Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 23, 2019
Decision Letter - Andrea Antonio Guido Caragliu, Editor

PONE-D-19-29567

On the relation between transversal and longitudinal scaling in cities

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Meirelles,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 23 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Antonio Guido Caragliu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Decision letter PONE-D-19-29567

On the relation between transversal and longitudinal scaling in cities

Dear Prof. Meirelles, dear Joao:

Thank you for considering Plos ONE as a potential outlet for your research.

I have now received two referee reports on your paper, and I am happy to report that they agree the paper has several merits that bode well for its potential impact in the fields of econophysics and urban economics.

I also read your paper carefully and I would advise the following three relatively minor revisions, based on the attached reviewers’ comments and my own reading of your work.

• Reviewers agree that it is not fully clear whether the definition of the urban areas used in your analyses is a purely administrative or functional one, or a mix of the two. This is an important issue to be explained upfront for ensuring full replicability of your findings.

• Reviewer 1 points at a possible gap in your model predictions, in that your results would hold only when cities actually grow. Would you be able to find the same results were shrinking cities also taken into account? In other words: do these scaling laws apply to both (negative and positive) sides of the urban growth distribution?

• From a theoretical perspective, while your use of scaling laws derived from physics and in general hard sciences has been often found to fit well statistical distribution of city size and GDP growth, it would also be beneficial to better and more clearly position the paper within a Urban Economics perspective. The work of Henderson, Gabaix, and the theoretical models à la Fujita, Krugman, and Mori offer useful bridges in this respect.

I am looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript at your earliest convenience, and I thank you once again for thinking of Plos ONE as a suitable output for your work.

Kind regards,

Andrea Caragliu

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

'This work was supported by Swiss Mobiliar (Joao Meirelles), École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (Joao Meirelles), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (Fabiano Lemes Ribeiro, process number: 405921/2016-0),  Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Fabiano Lemes Ribeiro, process number: 88881.119533/2016-01). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Swiss Mobiliar

a. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

b. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[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: No

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: PLOS One Review for Article

On the relation between transversal and longitudinal scaling

in cities

The paper looks at scaling behavior for 5507 municipalities - individual municipalities within cities are not whole urban units, and therefore the geographic definitions should be argued for and justified.

In author summary: the authors write: "while others like urban

infrastructure would grow at a slower rate". this should be rewritten as "while others like urban infrastructure would grow but at less than proportional rates" (making the sublinear pattern clear). Similarly, "socioeconomic output would grow at a higher pace" should be something like "socioeconomic output would grow at a more than proportional rate".

Is a municipality the same as a neighbourhood within a city, or an entire city? Explain upfront.

The authors say "The 28

universality proposition has been challenged [26–28], but most evidence seem to confirm 29

the generality, while exceptions are normally explained by local 30

particularities [10, 18, 29, 30]." This is too strong and early to claim. For example, several research papers old and new show in fact that the population variable alone is insigniifcant in regressions when industrial or occupational organizations are considered, or statistical models other than the scaling model equally well explain the data. This statement thus needs to be softened - saying that this is as yet an open question, both domain wise and methodologically and theoretically:

Scaling and Hierarchy in Urban Economies, https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.4101

Evidence for localization and urbanization economies in urban scaling, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.07166

Leitao, J. C., Miotto, J. M., Gerlach, M. and Altmann, E. G. 2016. Is this

scaling non-linear? Royal Society Open Science 3: 150649.

Again, this is too naive: the total amount of social interactions between its citizens would 33 guide, to a great extent, the city towards the observed scaling behavior: economic and social organizations could be very different given the same group sizes or interaction densities. This claim seems to suggest that a 100 school teachers interacting is the same as a 100 finance and bankers interacting, and it simply does not matter what is being interacted upon!

This 34

proposition is unprecedented in urban science and the identification and validation of 35

such universal dynamics could help urban policymakers to identify opportunities and 36

improve the life quality of dwellers.

The above is too vague and no claims on policy should be made without a deep and direct connection to how such (still dubious, open or unconfirmed) findings can actually help policy.

