Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Conclusions can be improved with a clearer connection in the results, in dialogue with referencial authors.

The theoretical contextualization is too extensive. Should be more synthetic.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1. Conclusions can be improved with a clearer connection in the results, in dialogue with referencial authors.

Response 1: This that you suggest is typical of the results discussion section, where the connection between the results is fulfilled in the dialogue with the reference authors linked in the first part of the manuscript.

The conclusion section is brief stressing the significance of findings.

Point 2. The theoretical contextualization is too extensive. Should be more synthetic.

Response 2: Paragraphs on lines 552 through 540 have been removed.
The rest of the theoretical contextualization has been reviewed and we consider that it is relevant to establish the theoretical bases of the study, since there are no previous studies with the same analysis variables.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this paper well-written and the issues topical, relevant and well-argued. Kudos to the authors. One issue and this is perhaps for the publisher, is that author details were visible. This is not good for blind-peer review.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your indications.

An attempt was made to establish in the manuscript what he has underlined.

A fine / minor spell check has been established in English.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting paper.  Well written and set out.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your indications.

An attempt was made to establish in the manuscript what he has underlined.

A fine / minor spell check has been established in English.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx