Measuring the Unmeasurable: Decomposing Multidimensional Rural Poverty and Promoting Economic Development in the Poorest Region of Luzon, Philippines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper deals with an important policy problem in developing countries. It promotes several potential measures for poverty from multiple dimensions and tested their effectiveness with statistical methods. 

The prediction equation in page 20 should be separated from the context, making some space below and above this equation.

I suggest the authors to put Table 3 in the appendix.

Finally, the authors should put more efforts in the exposition, formatting, and wording of this paper before it could be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper deals with an important policy problem in developing countries. It promotes several potential measures for poverty from multiple dimensions and tested their effectiveness with statistical methods. 

Response 1: We appreciate your kind words regarding our research paper. We have made revisions to the document based on your helpful feedback. We believe that by publishing our article, we can help reduce poverty in our area and other parts of the world. We extend our warmest wishes to you and hope that you will continue to provide constructive feedback to researchers worldwide.

Comment 2: The prediction equation in page 20 should be separated from the context, making some space below and above this equation.

Response 2: We have separated the prediction equation from the context of the paper, providing clear spacing above and below the equation for enhanced clarity. Additionally, we have numbered the first and second equations for easy reference.

Comment 3: I suggest the authors to put Table 3 in the appendix.

Response 3: Table 3 has been transferred to the appendix section, and we have included a sentence in the discussion section, directing readers to refer to or visit the appendix for supplementary information.

Comment 4: Finally, the authors should put more efforts in the exposition, formatting, and wording of this paper before it could be accepted for publication. Comments on the Quality of English Language Moderate editing of English language required.

Response 4: The authors have diligently edited the grammar, format, and wording of this paper to adhere to the technical English standards prescribed by the journal. We have sought the assistance of our English professor to help us refine the content of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-written, very timely and address the crux of the problem facing the developing world, i.e., poverty. However, the following are my suggestions to the authors.

1. Overall, it is an excellent manuscript discussing multi-dimensions of poverty.

2. However, it needs more explanation about how and where the focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted and how those data were analyzed. A couple of quotes from respondents would add value to the manuscript.

3. The conclusion is generic and suggest being more specific and aligned with the research findings.

4. The paper is long, and I see it very challenging for readers to follow it through.

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript is well-written, very timely and address the crux of the problem facing the developing world, i.e., poverty. However, the following are my suggestions to the authors. 1. Overall, it is an excellent manuscript discussing multi-dimensions of poverty.

Response 1: We are grateful for your positive feedback on our research paper. Taking your valuable suggestions into account, we have incorporated revisions into the document. It is our firm belief that through the publication of our article, we can contribute towards alleviating poverty in our locality as well as in other regions around the globe. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to you and encourage you to continue offering constructive feedback to researchers worldwide.

Comment 2: However, it needs more explanation about how and where the focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted and how those data were analyzed. A couple of quotes from respondents would add value to the manuscript.

Response 2: The focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted with the municipal chief executive, department chairs, local chief executives, councilors, resident representatives, stakeholders, and researchers in the municipality of Goa, Camarines Sur, covering 4 sectors and 34 barangays. These details were reflected already through the manuscript.

The table 4 presents all potential programs, policies, and interventions aimed at reducing rural poverty and promoting local economic development, which were generated from the focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The researchers opt not to present direct quotes from respondents because the focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted through the ‘Bicol language’. The Bicol language is our regional language, this is different from Filipino language, and is unknown to the global community. As a result, we have summarized the entire findings in a table that can be understood by readers worldwide.

Comment 3: The conclusion is generic and suggest being more specific and aligned with the research findings.

Response 3: The authors provide specific conclusions and recommendations that are aligned with the research objectives. These conclusions and recommendations are further supported by Table 4, which outlines the policy proposals for the 34 localities.

Comment 4: The paper is long, and I see it very challenging for readers to follow it through.

Response 4: Furthermore, the authors have revised the paper, removing redundant and less relevant information to ensure conciseness and readability for the readers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf