Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Report 1

The article on 'Research on Supply and Demand of China's Aged Service Resource Allocation-A system dynamics model' offers an interesting read on a systems dynamics methodology for the status of the elderly population, which is an important social problem. However, in its current form, the article needs to be further updated as follows before it can be considered for publication in Systems:

1. Please check the paper throughout for typos, grammar etc. (e.g. paper title).
2. Population and aging dynamics is one of the most studied topics in system dynamics. Cases in developed countries should be included in the literature. Results should be compared.
3. Section 1, in the last paragraph of the introduction, should cover the layout and content of the rest of the article.
4. The research hypothesis or hypotheses should be clearly stated, and the Causal loop diagram of the Dynamic Hypothesis should be clearly explained.
5. In Figure 6, there are three reinforcing loops. However, neither positive nor negative causal loop occurs in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Therefore, this situation is reflected in Figure 9, which composes the whole diagram.
6. Therefore, since this causal diagram has a reinforcing character, it will always produce linear or exponentially increasing behaviors. It is recommended to re-analyze the relationships between the variables and re-construct diagrams that are more realistic. While creating the diagram, the causal relationships should be analyzed and the causal situations where loops and feedbacks will be rearranged. This is crucial to the robustness of the Dynamic Hypothesis.
7. The system dynamics approach performs better in studies where the reference model includes longer-term data. Analysis of only a 4-year situation (from 2015 to 2019) in simulation produces limited results.
8. The selected variables in all graphs obtained in the results follow an increasing trend. The cycles and relationships in the causal loop diagram need to be handled and analyzed more realistically.
9. Conclusion part can be increased a little more. Limitations of the study should be stated. In particular, future studies that are planned to be done should be given at the end of this section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper presents a relevant topic and addresses relevant aspects to be analyzed and modelled. However, there are items that are recommended to be improved before considering the paper for publication:

1. More references need to be added, specially for the motivation and selection of the methodology that it is pursued to be tackled.
2. The format of references in the text needs to be revised.
3. Figures need to be improved in clarity, size, etc.
4. Moreover, the format of titles as for example “modeling objectives” needs to be checked.
5. Tables 2, 3 and 4 would be recommended to be in an annex at the end of the article.
6. More extensive explanations should be provided for the Casual loop diagrams
7. The mathematical model is recommended to be placed in another annex with the important equations and development of equations including explanations in chapter 4.
8. The purpose, contribution and novelty should be better explained both in the introduction and a discussion section that could be added after the results section. It would allow to compare the results obtained with other similar practical and research studies on the field.
9. Target output should be analyzed more in detail with regard to the relationship of the output indicator and data input and system mathematical model.
10. The conclusion is more an explanation of the process and results rather than a formal conclusion. Moreover, it should be complemented with a future outlook for the research area.

 

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is very interesting, not only for China, but for other countries not as developed as the western countries. The mathematics and the simulations are fine but the article lack scientific merit. A simulation analysis for policy recommendation falls into category or professional work and not scientific work.

The general conclusion after this mathematically rigorous analysis shows unfortunately what authors already nicely described with official statistics (though the latest from 2019 and we are now in 2022), so again I don’t see the scientific merit except using the model in itself.

I would suggest the authors to try to concentrate on social aspect of the problem as well and not only on mathematics. Try to use some social theory to back up results and give possible recommendation so that the mathematical results are grounded in some theory. That could be a scientific contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made the corrections identified in the previous review. I'd like to point out that the article is publishable.
Note: The fonts look different between lines 717 and 727 in the 6. Conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper has been significantly improved based on the revision. However, there are items that are recommended to be improved before publication:

1. Create two different sections: one for results and the other for discussing this research with other similar studies and their output results, so the novelty and contribution are better highlighted.
2. I would suggest to improve the readability of the article with more clear explanations and improving the context between figures, tables, etc.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The improvements are now significant, the authors added substantial clarification. Some descriptive statistics is now excluded. The formulas are at the end which is much better. However still the scientific merit is low.  

Author Response

At first, we are very grateful for you to take valuable time in your busy schedule and valuable suggestions for our paper. These suggestions are significant for the improvement. We are very apologizing that our result analysis and conclusion could not meeting your requirements. We will conduct a more in-depth study on aged care service resource allocation in the future work, enrich our conclusions with management theories, and enhance the scientific merit of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf