Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 25, 2022
Decision Letter - Jing Cheng, Editor

PONE-D-22-35291A Study of the Influence of Sports venues on the Intra-City Population Layout based on Multi-Source Data—Taking Xi'an City and Zhengzhou City as ExamplesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 by Mar 31 2023 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jing Cheng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

5. We note that Figures 2-5 and 7 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2-5 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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?

PLOS ONE 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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 #1: This study investigates the influence of sports venues on the Population Layout in two mega cities in china in the year 2020. The paper is neat and well-written and the study is interesting and scientifically sound. However, some minor issues need some attention, including:

1. Lines 9, 300, 301, 354, 395, 396, 419, 422,423, 425, and 427: Please delete the duplicated word of "sports". Otherwise, the authors need to point out clearly what this duplication stands for?!

2. Lines 20-21: "Finally, ... cities". This statement is confusing and NOT clear and better if being rephrased in a straightforwardly meaning.

3. Line 65: "Based on this research". Please clarify (and later rephrase), "this research". refers to the current study, or the cited previous study (28 & 29)?!

4. Line 113: Please delete the duplicated "these".

5. Line 146: "3.3. Research Methodology": Using the terminology of "Research Methodology" is extremely confusing here, especially as a subtitle under the section of "Material and Methods". Alternatively, I strongly suggest using "Statistical Method", instead.

6. Line 345: "This shows". "This" What? Please specify.

7. Line 378: "5.4. Limitations of the Study". This section is to be placed after the Conclusion Section. And please delete "of the Study".

8. Line 379: "At the same time, ...study". Please delete "at the same time".

9. Lines 395, 406, and 411; Please delete the paragraph numbering i.e. (1, 2, and 3).

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and provides a sound understanding of the set objective it outlines in the introduction. The study examined the influence of the distribution of sport venues on the intra-city population layout in Xi’an city and Zhengzhou city. Based on spatial analysis using MGWR, GWR and linear fitting, the study found that the spatial distribution of sport facilities venue is a good indicator of population distribution. While the manuscript is good, it can be further improved and its chances of being published greatly increased if the comments made in my review are carefully considered and the manuscript duly revised.

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Regina Obilie Amoako-Sakyi

**********

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENT_PONE-D-22-35291.docx
Revision 1

Response to Editor Comments

Thanks to the editor's reminder, we added a description of the map to the original manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear PLOS ONE Editorial Board Editors and Reviewers.

Hello!

Thank you very much for your review of "Influence of sports venues on the intra-city population layout based on multi-source data. A case of Xi'an city and Zhengzhou city". We have addressed the reviewer's questions. We have carefully answered the reviewer's questions and made detailed revisions to the paper according to the reviewer's comments, and the revised parts are marked in red with revision status. The answers to the questions raised by the reviewers are as follows.

Point 1: Lines 9, 300, 301, 354, 395, 396, 419, 422,423, 425, and 427: Please delete the duplicated word of "sports". Otherwise, the authors need to point out clearly what this duplication stands for?!

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your suggestion, we checked and found that the duplicate word "sports" appeared in lines 9, 300, 301, 354, 395, 396, 419, 422, 423, 425, 427 and have now deleted the duplicate word.

Point 2: Lines 20-21: "Finally, ... cities". This statement is confusing and NOT clear and better if being rephrased in a straightforwardly meaning.

Response 2: The phrase "Finally, ... cities" has been replaced with "The study emphasizes the need to scientifically plan the layout of sports venues in a targeted way to reasonably promote the sustainable and high-quality development of different regions." in response to your suggestion.

Point 3: Line 65: "Based on this research". Please clarify (and later rephrase), "this research". refers to the current study, or the cited previous study (28 & 29)?!

Response 3: The phrase "Based on this research" has been changed to "Based on current research" to refer to the current study.

Point 4: Line 113: Please delete the duplicated "these".

Response 4: Thank you for your question. After checking, we found a duplicate "these" in line 113 and have removed the duplicate word.

Point 5: Line 146: "3.3. Research Methodology": Using the terminology of "Research Methodology" is extremely confusing here, especially as a subtitle under the section of "Material and Methods". Alternatively, I strongly suggest using "Statistical Method", instead.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. After our discussion and combining your suggestions, we have changed the title of 3.3.

