All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Authors have completed the revisions needed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript still needs work. Add specific objectives at the end of the introduction section. For each objective, state the hypotheses that are tested. The outcome of these hypotheses should be added to conclusions. Please update all equations with clear formatting - you can use the equation editor or similar options. Also, clear policy implications should be added with citations at the end of the discussion section. Check the entire manuscript for flow between sections and paragraphs, clear sentences, and avoid repeating information.
The comments have been addressed.
The comments have been addressed.
The comments have been addressed.
The comments have been addressed.
No comment
no comment
no comment
The paper needs significant revision to address each comment of reviewers.
1. The language and grammar need improvement.
Example of repetition. “However, the formulation of single unified indices to quantitatively assess regional environmental quality is challenging due to the diverse and complex ecosystems” and “However, investigating complex regional ecosystems using single factors is challenging” appear in one paragraph without clearly stating what can be concluded
2. The overall introduction needs to be more detailed. For instance, it should define EEQ and explain its importance. A literature review on EEQ is essential, including recent research on its assessment, identifying gaps in the existing research, and explaining how your research/method addresses these gaps.
3. Only one paper is cited for the RSEI method in the introduction, despite many studies using this methodology for different research. Including a literature review on RSEI would justify the use of this method and demonstrate its capabilities for this study.
4. Abbreviations should be explained: heat (LST), dryness (NDBSI), wetness (WET), and greenness (NDVI).
1. In the abstract, the objective states, “To investigate the spatiotemporal evolution of the EEQ and monitor the effectiveness of ecological restoration measures.” However, there is no introduction or discussion in the entire paper about these implemented ecological restoration measures. What specific measures have been implemented over the past 20 years to be assessed? To monitor their effectiveness using this method, these details must be included.
2. As research objective stated in the abstract, there is no clear identification of gaps in the existing research, and no explanation of how this research/method addresses these gaps.
3. The study area has not been described along with the research aim. Since the research focuses on the assessment of EEQ, the study area should be detailed in terms of its ecology, including its ecological characteristics and challenges.
4. The methodology lacks clarification. The author should provide a brief literature review on Moran’s I, explaining its application and why both global and local versions were used. Additionally, PCA and PCI should be defined and why they are appropriate for this research.
1. The study's impact and novelty have not been thoroughly analyzed. It is critical to emphasize how this study adds to the current body of knowledge in the field of ecological quality evaluation. Discuss the novel components of this technique and findings, and explain why this study is important for future research and practical applications in ecological restoration.
2, The results section resembles a report, lacking enough discussion and explanation for the underlying reasons behind the numbers
3. Overall, the work could benefit from more structure, clarity, and depth, especially in the introduction, methods, and discussion sections. Taking these steps will improve the quality and impact of this research.
The reporting is clear and professional throughout, however Fig 2 is missing elevation data (meters) in the legend and several figure captions have underscores.
no comment
no comment
The article makes use of remote sensing data to construct a model of Ecological Environmental Quality in the Tarim Basin in China from 2000 to 2020. Several other indices are also correlated to and compared with the RSEI to describe changes over this period. Overall the RSEI improved and the coincided with restoration efforts that could also be corroborated by the additional indices.
The paper needs through proofreading for grammatical corrections.
This section is okey.
The results need to be compared with the standard literature.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.