Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. There is no discussion of the authors' results with the results of other researchers included in the introduction.

2. Line 459-463 is not a direct outcome of this research.

3. We have no evidence in the text confirming that we can combine the Eastern and Southeastern regions into one.

4. Line 32-33 (lack of clarity of arguments)

5. Line 59-60 - any explanation to Mullachery, 2016; Jiao, 2014 outcomes?

6. Line 62 - where is a difference of economic, culture and regional geography? Regional geography means unique economic, cultural etc. factors.....

7. Line 70  ....and a higher average income.....- no sense of this South Korea info (probably editors mistake)

8. Line 442 - more policies (what does it mean?)

 

Editorial corrections, selected:
style line 32-33 (lack of clarity of arguments)
line 118 and 120 DGC or DG?
line 189 - repeating
line 291 (typo)
Figure 1 (no axis description, no explanation in the text of how to read data).
We need a comment - can we be sure of the reliability of the data from the charts?
The changes look suspicious....Figures 2,3 (no axis description, typo)
Figure 4 (no legend, no axis description)Tabela 5 (no legend)

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There is no discussion of the authors' results with the results of other researchers included in the introduction.

Ans. More statements have been added (on page 1-2, lines 43-49 and on page 2, lines 82-102).Thanks for your suggestions!

2. Line 459-463 is not a direct outcome of this research.

Ans. The corresponding contents have been added and the no direct outcome has been deleted (on page 13, lines 443-445). Thanks for your reminding!

3. We have no evidence in the text confirming that we can combine the Eastern and Southeastern regions into one.

Ans. Some explaintions have been added (on page 6, lines 224-227). Thanks for your suggestions !

4. Line 32-33 (lack of clarity of arguments)

Ans. More statements have been added (on page 1, lines 36-38).Thanks !

5. Line 59-60 - any explanation to Mullachery, 2016; Jiao, 2014 outcomes?

Ans. Some explaintions have been added (on page 2, lines 63-67). Thanks!

6. Line 62 - where is a difference of economic, culture and regional geography? Regional geography means unique economic, cultural etc. factors.....

Ans. Original presentions have been revised (on page 2, lines 68-69). Thanks for your reminding!

7. Line 70  ....and a higher average income.....- no sense of this South Korea info (probably editors mistake)

Ans. Original presentions have been reexpressed to avoid ambiguity (on page 2, lines 75-76). Thanks for your suggestion!

8. Line 442 - more policies (what does it mean?)

 Ans. Some explaintions have been added (on page 13, lines 452-456). Thanks for your guidance!

Editorial corrections, selected:

1. style line 32-33 (lack of clarity of arguments)

Ans. More statements have been added (on page 1, lines 36-38). Thank!

2. line 118 and 120 DGC or DG?

Ans. It has been revised (on page 3, line 124).Thanks for your carefullness!

3. line 189 – repeating

Ans. It has been revised (on page 5, lines 181-182). Thanks for your carefullness!

4. line 291 (typo)

Ans. It has been revised (on page 8, lines 294-296). Thanks for your carefullness!

5. Figure 1 (no axis description, no explanation in the text of how to read data). We need a comment - can we be sure of the reliability of the data from the charts?

Ans. All suggestions are be adopted and some comments has been added(on page 5, lines 207-208 and on page 6, 219).Thanks!

6. The changes look suspicious....Figures 2,3 (no axis description, typo)

Ans. Fig.2 has been revised (on page 9, lines 323-331), and the original Fig.3 has been changed to Table 4 for better presentation(on page 10, lines 351-352). Thanks for your guidance!

7. Figure 4 (no legend, no axis description)Tabela 5 (no legend)
   Ans. All have been revised (on page 12, lines 408-409). Thanks for your guidance!

