Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This study discussing the current service/care difficulties and challenges that social institutions in Hungary are facing is tackling an important issue, with high potential to contribute both to scholarship and ameliorative social intervention, therefore the expectations of the reader/reviewer normally run high. My perception is, however, is, that the paper as it currently needs significant improvements in order to satisfactorily meet such expectations. While recognizing and appreciating all undeniable merits and achievements of the article, in the following lines I  shall focus on these critical points:

Introduction: it would be important to clearly outline here the characteristics of the Hungarian social system and the difficulties it faces,  by comparing the Hungarian situation with  a more nuanced picture of the European context. The Author is referring to "Europe" in generic terms, as if the characteristics of social services and the problems they faced are basically similar in all European countries. It is however not made whether this refers to the European continent, to the European Union countries, or to the economically more developed part of Europe. The Author needs to be much more specific here and provide examples from particular groups of  countries, countries or concrete situation from across Europe which might help the reader to  better understand  the similarities and differences of problems faced by Hungary with those which exist in other European countries. Also, general remarks without specific reference to literature or not supported by concrete facts, such as that encountered in page 118  ("The Hungarian service structure and institutional network is inadequate, in many  cases it only covers the service area in name only") shall be avoided. In all instances, the Author needs to make clear( which is not always the cases in this paper) which statements are citations from the literature and which one are his/her own opinions. 

Methodology Further information is needed concerning the theoretical assumptions behind the way the questionnaire was constructed. It is not made clear whether the questionnaire included open questions, closed questions or both types. Did the respondents have the opportunity to rank only the preselected items included in the questionnaire or did they have also the option to add to the list problems which they personally regarded as important?  Also, the sampling method needs to be described in more details. Are the institutions included n the survey representatives for the social services provider sector in the two countries? If yes, in what respect? (e.g. to reflect distribution along public/private/church owned, rural/urban, small/medium/big size etc). Also, some information about the two selected counties would be useful here: how social services in these two counties compare to other regions of Hungary and to the situation in the country taken as a whole? This would be also important in order to be able to estimate to what extent the results can be extrapolated to country level.   

Results I think that the illustration of the results with a problem map is an inspiring graphical solution which certainly facilitates comprehension; however graphical solution cannot replace a detailed and nuance presentation of the findings. This section needs to be developed with more explanatory texts, if possible divided in subsections according to the main category of problems. Statements such as the "complex negative consequences of low wages" should be supported with specifics and concrete examples in order to enhance scientific validity and credibility. 

Discussion and Conclusion Here it would be important to formulate more precisely and clearly, by analysing the results in the light of relevant literature, what is the added value of the article to the existing knowledge and scholarship in the field.  In this respect perhaps it would be useful  to take each research question individually and formulate an answer to it. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English Language used in the article does not always meet the highest academic standards. There are several examples of imprecise use of language, which denote a mechanistic translation of texts initially written in Hungarian. In order to improve the text,  language editing by a native speaker or an expert more familiar with   academic English is recommendable. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend the use of "social services" instead of "social institutions" in the text.

Page 2, lines 75-58, on subsidiarity in other European countries: since 2022, subsidiary, including the responsibility of the family, has been made a part of the social legislation in Hungary as well (1993:III tv). In the same paragraph, when comparing the social provision systems of other countries, the author, in several instances, refers to literature published 15-20 years ago. It is very likely that there have been changes in the systems referred to, the references should be updated.

There is a detailed description of the 166 services involved in the research, but not of the 201 people who responded - it would be interesting to know their basic demographics, and also, possibly, if their responses show some kind of pattern. There should be a description on how they and/or the services were invited to respond.

The sentences "The sample represents 166 social service providers in the two counties 157
surveyed." appears in the text twice on page 4 (lines 157 and 159).

When introducing the sample, the author says "the providers are either municipally or centrally run" (p4, line 173) - centrally should be defined (or ommitted) - if it refers to the state, that forms a different category.

Page 7, Line 260, in case of addiction services: "where none of the problems scored
less than 3" - do you mean to say OVER 3?

There are several references to Varsányi (2006) but it is not indicated in the References.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is very interesting. The problems concerning social institutions in Hungary, which the author presents, also occur in other European countries. The novelty of the article is increased by empirical research. What should be improved in it is more information about social tasks at the county level. How social tasks are divided between the municipality and the county. Why the author chose this level (maybe more tasks, more responsibilities). I recommend adding a few sentences on this topic. Another note is the description of table A1. A certain dates in the table A1 should be included in the chapter on methodology. This is a suggestion and the Author will decide on it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors successfully implemented the recommendations made after the first review and the article is now much improved. Still,  for reasons of achieving full academic  soundness, some changes in the concluding parts are necessary. First, there is a need to rephrase into affirmative mode the reiteration of research questions from line 429 to 460 (E.g. "The first research question addressed the basic problems that hamper...). Second, to provide the article with proper concluding phrases, I suggest to relocate  the last two paragraphs of Discussion at the end of Conclusion.  

 

Author Response

Coments 1:

First, there is a need to rephrase into affirmative mode the reiteration of research questions from line 429 to 460 (E.g. "The first research question addressed the basic problems that hamper...).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have revised the relevant parts of the Conclusions.

The lines concerned are as follows: 414-416, 420, 428-430, 433-434. 443.

Text highlighted in green.

 

Comments 2:

Second, to provide the article with proper concluding phrases, I suggest to relocate the last two paragraphs of Discussion at the end of Conclusion.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have relocated the last two paragraphs of Discussion at the end of Conclusion.

This change can be found in lines 478-490. Text highlighted in green.