Overall, there is a crucial question that is missing here, and at least a qualitative discussion should be added to address this issue: the scaling equations as they currently stand, show only growth - which is fine as an approximation as far as transversal systems of cities are concerned. However, when it comes to individual cities, they can also "die" - in the sense that there is a process of growth, but there is also a process of decline and death. In such a case, do the authors hypothesise that declining populations and their corresponding urban variables would fit on the same law? Detroit? Etc.

Materials and Methods

Repeat but very important issue: for following point: The data presented here refer to 5507 Brazilian municipalities, with contiguous dense 79

surrounding areas aggregated in single spatial units from the totality of 5570 Brazilian 80

administrative divisions...please provide justification that these can be considered as individual cities (why? - daily commute lengths are contained / population numbers / densities...what is the basis for defining each as an individual city, and how is this a reliable basis). The results in the entire paper rest on this crucial point.

Figure 1: beta as 1.04 by the maximum likelihood method, which maximum likelihood method? Provide reference. Also, 1.04 is only mildly superlinear, so strong claims on super linearity will not hold.

Results:

The authors should present some hypotheses and discussions on why they think that GDP (which is an economic variable) and the water supply network, which is a physical variable, should show differing relationships when compared with the transversal.

They make the beginnings of this in considering city growth rates - but the main question is why does an economic variable behave different to a physical infrastructure variable?

Theoretical section:

The formal part presented in the theoretical section is clear and nicely laid out. However, what I was not able to understand is - there are also old and established economic theories that discuss the growth of cities (for example, the entire body of work by Henderson, Gabaix, Krugman, Thisse, Fujita, Ogawa....) - how does the current naive physics of vector fields (which is not very physically motivated, but is a very "data" based perspective) relate to the previous work done in detail on these questions? At present, the work feels overall like a naive exploration of data.

Reviewer #2: This paper describe the relation between what the authors called transversal and longitudinal scaling in cities, this is, the relationship of urban metrics with population for cross-sectional data (same time) and temporal data (same city evolving with time). This is a hot topic and has recently picked the attention of people working in the "science of cities" and I think this paper should be eventually published in some form, as it offers more insights into this problem. I think, however, some of the recent debates on this topic are missing in this version of the manuscript.

My only recommendations are the following:

1) The authors include a discussion about the following paper:

- The Interpretation of Urban Scaling Analysis in Time (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3459540);

2) The sort of similar study (though with a different perspective) also looked at the evolution of urban scaling for several urban indicators for Brazilian data.

- Scale-Adjusted Metrics for Predicting the Evolution of Urban Indicators and Quantifying the Performance of Cities (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134862)

The authors could include a comment about this paper and explain the possible relation of its findings with your results.

There are some typos that should be fixed. For instance, page 7, "quantity Whose" or page 9, "the external Vector".

Apart from that, I am happy with the current version of the manuscript and a would recommend it for publication after fixing the above points.

**********

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: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1
Decision Letter - Andrea Antonio Guido Caragliu, Editor

On the relation between transversal and longitudinal scaling in cities

PONE-D-19-29567R1

Dear Dr. Ribeiro,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Andrea Antonio Guido Caragliu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Ribeiro, dear Fabiano:

thank you for the revised version of your paper. I read it carefully and I am happy to report that in my view all comments raised in the first version you submitted have been successfuly dealt with. Consequently, I would be inclined to accept the paper as it is without any further rounds of revisions. Congratulations and thanks again for thinking of Plos ONE as a possible outlet for your research.

Kind regards,

Andrea Caragliu

Reviewers' comments:

We thank you warmly for the careful consideration of our manuscript. We have

addressed all of the Reviewers’ concerns as detailed in the pdf file attached.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: to_referees___plos_one.pdf
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Andrea Antonio Guido Caragliu, Editor

PONE-D-19-29567R1

On the relation between transversal and longitudinal scaling in cities

Dear Dr. Ribeiro:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Andrea Antonio Guido Caragliu

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 .