Investing in the Future: A Discussion on the Economic and Broader Social Impact of Early Intervention Programs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents an analysis of the effectiveness of early childhood intervention programmes for children at social risk, taking social and economic impact as a reference point. From this point of view, this article delves into and systematises an area that has been little analysed from a pedagogical perspective, and can therefore be considered a contribution in this regard.
Although the text follows the traditional structure of a scientific essay, it contains errors that slow down the reading, such as the placement of parentheses next to other parentheses (as occurs, for example, in lines 75 and 80), which could be solved by rewriting the sentences in parentheses in a more direct manner.
One element that complicates the reading is the lack of a methodological section that clarifies the scope of the programmes studied, either temporally or geographically. This becomes more noticeable in the incorporation of the article by Leite and Pereira (2019) from line 143 onwards, which highlights a possible international scope, raising the question of what other articles should be cited and their context.
The data provided is certainly interesting, but once again, the complexity of assessing the analysis in section 2, which begins on line 163 (which should actually be number 3), is repeated, as the criteria for analysing the financial indicators are not circumscribed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy key concern is about the nature of this manuscript. Is it a narrative review or commentary? The author(s) need to point it out explicitly. I definitely would appreciate reading a systematic review on this topic regarding economic and social impact of early intervention programs, instead of a narrative review. The social impact is relatively less covered in the manuscript compared to the economic impact.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current version of the text presented has improved in terms of both clarity and quality of the information presented, incorporating a more relevant bibliography and generating new sections in line with the recommendations made. In this regard, we are grateful that the author(s) have taken the comments presented into consideration.
However, there are some new errors, one of which is particularly striking:
General elements
1) The addition of new texts is a contribution, however, when these refer to very old studies (from 15 to 20 years ago), an update of the context of the analysis developed in these texts is needed. This is valid for all references that allude to investment (for example, the currency can be contrasted with its current value).
Specific elements
1) In the introduction to the paper, between lines 43 and 46, Meisel & Shonkoff (2000) are quoted verbatim, but no page number is given.
2) In the same section, there is a note in Greek (lines 47 and 48) whose content corresponds to an internal note by the authors with questions to be resolved about the programmes analysed. This error indicates carelessness in the final editing, so in addition to needing to be corrected, attention must be paid to the rigour of the process.
3) There is a non-existent bibliographic reference number 56. This also indicates carelessness in the editing process.
Author Response
Please see the attached file for my responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
