A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of Changes in Left-Behind Children’s Mental Health in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First, I would like to thank the opportunity to read this study. This study adds to the literature by performing a cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in left-behind children’s mental health in China. In general, the authors used relevant and updated literature, and the findings of the study were deeply discussed.
Below, I leave some comments hoping they contribute to the improvement of the paper.
- In the Materials and Methods section, was not clear for me the explanation regarding the existence of two groups and two sample sizes (Table 1). Could the authors better clarify this procedure?
- Please add in the Materials and Methods section the software(s) used to perform the data analyses.
- I would like to suggest adding in the discussion section a section where the authors identify possible limitations of the study and future research avenues and possible theoretical and practical implications of the study.
Author Response
- On two groups and two sample sizes in the method section, we thank the reviewer for this observation. We have briefly explained the reasons and purpose for having two data groups and their corresponding samples. Please check page 3, line 174 to 182.
- On analytic software used for the study, we thank the reviewer for this comment. We have created a subsection – 4 Data analysis, on page 3, line 183 to 187 that presents this information.
- On study implication, we thank the reviewer for this comment. We have created a subsection – 5 Study implications, on page 12, line 471 to 495 that presents this information.
- On study limitation, we thank the reviewer for this comment. We have created a subsection – Limitations and future directions, on page 13, line 537 to 551 that presents this information.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper underlines an important issue. Some suggestions are made across the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful in-text comments. We have briefly responded to them in-text. Please check page 2, line 48 and page 6, 219.
We are grateful for the time and efforts, and the invaluable comments of the two anonymous reviewers and the action editor which have greatly enhanced the quality of our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
