Regional Workforce Dynamics in West Virginia: Insights from Shift-Share and Location Quotient Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I propose the authors to write down its meaning for each figure, graph, or table. At the same time, the graphics are very large and stand out from the text of the paper. Thus, I suggest the authors to reduce all the graphics and fit them on the same line as the text.

Citations must have the same format. For example: (Page, 2018), not (Ashtin Massie & Maria Castillo, 2023). In the citation, only the name is given, not the first name.

Therefore, as far as the context of the work proves, I come up with the following suggestions:

1. The work contains new information and data to justify its originality.

2. Yes, the paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the specialized literature, first of all, by approaching each sector in the analyzed region. For each sector, the authors cited one or more works.

3. Yes, the results are correctly analyzed, but I suggest the authors to take into account both the theoretical and practical implications of the research. These implications are not found in the work. I can easily argue the implications regarding the impact this research has on society (how does it influence people's attitude? how does it affect the quality of life? etc.) All this should be in line with the conclusions of the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 comments

Manuscript ID: economies-3200316

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Workforce Dynamics in West Virginia: Insights from Shift-Share and Location Quotient Analysis

Special Issue: Demographics and Regional Economic Development

First of all, I propose the authors to write down its meaning for each figure, graph, or table. At the same time, the graphics are very large and stand out from the text of the paper. Thus, I suggest the authors to reduce all the graphics and fit them on the same line as the text.

Citations must have the same format. For example: (Page, 2018), not (Ashtin Massie & Maria Castillo, 2023). In the citation, only the name is given, not the first name.

Thank you so much for your guidance. It’s greatly appreciated. We've corrected them as shown in the revised manuscript.

Therefore, as far as the context of the work proves, I come up with the following suggestions:

1. The work contains new information and data to justify its originality.
2. Yes, the paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the specialized literature, first of all, by approaching each sector in the analyzed region. For each sector, the authors cited one or more works.
3. Yes, the results are correctly analyzed, but I suggest the authors to take into account both the theoretical and practical implications of the research. These implications are not found in the work. I can easily argue the implications regarding the impact this research has on society (how does it influence people's attitude? how does it affect the quality of life? etc.) All this should be in line with the conclusions of the paper.

Thank you for your guidance. We have incorporated your suggestions into the conclusions section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: economies-3200316

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Workforce Dynamics in West Virginia: Insights from Shift-Share and Location Quotient Analysis

Special Issue: Demographics and Regional Economic Development

The premise of this paper is interesting. The subject matter of the article is appropriate to the Special Issue of the Journal. However, the author/s should improve some aspects of the paper.

The paper needs a broadly literature review on the sectoral specialization and spatial differences (with reference in similar case studies and used methods like QL and Shift-Share Analysis), apart from the specific analysis of each of the main branches of the local economy.

The methodology of the third part could be more analytical. The appropriateness and mainly the limitations of the used methods, as well as the latest extensions of them (for example the dynamic model of shift-share analysis) could be highlighted.

The rest of the current text of analysis contains many interesting data, to identify policy recommendations by developing strategies to promote economic growth and tackle the challenges facing West Virginia's regional economies. Maybe a final classification of the regions according to Budeville’s (1966) classification is needed. His method involves a classification of regions according to their performance in terms of Industrial Shift and Competitive Shift of the Shift-Share analysis and identifies policy priorities for each type of region. In this way, a spatial pattern could be developed (for example policy priorities for the most urbanized regions, mountainous areas etc) and delivered in the conclusion part, which is well written regarding the general outcomes of the research, but in this manner, the paper will bring new ideas to the literature and policy aspects.

Finally, the text needs another careful reading, to improve style and readability for readership. The text is ok in most parts, but there are some grammatical errors, as for example in the header 4.2. Shift Shara analysis (in line 388) and in the 1^st line of Table 1: “Reginal Sectors”.

Moreover, is reference No 15 (in line 699) and some other references written correctly? I am not sure that some reference names have been written correctly. In general, the author/s should carefully check how references are written.

Conclusively, I believe that this manuscript is a potentially publishable paper, after the required revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs another careful reading, to improve style and readability for readership. The text is ok in most parts, but there are some grammatical errors, as for example in the header 4.2. Shift Shara analysis (in line 388) and in the 1^st line of Table 1: “Reginal Sectors”.

Moreover, is reference No 15 (in line 699) and some other references written correctly? I am not sure that some reference names have been written correctly. In general, the author/s should carefully check how references are written.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 comments:

Manuscript ID: economies-3200316

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Workforce Dynamics in West Virginia: Insights from Shift-Share and Location Quotient Analysis

Special Issue: Demographics and Regional Economic Development

The premise of this paper is interesting. The subject matter of the article is appropriate to the Special Issue of the Journal. However, the author/s should improve some aspects of the paper.

The paper needs a broadly literature review on the sectoral specialization and spatial differences (with reference in similar case studies and used methods like QL and Shift-Share Analysis), apart from the specific analysis of each of the main branches of the local economy.

Thank you for your insights. We have added a new section discussing the literature on the applications of shift-share analysis and the Location Quotient (LQ)

The methodology of the third part could be more analytical. The appropriateness and mainly the limitations of the used methods, as well as the latest extensions of them (for example the dynamic model of shift-share analysis) could be highlighted.

Thank you for your comment. We’ve made revisions and incorporated some key highlights.

The rest of the current text of analysis contains many interesting data, to identify policy recommendations by developing strategies to promote economic growth and tackle the challenges facing West Virginia's regional economies. Maybe a final classification of the regions according to   is needed. His method involves a classification of regions according to their performance in terms of Industrial Shift and Competitive Shift of the Shift-Share analysis and identifies policy priorities for each type of region. In this way, a spatial pattern could be developed (for example policy priorities for the most urbanized regions, mountainous areas etc) and delivered in the conclusion part, which is well written regarding the general outcomes of the research, but in this manner, the paper will bring new ideas to the literature and policy aspects.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have incorporated them into the revised manuscript. Please refer to section 4.3.6 for the updates.

Finally, the text needs another careful reading, to improve style and readability for readership. The text is ok in most parts, but there are some grammatical errors, as for example in the header 4.2. Shift Shara analysis (in line 388) and in the 1^st line of Table 1: “Reginal Sectors”.

Thank you so much for your guidance. It’s greatly appreciated. We've reviewed everything to minimize grammatical errors.

Moreover, is reference No 15 (in line 699) and some other references written correctly? I am not sure that some reference names have been written correctly. In general, the author/s should carefully check how references are written.

Thank you so much for your guidance. It’s greatly appreciated. We've reviewed references and followed APA style

Conclusively, I believe that this manuscript is a potentially publishable paper, after the required revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper could be improved in the following ways:

1.This study used primarily descriptive analysis, a descriptive statistic of regional economic development and employment, and lacked a more clearly defined research theme. It is recommended that the title and abstract be revised and improved to make the theme clear and prominent.

2.The introductory section, which elaborates and explains the need and urgency of conducting this study, needs to be strengthened.

3.In the introductory section, the author presents a total of four research questions, which are fragmented and lack a whole, and it is recommended that the author further refine the research questions to make them more focused and clear.

4.In the introduction section, the authors need to clearly present the contributions and innovations of this research.

5.In the literature review section, some important and recently published references are not mentioned and cited. It is recommended that the authors enhance the literature review and analysis.

6.In the Data and Methods section, the methodology used in this study is rather static and it is suggested that the authors could have used a more dynamic approach.

7.In the data and methods section, regions are often characterized by interdependence in economic development and employment, so the authors were advised to add Moran's I test.In the Data and Methods section, once the Moran's I test is significant, it needs to be analyzed by spatial econometric modeling.

8.In the 4. Results and Discussion section, it is necessary to analyze and compare the relevant phenomena with existing references, to explore the reasons behind the phenomena and the influence mechanisms, and to explain the contribution and relevance of the relevant results of this study.

9.In the 5. Conclusions and Policy Suggestions section, the limitations and shortcomings of the study need to be explained and directions for future research indicated.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 comments:

Manuscript ID: economies-3200316

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Workforce Dynamics in West Virginia: Insights from Shift-Share and Location Quotient Analysis

Special Issue: Demographics and Regional Economic Development

This paper could be improved in the following ways:

1.This study used primarily descriptive analysis, a descriptive statistic of regional economic development and employment, and lacked a more clearly defined research theme. It is recommended that the title and abstract be revised and improved to make the theme clear and prominent.

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We've made revisions to both the abstract and the title.

2.The introductory section, which elaborates and explains the need and urgency of conducting this study, needs to be strengthened.

Thank you for your feedback. We've considered your insights and revised the introduction accordingly.

3.In the introductory section, the author presents a total of four research questions, which are fragmented and lack a whole, and it is recommended that the author further refine the research questions to make them more focused and clear.

Thank you for your insights. We've refined the study objectives to better align with the research question.

4.In the introduction section, the authors need to clearly present the contributions and innovations of this research.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have incorporated the findings and contributions into the final discussion and conclusion sections.

5.In the literature review section, some important and recently published references are not mentioned and cited. It is recommended that the authors enhance the literature review and analysis.

Thank you for your insights. We have added a new section discussing the literature on the applications of shift-share analysis and the Location Quotient (LQ)

6.In the Data and Methods section, the methodology used in this study is rather static and it is suggested that the authors could have used a more dynamic approach. ( not at this time)

Thank you for your insights. While we recognize the potential benefits of using dynamic or spatial shift-share analysis, for the purposes of this study, we have opted to focus solely on the standard shift-share analysis.

7.In the data and methods section, regions are often characterized by interdependence in economic development and employment, so the authors were advised to add Moran's I test. In the Data and Methods section, once the Moran's I test is significant, it needs to be analyzed by spatial econometric modeling.

Thank you for your insights. We really see your point. At this stage of our standard shift-share analysis for the specified regions in the state, conducting a spatial autocorrelation test like Moran's I is not strictly necessary. However, we recognize that such a test could be beneficial for exploring how economic growth or decline in one region impacts others.

8.In the 4. Results and Discussion section, it is necessary to analyze and compare the relevant phenomena with existing references, to explore the reasons behind the phenomena and the influence mechanisms, and to explain the contribution and relevance of the relevant results of this study.

Thank you so much for your insights. We are doing our best to clearly align and explain our contributions in relation to other studies

9.In the 5. Conclusions and Policy Suggestions section, the limitations and shortcomings of the study need to be explained and directions for future research indicated.

Thank you for your comments and valuable insights. We have revised the paper to include a section on limitations and directions for future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for taking into account my suggestions. The paper can be published now.

Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable insights and constructive comments regarding the manuscript development. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new manuscript has been improved considerably. However, several weaknesses remain.

Author/s has/ve now added the appropriate literature review on the sectoral specialization and spatial differences (with reference in similar case studies that used methods like QL and Shift-Share Analysis) and now is much clearer the scope of the empirical research being conducted as well as the way the research results are presented.

The methodology of the third part could be even more analytical. From my point of view, it seems quite simple. Author/s has/ve added a small paragraph with the latest extensions of the used methods (for example the dynamic model of shift-share analysis). However, they do not adequately answer why they chose this simplified implementation of the Shift-Share method and did not proceed to more modern applications (such as those referred to in this new paragraph). This will in turn lead to highlighting the limitations of the methods used.

Regarding the policy priorities, author/s has/e added a new section entitled: ‘’4.3.6. Budeville’s Framework: West Virginia’s Economic Sectors’’. The content of this section is not what it should be. Budeville’s (1966) classification involves a classification of regions according to their performance in terms of Industrial Shift and Competitive Shift of the Shift-Share analysis and identifies policy priorities for each type of region (e.g sectoral restructuring or local advantages).

In this way, a spatial pattern could be developed and delivered in the conclusion part, which is not very clear regarding the new insights in the literature and the policy priorities that resulting from the research.

Finally, there are still some grammatical errors, as for example the 1^st line of Table 1: “Reginal Sectors”.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

There are still some grammatical errors, as for example the 1^st line of Table 1: “Reginal Sectors”.

Author Response

 Manuscript ID: economies-3200316

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Workforce Dynamics in West Virginia: Insights from Shift-Share and Location Quotient Analysis

Special Issue: Demographics and Regional Economic Development

Reviewer report - 2nd round

Thank you very much for your valuable insights and constructive comments regarding the manuscript development. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

• The Methodology section has been revised according to your suggestions, providing clear justifications for the chosen methods.
• The Boudeville (1966) classification has been reworked to better connect with the shift-share analysis, and the discussion now includes an examination of the region's economic structures. Additionally, the Conclusion has been updated to reflect these changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript met the criteria for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable insights and constructive comments regarding the manuscript development. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the improvements made by the author/s and the way they have addressed my comments to the previous version of the paper. 

I am satisfied with their work and I don't have any further comments.