.

3. Discussing Fractal Dimensions and Urban Planning: The authors’ response about the "planned" city having fractal dimensions close to 2 raises an interesting point worth further exploration. Since measurements embedded in 2D Euclidean space inherently yield fractal dimensions less than 2, it would be valuable to discuss how urban planning concepts relate to this limitation. Highlighting the interplay between the constraints of fractal dimensions and urban planning methodologies could attract greater attention from urban planners.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Describing Medellín as a complex tropical high Andean urban system

PCSY-D-24-00055R2

Dear Dr. Hoyos,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Describing Medellín as a complex tropical high Andean urban system' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Complex Systems.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact complexsystems@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Complex Systems.

Best regards,

Jingtao Ding, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Hocine Cherifi

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Complex Systems

***********************************************************

No further revision required.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):