Policy-Oriented Examination of Left-Behind Children’s Health and Well-Being in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

I very appreciated your review about the issue of left behind children in China. I think that you addressed the topic in the correct way, you highlighted the topic, the actions realized and their results and suggested further measures.

I suggest to avoid repetitions such as at lines 18, 19 of the abstract, lines 59-61 of the introduction and lines 362-364 of the conclusions. The sentence is correct but, I think you should use different words;

At line 79 I think that the verb “enjoy” is not adequate in this case because you refer to something negative, therefore you should use another verb for example suffer or something similar;

In the paragraph titles you use capital letters, I think it's better not to do this and use capital letters only for the first letter at the beginning of the title;

In various parts of the manuscript reference is made to the Author: the Author did; the author has highlighted etc. I think this can be avoided, just express the concept in a linear way in the text without mentioning "the Author";

Please check the spaces, for example line 184;

Finally, it is suggested to “enrich” the part relating to the conclusions.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. I responded to reviewer 1's comments, as follows:

1. The repetitive sentences were rewritten
2. The word "enjoy" was replaced by "suffer from"
3. the capital letters used in the paragraph titles were changed to small letters
4. the phrase "the author" was taken out
5. A paragraph was added to enrich the conclusion section

Again, thanks for the comments and review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors!

Your research has been carried out on a relevant topic and I am sure that it will be interesting to the scientific community. There are questions I would recommend you to pay attention to in order to improve your article:

1. The study should be restructured in accordance with the principles of IMRAD as recommended in leading scientific journals. I recommend you add a methodology section and describe in more detail the method of your research and the research question.

2. I also recommend that you expand the literature review and, first of all, in the introduction and further add references to the world's leading expert on human well-being Van Praag: Van Praag, B. M., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(1), 29-49. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/18249/1/dp265.pdf

3.1

and many others etc.

3. I recommend you describe in more detail in the method and the analysis section which aspects of well-being you consider: objective, subjective or complex. And also to justify the choice of method for the selected aspects of well-being.

I wish you success in finalizing and publishing this article!

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. I addressed the issues raised by reviewer 2, as follows:

1. A methodology section was added
2. More contents and arguments were added in the introduction and literature review sections
3. I justified why objective and subjective wellbeing were examined in this essay, and how these concepts could be applied in the analysis section

Again, I appreciate the comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author!

Please read again about IMRAD structure and implement it in your paper. Also the title of manuscript is not correct and too long, it should be formulate more correct. Generally paper needs a lot of corrections. 

Author Response

Thanks for the further comments. Now the most up-to-date revised manuscript follows the IMRAD structure in both the abstract and the main body.

Also, the title of the manuscript was revised and shortened as "Examination of Left-Behind Children’s Health and Wellbeing: Policy Development, Gaps and Suggestions on How China Can Enhance Sustainability"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has very low scientific novelty. Also, it is still not in IMRAD and the tittle is still long and not informative. I suggest the author to read more the most citrated articles of the Journal and after improve the research. In current form the research is not the level of the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

I appreciate your comments. In my revised manuscript, I followed your advice to read more extensively on the subject I am addressing. Here in the resubmission, I added the contexts of 15 extra research papers (i.e. some another 1,700 words) to enrich the relevant scholarly discourse. I, moreover, rewrote the title to make it concise. Since I am developing a narrative essay, I still do not know why I have to follow the IMRAD strictly. Given the nature of a narrative essay, I do not believe strict compliance with the IMRAD formatting structure is needed or necessary. 

I also corrected some grammatical mistakes and erased all in-text citations per the formatting requirement of the journal Sustainability. I hope this resubmission is on par to be accepted for publication.

Thanks!

Best,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author!Your paper improved a lot from the first version. I would like to suggest You to develop Your research in the research group and to find more experienced colleagues, because its much more effective to learn in the team from an experienced researcher than by yourself.  Wish You success in the scientific research!