Analysis of Social Support as an Argument for the Sustainable Construction of the European Community Space

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main drawback of this paper is its length. It would be nice if it could be shortened somewhere.

In addition, there are some details to review:

The citation format in Table 1.

The causal model in Figure 1 does not match the proposed hypotheses and is quite different from the final model in Figure 2 (much more complex). At the very least, Figure 1 should fit the proposed hypotheses.

In the conclusions section I have not seen any reference to the limitations of the study, and it would be nice if there were some lines about it.

I do not see clearly the relationship between the analysis carried out and the European community.

The main drawback of this paper is its length. It would be nice if it could be shortened somewhere.
The article focuses on different vital conditions of people as causes of the perception of social support. What is not clear is the relationship between this analysis and "the European Community Space". I'm not sure where this last idea fits.
Studies of this type are moderately original but their performance is relevant because multiple analyses are necessary in different communities in order to reach a generalizable conclusion. This study would help to reinforce the necessary base to be able to generate generalizable conclusions.
The methodology is correct, although the specific tool used for the SEM analysis could be indicated. The results section is correct in general, but elements of the sociodemographic profile have been mixed with part of the analysis of the measurement model in section 4.1, and parts of the analysis of the measurement model have been mixed with the analysis of the causal model in section 4.2. It would be better to subdivide section 4 into three subsections, better delimiting the three parts. In the conclusions section I have not seen any reference to the limitations of the study, and it would be nice if there were some lines about it and implications for public managers.
The number of references is adequate for a research paper and the journals and years of references are reasonably good.
Table 1 should adjust the citation format to that of the journal. Figure 1 does not coincide with the hypotheses proposed and is quite different from Figure 2 and the relationships analyzed in tables 7 and 8. This aspect should be standardized. Would it be possible to improve the level of definition of Figure 2? Now it looks poor quality. Tables 7 and 8 could be merged into a single table

Author Response

Thank you for suggestions. We appreciate the effort made. The comments were extremely useful. We hope we answered all the comments.

I clarified keywords. These are: perception; social support; social cohesion; daily hassles; occupation; satisfaction; European integration.

We think they are more suitable.

1. The citation format in Table 1.

Were changed (see Table 1). Thanks for the observation.

2. The causal model in Figure 1 does not match the proposed hypotheses and is quite different from the final model in Figure 2 (much more complex). At the very least, Figure 1 should fit the proposed hypotheses.

Figure 1 represents the conceptual model. Figure 1 graphically presents the hypotheses of this study (all the study). Figure 2 is only part of the study.

3. The methodology is correct, although the specific tool used for the SEM analysis could be indicated. The results section is correct in general, but elements of the sociodemographic profile have been mixed with part of the analysis of the measurement model in section 4.1, and parts of the analysis of the measurement model have been mixed with the analysis of the causal model in section 4.2. It would be better to subdivide section 4 into three subsections, better delimiting the three parts.

At 4.1. we analyze the variables classifiers. At 4.2 we analyze the proposed SEM model. We consider it to be logical for some variables to enter the model (4.2). We are looking for the congruence of explanations (and their cohesion).

4. Would it be possible to improve the level of definition of Figure 2? Now it looks poor quality.

We may not understand the request. We see that in the only article published in this section is the same level. Please list the article: ”Well-Being and Entrepreneurship Intention: An Empirical Study of New Perspectives” (https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073935)

5. Tables 7 and 8 could be merged into a single table

Tables 7 and 8 were merged.

6. In the conclusions section I have not seen any reference to the limitations of the study, and it would be nice if there were some lines about it.

The text was inserted to the lines: 679-684.

Speaking about the limitation of the proposed study, we do not have a method of numerical interpretation for the personal degree of social integration. This would allow us to validate the method of social cohesion analyze through the formula of interpreting social support, promoted and applied in this study. Thus, we could have measured the level at which social support determines the cohesion between different communities of the European Union.