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper under review analyzes differences in self reported health levels of the elderly population across four regions of China and their evolution overf time including trends of convergence. This is an important topic and the methods employed are largely appropriate. The manuscript has however major flaws that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication. The three main issues are related and comprise: a) English language and inconsistent terminology, b) an overly technical focus, c) structure. 1. It is strongly recommended that the paper is reviewed by a native English speaker. It is full of grammatical errors and odd terms (e.g. regional hygiene, macroscopic cognition, equalization status, etc.). 2. In the abstract and elsewhere terms and concepts are introduced without explanation such as Dagum Gini coefficient, difference convergence, spatial evolution, spatial spillover etc. 3. Terms are used inconsistently and a lot of different terms are used for the same concept such as health inequity, health inequality, health differences, disequilibrium etc. without explanation and definitions. Equality for instance means providing people with the same resources, while equity means distributing resources fairly according to people’s needs. 4. The focus of the paper is very technical and a lot of statistical concepts such as Kernel density estimation and Dagum Gini coefficient are introduced already in the background section efore it is even clear why they are employed here. This leads to the structural problems. First it should be stated where the research gap is content wise and what the objective and specific aims of the present study are in this regard, only then the methods to used to meet these aims/answer the respective questions should be introduced, related to the aims and carefully explained for those not familiar with it. 5. It is further suggested that the methods are restructured. First, the data sources and outcome analyzed should be introduced. This should be done in more detail than this is currently the case, e.g. explain the CLHLS project (purpose, sampling, etc.). Only then it should be explained how these data were analyzed in order to answer the research questions of the authors. Btw., it should not say “provinces(cities)” but provinces(centrally administered municipalities) as you probably mean Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and not cities like Mianyang, Deyang etc. 6. The paper lacks a proper discussion where the results are compared with previous research. 7. The paper lacks a limitation section.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper under review analyzes differences in self reported health levels of the elderly population across four regions of China and their evolution overf time including trends of convergence. This is an important topic and the methods employed are largely appropriate. The manuscript has however major flaws that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication. The three main issues are related and comprise: a) English language and inconsistent terminology, b) an overly technical focus, c) structure.

1. It is strongly recommended that the paper is reviewed by a native English speaker. It is full of grammatical errors and odd terms (e.g. regional hygiene, macroscopic cognition, equalization status, etc.).

Ans. The whole paper has been reviewed again, and suggested grammatical errors and odd terms have been revised. Thanks for your suggestions.

2. In the abstract and elsewhere terms and concepts are introduced without explanation such as Dagum Gini coefficient, difference convergence, spatial evolution, spatial spillover etc.

Ans. The relevant terms and concepts in the abstract have been expressed in other way.The explanations of Dagum Gini coefficient, difference convergence are introduced. (On page 2, lines 84-89 and On page 2, lines 89-92); the original “spatial evolution” is not accurate enough and has been replaced by “the evolution trend of regional differences”.(in whole paper); “spatial spillover” is a terminology used to describe the relationship between a region and its surrounding in Spatial Econometric, and for more readability which is replaced by using “the mutual influence in adjacent regions” (On page 3, lines 100-103 and other corresponding positions). Thanks for your guidance!

3. Terms are used inconsistently and a lot of different terms are used for the same concept such as health inequity, health inequality, health differences, disequilibrium etc. without explanation and definitions. Equality for instance means providing people with the same resources, while equity means distributing resources fairly according to people’s needs.

Ans. All issues have been revised in whole paper. Thanks for your guidance!

4. The focus of the paper is very technical and a lot of statistical concepts such as Kernel density estimation and Dagum Gini coefficient are introduced already in the background section efore it is even clear why they are employed here. This leads to the structural problems. First it should be stated where the research gap is content wise and what the objective and specific aims of the present study are in this regard, only then the methods to used to meet these aims/answer the respective questions should be introduced, related to the aims and carefully explained for those not familiar with it.

Ans. All suggestions have been adopted to revise the paper. In order to make research method and research aims better corresponding, some explanation have been added (on page 2, lines 92-103, on page 3,108-110 and on page 4,143-145,158-159,etc.)Thanks for your guidance!

5. It is further suggested that the methods are restructured. First, the data sources and outcome analyzed should be introduced. This should be done in more detail than this is currently the case, e.g. explain the CLHLS project (purpose, sampling, etc.). Only then it should be explained how these data were analyzed in order to answer the research questions of the authors. Btw., it should not say “provinces(cities)” but provinces(centrally administered municipalities) as you probably mean Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and not cities like Mianyang, Deyang etc.

Ans. All suggested have been adopted to revise the paper, more information have been added for more readability (on page 5, lines 180-185), the suggested expression have been adopted accordingly. Thanks for your guidance and suggestions!

6. The paper lacks a proper discussion where the results are compared with previous research.

Ans.  The discussion have been revised accordingly (on page 5, lines 82-103). Thanks for your guidance!

7. The paper lacks a limitation section.

Ans. Some limitations have been added (on page 14, lines 471-480). Thanks for your guidance!