Economic Uncertainty, Cultural and Ideational Transition, and Low Fertility
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I find the topic of the reviewed paper, entitled Economic uncertainty, cultural and ideational transition, and low fertility, crucial and up to date. The research is conducted correctly. The research methods used should be considered correct. The length of the research period is sufficient. However, the quality of this paper should be improved.
Below there is a list of my critical remarks on the reviewed paper:
The author(s) did a careful literature review using the latest research.
- Please present the aim of the study in the text (and in the abstract).
- Please present your paper contribution broader.
- The literature review should/could be developed.
- There is no discussion in the study.
- I cannot understand the second paragraph of the conclusion section. The study analyses the fertility rate in the OECD countries, not China. I recommend rearranging the context of the study to highlight the implications of the results for China. But, please inform the reader earlier in the introduction, literature review, results, and discussion sections.
- I recommend presenting briefly the study's limitations in the conclusion section.
Overall assessment
The quality of this study is relatively high. I find the reviewed paper valuable and interesting, and its topic is up-to-date. I recommend making changes (considering the remarks mentioned above) that should improve the quality of the reviewed paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript. There is no doubt that the comments are particularly valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. In what follows, we would like to answer the questions you mentioned and provide detailed descriptions on the changes we have made.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, I feel that the articles could be structured better to enhance readability and easy understanding. I have some suggestions for the improvement of paper.
Please rewrite the abstract, and add results findings
The introduction is lengthy
There is no graphical abstract proposed. Please add graphical abstract
The authors must make a greater effort to offer a better literature discussion. It is necessary to develop an in-depth analysis with a higher number of references. It is important to classify, summarizes, and discuss the merit and demerit of these existing studies. This is helpful to reinforce the author's contributions.
Citation should be ordered from the latest to the oldest.
More recent citations should be included
The authors should develop a discussion and comparison with other papers.
Maybe you can point out the study limitation in the end of your article.
Methodology:
It is recommended to include a flowchart or a figure that describes the methodology, this will help the reader to better understand the paper.
Results
The authors should develop a discussion and comparison with other papers.
Discussion
This section should be more focussed and related to the found result. Explanatory background should be moved to the literature review or to a background section if necessary.
Conclusions:
4. I recommend the authors to compare the results of your paper with previous studies.
5. Maybe you can point out the study limitation in the end of your article.
References:
It is important that more references be made to recent papers (from the last 3-4 years, at least ten more). Some paragraphs are too long. It is proposed to divide the paragraphs according to the main ideas. This will avoid tired reading.
There is also some helpful reference, please check
Doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2019.06.009
Doi: 10.3390/pr7040196
Doi: 10.3390/pr7060325
Doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-09578-3
Doi: 10.3390/pr7120902
Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120187
Doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09129-w
Doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10413-y
Doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09614-2
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript. There is no doubt that the comments are particularly valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. In particular, I would like to thank you for kindly providing me with some references which are quite enlightening. In what follows, we would like to answer the questions you mentioned and provide detailed descriptions on the changes we have made.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my comments and included most of them in the text. I consider the current version of the manuscript better and more coherent. I do not raise any new critical remarks and recommend the study's publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
authors revised manuscript accordingly