Point 6: Line 345: "This shows". "This" What? Please specify.

Response 6: Thank you for your question. "This shows" in line 345 is expressed through the industry chain.

Point 7: Line 378: "5.4. Limitations of the Study". This section is to be placed after the Conclusion Section. And please delete "of the Study".

Response 7: In response to your suggestion, we have placed line 378, "5.4. Limitations of the Study" after the conclusion section, and deleted "of the Study" and replaced it with "7. Limitations "

Point 8: Line 379: "At the same time, ...study". Please delete "at the same time".

Response 8: In response to your suggestion, "At the same time, . . study" by deleting "at the same time".

Point 9: Lines 395, 406, and 411; Please delete the paragraph numbering i.e. (1, 2, and 3).

Response 9: Paragraph numbers (1, 2, 3) on lines 395, 406 and 411 have been removed as per the suggestion you gave.

Yours sincerely,

Yang Liu

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear PLOS ONE Editorial Board Editors and Reviewers.

Hello!

Thank you very much for your review of "Influence of sports venues on the intra-city population layout based on multi-source data. A case of Xi'an city and Zhengzhou city". We have addressed the reviewer's questions. We have carefully answered the reviewer's questions and made detailed revisions to the paper according to the reviewer's comments, and the revised parts are marked in red with revision status. The answers to the questions raised by the reviewers are as follows.

i. Topic

Point 1: I suggest the topic is modified to read: “Influence of sports venues on the intra-city population layout based on multi-source data. A case of Xi’an city and Zhengzhou city”

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions, we have revised the article in response to your suggestions.

ii. Abstract

Point 1: It will be helpful if the abstract includes a couple of recommendations based on the findings of the study as stated in the abstract section. Furthermore line 9 should be checked for a repetition of the word ‘sports’.

Response 1: Thank you for your careful reading of the study abstract, which begins with the last sentence of the abstract presenting: The study recommends that the layout of sports venues should be planned in a targeted and scientific manner, controlling the increase of sports venues in areas with special functions such as administration, business, tourism and education, while planning more sports venues in other areas appropriately due to needs, and reasonably promoting the sustainable and high-quality development of different areas; After checking the ninth line there is a duplicate of "sports", and the duplicate word was deleted.

iii. Introduction

Point 1: The introduction is well written.

Response 1: Thank you for your recognition and compliments!

iv. Materials and methods

It will be good if authors could respond to the following issues and make them clearer in the materials and methods section of the manuscript:

Point 1: Kindly clarify the paragraph (line 104 to 108) in terms of the two sets of data used for the study. Why was there a need for the second dataset (data from the Public Information website)

Response 1: Thank you for your question, first of all, POI data is a kind of emerging open data, in order to improve the scientific nature of the study, we used the more reliable Sports Authority website to verify the data; at the same time, we re-examined the original manuscript and deleted the inappropriate words, and now the paragraph is as follows: The POI data for sports venues in Xi'an and Zhengzhou in the study were obtained from Baidu Map. These data include basic information such as the name, address, and geographic coordinates. After data cleaning, the number of sports venues in the two cities was obtained by combining the public information from the websites of the Xi'an and Zhengzhou Sports Bureaus: 12,316 and 14,972, respectively.

Point 2: There should be consistency in the use of ‘inner city’ or ‘intra-city’ which seems to be used interchangeably in the manuscript.

Response 2: We have carefully read the original manuscript and standardized its language, using the term "intra-city".

Point 3: Line 128, how do you convert .tiff data to vector and extract the built-up area? Was there no image classification done? An explanation of the process will do.

Response 3: The process of converting .tiff data into vector data is tedious and not the focus of this paper, so the process is explained as follows: using Landsat TM/ETM/OLI remote sensing images as the main data source, after image fusion, geometric correction, image enhancement and stitching, the national land use types are classified into 6 primary classes, 25 secondary classes and some tertiary classes by human-computer interaction visual interpretation. The land use data are classified into 6 primary categories, 25 secondary categories and some tertiary categories.

Point 4: At line 146, I would suggest you use the caption: data analysis.

Response 4: We have changed "Research Methodology" to "Data Analysis" in response to your suggestion.