7. I do not see clearly the relationship between the analysis carried out and the European community.

The text was inserted to the lines: 140-160

When we set out to analyze social support, we started from the desire to offer a practical applicability to this research approach. We wanted to answer the questions: why study social support? What will be the benefits and how the explanatory model of social support can be used? In this context we understand the link with the phenomenon of social cohesion and the European community. In fact, this relational context shaped the interpretation of social support. The European Commission's Eurobarometers show that the most common factor in motivating public opinion about the membership of Eastern European states in the structure of the European Union is to increase the quality of life. Our study defines social support as a determinant of living standards, social cohesion and community integration. On the other hand, social cohesion is a great interest phenomenon, in the context of building a homogeneous European Union society. In our study we constructed a model for interpreting social support that could be used as a barometer of social integration of local, regional or even national communities in the global social system, promoted by the European Union. The proposed model of social support interpretation can highlight features that stimulate or, on the contrary, are obstruct the cohesion between a community and the social space of European Union. In this way we want to offer an accurate method of analyzing and interpreting the cohesion between a European community and the social ensemble of the European Union. In fact, the originality and scientific contribution of this study can be summed up in the development of interpreting social support method, that explains the degree of cohesion between different communities of the European Union.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written and should be accepted for publication. However, the following should be addressed before acceptance:

1. The word "argument" in the title should be changed to reflect the content of the paper

2. There is a need to explain the modality for the choice of SEM against other methods. There are also different types of SEM, each should be explained and the one adopted should be justified

3. What is the total population and the rationale for the adoption of 1364 respondents.

4. There are so many types of non-random sampling, the authors should indicate the one adopted and justify the same.  

5. The choice of one-way ANOVA is questionable, why not consider appropriate tests like Mann-Whitney for 2 groups of respondents and Kruskal Wallis for more than 2 groups?  

6. The discussion section has fulfilled the first requirement by comparing findings from the study with previous publications. However, there is a need to explain the implications of the findings.

7. In the conclusion, such things as figures, tables, etc. should not be included but statements of conclusion emanating from the study. There is also a need to state policy recommendations and indicate stakeholders that will benefit from the findings of the study.

8. Another missing item is the limitation of the study. This should be explained in connection with areas for further study"

Author Response

Thank you for suggestions. We appreciate the effort made. The comments were extremely useful. We hope we answered all the comments.

1. The word "argument" in the title should be changed to reflect the content of the paper

We consider that the formula "argument" better reflects the fundamental idea of the study.

Of course, you're right! There can be other types of formulations.

I clarified keywords. These are: perception; social support; social cohesion; daily hassles; occupation; satisfaction; European integration.

We think they are more suitable.

2. There is a need to explain the modality for the choice of SEM against other methods. There are also different types of SEM, each should be explained and the one adopted should be justified

In section 3.3 we offer explanations (lines 342-348; 357-361). We believe that readers do not want too technical detail. I consulted the only article published in this section. It seems that we offer more arguments (see article: ”Well-Being and Entrepreneurship Intention: An Empirical Study of New Perspectives” (https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073935).

3. What is the total population and the rationale for the adoption of 1364 respondents.

We explain in the lines 283-295; 306-312; 353-356.

4. There are so many types of non-random sampling, the authors should indicate the one adopted and justify the same.

We explain in the lines 567-570; 594-601 and conclusions.

5. The choice of one-way ANOVA is questionable, why not consider appropriate tests like Mann-Whitney for 2 groups of respondents and Kruskal Wallis for more than 2 groups?

The data should be non-parametric for this suggestion. Yes! You are right there are many controversies in this area of statistics.

6. The discussion section has fulfilled the first requirement by comparing findings from the study with previous publications. However, there is a need to explain the implications of the findings.

We explain in the lines 283-295. The first reviewer suggests the reduction of the study.

7. In the conclusion, such things as figures, tables, etc. should not be included but statements of conclusion emanating from the study.

There were no tables and figures (figures) in conclusions.

8. Another missing item is the limitation of the study. This should be explained in connection with areas for further study"

The text was inserted to the lines: 679-684

Speaking about the limitation of the proposed study, we do not have a method of numerical interpretation for the personal degree of social integration. This would allow us to validate the method of social cohesion analyze through the formula of interpreting social support, promoted and applied in this study. Thus, we could have measured the level at which social support determines the cohesion between different communities of the European Union.