Forecast of Advanced Human Capital Gap Based on PSO-BP Neural Network and Coordination Pathway: Example of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has a rather low level of:

-        scientific novelty,

-        justification of the importance of conducting this research,

-        presentation of applied methods and models,

-        as well as unclear results.

The quality of the presentation of article is also low.

After analyzing the article, I was left with the impression that the authors collected completely different and unrelated data and information in one place.

I see no way to improve this article and recommend that the authors completely change the research before publication in journal Sustainability.

Below, I add specific recommendations.

The authors put "human capital advanced" in the title of the article. I think it would be logical to explain what the authors include in this concept.

The Introduction section looks cluttered and chaotic and contains a lot of redundant information. The authors need to focus on the topic of the study and analyze previous studies. I propose to analyze two directions: the human capital advanced and the use of NN to forecast the level of human capital development.

At the end of the chapter, it is necessary to clearly indicate the scientific gap in knowledge, the goal and task of the research, as well as the scientific novelty of the obtained results.

The authors tried to do this (lines 232-241, lines 242-253).

Lines 133, 146, 149, etc. …. I recommend that authors change the sentence structure and not use "This paper". It is not clear which article we are talking about.

What is "the C-D production function", "human enterprise capital through GM (1,1) and GM (1, n) models"

Line 154. In equation 1, there is no Y, α and β are absent. I encourage authors to check all formulas.

Line 169. I don't understand where, what and how it is compared?

In hypotheses 1 and 2, a new category "senior human capital" unexpectedly appears. The authors did not mention it at all in the Introduction. Please explain.

Line 257. "the research selected ..." It is necessary to describe and justify the reason for choosing the input variables of the model.

Table 1. It is necessary to comment.

Figure 1. Missing reference in the text of the article.

Figure 2. Need to comment.

Line 319. There are no equations 10 and 11 in the article.

Author Response

Thank you valuable suggestion and following are the detailed modification illustration.

1. Completely change the researchfrom Introduction, including rewriting the Background and Literature review and theoretical mechanism, Improving the empirical part, increased the forecast of the advanced human capital of five provinces in the Yangtze River Delta region and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area during the same study period for comparing. Supplementary study results have showed that the advanced human capital gap in these regions is smaller relative to the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, both in total volume and per capita. This result indicate that the difference of advanced human capital in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region really blocked the development of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Meanwhile, in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the total advanced human capital and per capita are higher than those of provinces in the Yangtze River Delta region and higher than the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. This is also in line with the positive impact of economic level, industrial structure improving, urbanization and innovation ability on the upgrading of human capita, and once again confirmed hypotheses 1 and 2. Subsequently, the conclusions of this paper are reorganized according to the improved empirical forecasting results.
2. Explained the concept "human capital advanced" in the title in line 134-151.
3. According to your valuable suggestion, I adjust the literature review section into two parts: 1.2.1 Role of advanced human capital in economy and society and 1.2.2 Role of advanced human capital in regional coordinated development, to explain the current research progress and the basis of the prediction model.
4. Indicate the scientific gap in knowledge, the goal and task of the research, as well as the scientific novelty of the obtained results in chapter 1 line 107-129.
5. According to your valuable suggestion, check the usage of "This paper"in my paper.
6. Explained What is "the C-D production function"in line 187 and drop "human enterprise capital through GM (1,1) and GM (1, n) models" literature for not nearly matched the research topic.
7. Checked Line 154equation 1 and other equations for modified description.
8. About the question: “Line 169. I don't understand where, what and how it is compared?“ the reason is compared with other prediction methods，PSO-BP neural network’s prediction accuracy is highly，on the one hand is becausePSO-BP neural network prediction accuracy has also been confirmed to be better than other method in previous studies. On the other hand the prediction results is ideal in my paper from the aspect of fitting effect and error rate.
9. I have rewrite the hypotheses 1 and 2, for make it more clear.
10. The reason why choose input variables of the modelis explained in chapter 1 : Literature review and theoretical mechanism part.
11. Add comment to Table 1in line 267-268.
12. Add illustration to Figure 1 in line 271.
13. Modify Figure 2. commentin line 318-319.
14. Check all theequations order number.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please structure your Discussion section as follows:
1. First paragraph of the discussion should be a brief summary of the main study findings relative to the stated objectives/aims/hypotheses from the last paragraph of the introduction
2. Following, a more detailed discussion of those findings, including interpretations, implications, and comparisons to existing literature
3. Next, please include the paragraph(s) on limitations
4. The last paragraph(s) should be conclusions that don’t just summarize the findings, but speak to the broader perspective of the subject matter

5. Check grammatical and spelling mistakes carefully

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestion and following are the detailed modification illustration.

1. According to your suggestion, I have rewrited the conclusion, and divide it into four paragraphs, the first paragraph is brief summary of the main study findings, the second paragraph ismore detailed discussion of those findings, including interpretations, implications, and comparisons to existing literature, the third paragraph is limitations and research prospect. In the fourth paragraph, two aspects of policy suggestions are put forward.
2. I have carefullycheck grammatical and spelling mistakes. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Refer attached comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you valuable suggestion and following are the detailed modification illustration.

1. Rewrite the introductionpart，noted the readability you mentioned and the depth of the problem of literature review，line 37 ”connected”， line 39  “opening up”,delete  lines 45 – 46, Rephrase lines 117 – 123.
2. Change “so”into “thus” ,“Therefore” or ”Hence”.
3. Rewrite line 65-69.
4. – Check all citation in footnote ,such line 74, 87,99-105.
5. Check all capaital letters as well as sentences begin.
6. Change the usage of “structure”lines 116 -118.
7. The method-related sections of the literature review is adapted to refine the method section.
8. Check the usage of “find out”line 129.
9. Change the usage of “we”-- line 131.
10. Rephraselines 142 -145, 158-159.
11. Check the spelling of place names，such as ine 186.
12. Improved theoretical background aspectintroduction.
13. Check the conjunction of begin such as line 205.
14. Change the usage of “spillover effects”of literature in line 214-216.
15. The empirical prediction section is improved to make it more consistent with the theme of this paper.
16. Take your suggestions and improved conclusion and discussion

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend publishing the article in present form

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable advice. I have carefully checked the tension, voice, grammar and punctuation in the manuscript. There should be no any problems in my view.

Reviewer 3 Report

Kindly have the paper language edited, there are still various grammar, spelling and styling issues that need attention.

Thank you for taking note of suggestions and incorporating the changes. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable advice. I have carefully checked the tension, voice, grammar and punctuation in the manuscript. There should be no any problems in my view.