Point 5: Which analytical software was used in this study?

Response 5: In this study, ENVI5.3 and ArcGIS10.6 were used in the data pre-processing stage, ArcGIS10.6 was used for the kernel density estimation method, and MGWR2.2 was used for the multi-scale geo-weighted regression.

Point 6: In the introduction and abstract, you mention the use of OLS and Linear fitting as part of the analytical tool used in your study, however, it has not been explained in your data analysis section.

Response 6: In this study, OLS, GWR and MGWR were used in doing regression analysis to obtain their regression parameters R2, AICc and residual sum of squares respectively and to compare the obtained parameters, it was concluded that MGWR was more suitable for this study, so OLS, GWR and MGWR were used, while only the results of MGWR were needed in the analysis part.

v. Results

Point 1: Unfortunately, authors failed to mention that they run correlation analysis in their write up at the data analysis section even though this is mentioned and discussed at the results section.

Response 1: Thank you for raising this issue and we have added a correlation analysis to the data analysis section as follows:

3.3.2. Pearson Correlation Analysis

Pearson correlation refers to the simple linear correlation between random variables X and Y whose joint distribution obeys a two-dimensional normal distribution. The correlation between X and Y is represented by the simple correlation coefficient r. The Pearson correlation coefficient is used to measure whether the two data sets are on a straight line and is calculated as follows [33]:

(5)

The value of Pearson correlation coefficient ranges from [-1, 1], when r=0, it means there is no linear relationship between the two; when r>0, there is a certain linear positive relationship between the two, which means X has a certain positive relationship to Y, and the opposite is negative.

Point 2: Again, the scatter plots show a normal relationship than a correlation analysis. If it was a correlation analysis, kindly present the significance level.

Response 2: To represent the results of correlation analysis more clearly, we added the results of Pearson correlation analysis in 4.3.1 and changed Figure 6 to add the correlation coefficient heat map.

4.3.1. Overall Correlation Analysis

Sports and leisure activities that enrich the spare time of the general public can represent people's aspiration for a better life and are closely related to the development of cities. Therefore, as a carrier of residents' leisure and sports activities, sports venues not only have the function of leisure and entertainment but also have certain social symbolic functions. Additionally, studies have proven that the distribution of sports venues is closely related to the size of the population [24,28,29]. To explore the influence of the density of the stadium distribution on the intra-city population distribution in Xi'an and Zhengzhou cities, scatter plots and Pearson correlation analysis were created based on normalized data from Xi'an and Zhengzhou cities using Stata 16 and Origin 2018 software (Figure 6).

Figure 6.Heat map of linear fit and correlation coefficient between the intensity of sports stadium distribution and population density.

As shown in Figure 6, the models of Xi'an and Zhengzhou cities fit better based on the overall perspective, and the slopes of the fitted lines are positive. The coefficients obtained from the Pearson correlation analysis were all positive and significant at the 0.001 level. This means that the distribution of sports venues in both Xi'an and Zhengzhou cities can promote the growth of the intra-city population at the global scale. The slope of the fitted line and the correlation coefficient are higher in Zhengzhou, which means that the intra-city population in Zhengzhou is more sensitive to the distribution of sports venues.

Point 3: It will be useful to explain the OLS results in the data analysis section as presented in Table.

Response 3: After the comparison of the three regression methods, it was found that the r2 of OLS was extremely small and the value of AICc was too large, and the regression effect was not satisfactory. The authors, after all the discussions, concluded that the results obtained from the OLS regression model could not better explain the influence of stadium distribution on population layout.

Yours sincerely,

Yang Liu

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: re-two.docx
Decision Letter - Jing Cheng, Editor

Influence of sports venues on the intra-city population layout based on multi-source data: A case of Xi'an city and Zhengzhou city

PONE-D-22-35291R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jing Cheng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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: Yes

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 #1: All comments have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. There is no more comment(s) to be addressed.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Regina Obilie Amoako-Sakyi

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jing Cheng, Editor

PONE-D-22-35291R1

A Study of the Influence of Sports venues on the Intra-City Population Layout based on Multi-Source Data—Taking Xi'an City and Zhengzhou City as Examples

Dear Dr. Liu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jing Cheng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .