NEET, One Term to Bind Them All

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• General assessment

The paper successfully identifies and addresses a significant underexplored issue: the variation in educational attainment between NEETs and EETs across different national contexts. This moves beyond monolithic treatments of NEETs and aligns with contemporary calls for more nuanced policy approaches. The construction of the educational difference indicator (Δedu) is clearly explained and methodologically sound. The use of ISCED categories for weighting demonstrates careful consideration of educational stratification. The inclusion of variables across four thematic categories (NEET/unemployment, economic, social, and educational factors) allows for a multi-dimensional analysis. This holistic approach is commendable and reflects the complexity of the NEET phenomenon. The statistical models and results are presented in a detailed, tabulated format, allowing readers to assess the relationships between the dependent variable and each independent variable across different geographic units. The discussion effectively links findings to policy implications, challenging stereotypes about NEETs and highlighting how labor market structure (e.g., tourism, agriculture) can influence NEET educational profiles.

• Few remarks

The selection of only 3 countries (Greece, Spain, Italy), while justified, severely limits the generalizability of findings. The paper acknowledges this but does not fully address the implications for interpreting EU-wide conclusions. Concurrently, the reliance on national-level data overlooks within-country regional disparities, which are especially relevant in the chosen countries.

No information is provided on handling missing data, temporal autocorrelation, or multicollinearity among predictors.

The explanatory power (R²) of many models is low, yet some interpretations seem overstated. For example, economic variables are described as “moderately” explanatory, but R² values are often below 0.2.

The abstract is informative but could more clearly state the main findings and their implications.

• Recommendations

Develop a clearer theoretical framework that integrates educational systems theory, labor market segmentation, and welfare regime typologies. Synthesize the literature thematically rather than author-by-author. 

Clearly specify the statistical models used. Provide regression tables with standard errors.

Explicitly frame the study as a comparative case analysis of three southern European economies

Acknowledge regional heterogeneity within countries as a limitation and suggest it for future research.

Interpret low R² values cautiously and discuss what they imply about the complexity of the phenomenon.

Explore potential interaction effects (e.g., between education systems and economic structure).

More explicitly address gender dimensions, given the mention of childcare variables.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, I want to thank the reviewer for the work dedicated to improving the manuscript. We appreciate the specificity of the comments, which facilitates the completion of the task considerably. Then, I will try to address the comments individually:

• Comment: Develop a clearer theoretical framework that integrates educational systems theory, labor market segmentation, and welfare regime typologies. Synthesize the literature thematically rather than author-by-author. 
•  
• Comment: “The selection of only 3 countries (Greece, Spain, Italy), while justified, severely limits the generalizability of findings. The paper acknowledges this but does not fully address the implications for interpreting EU-wide conclusions.” and “Explicitly frame the study as a comparative case analysis of three southern European economies”
• We modified the text considering that comment. We hope the extended clarification is acceptable.
• Comments: “Acknowledge regional heterogeneity within countries as a limitation and suggest it for future research.” and “Concurrently, the reliance on national-level data overlooks within-country regional disparities, which are especially relevant in the chosen countries.”
• We completely agree with the remark. That is why the paragraph 154-161 and the sentences 200-203 illustrate that problem. However, we added extra clarifications and methodological sections to ensure the reader understands this limitation.
• Comments: “The explanatory power (R²) of many models is low, yet some interpretations seem overstated. For example, economic variables are described as “moderately” explanatory, but R² values are often below 0.2.” and “Interpret low R² values cautiously and discuss what they imply about the complexity of the phenomenon.”
• We saw how the example given by the reviewer could misguide future readers and modified it. We also checked the text and modified other parts to ensure the reader gets a correct notion of the results.
• Comment: “The abstract is informative but could more clearly state the main findings and their implications.”
• We modified the abstract. We hope we manage to produce a much better abstract.
• Comment: “Clearly specify the statistical models used.”
• We apologise if we are wrong, but we think that the model used is clearly specified in the paragraph 298-302. Please let us know if there is something that is unclear and stills should be improved.
• Comment: “Provide regression tables with standard errors.”
• We decided not to include the precise standard errors. We consider that including the F-test suffice and make the table easier to read, mainly considering its size.
• Comment: “Explore potential interaction effects (e.g., between education systems and economic structure).” and “More explicitly address gender dimensions, given the mention of childcare variables.”
• We are very interested in both approaches, as the reader may understand from the manuscript. Nonetheless, we consider that including them would require going much further than the aim of this research. We want to emphasize that this research only aims to establish a basis for an analysis of the difference between NEETs and EETs between countries. We want to prepare the ground on which deeper analysis can be built on. However, we included a mention to those and other limitations of the research that should be considered in future analysis focusing on the topic of the manuscript.

 

Before closing, we hope we managed to improve the article to a high standard, but in case any of the modification is not solving the signalled issues or needed to be improved, we would be grateful to receive more feedback.

 

Yours faithfully,

The author(s).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find it difficult to see the contribution of this research to the field, beyond confirming previous research findings that didn't offer more robust explanations of the issues faced by youth labeled as NEET. The authors successfully demonstrated that the NEET label doesn't illuminate the issues faced by youth often categorized with it, which is used differently across regions. The work confirms what is not being explained and how the promise of policy support for youth can be improved. The term doesn't appear to be generalizable across populations.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

First of all, we thank the reviewer for their work, but we don't think it is possible to do much improvement based on the comments. They are too general to be useful.

• Comment: "I find it difficult to see the contribution of this research to the field, beyond confirming previous research findings that didn't offer more robust explanations of the issues faced by youth labeled as NEET."
• We hope the reviewer will agree that an article offering more robust explanations of a topic is already contributing to the research in its field. However, as it is mentioned in the manuscript, it does add a perspective that the previous research has not taken into consideration, the difference in average educational attainment of NEETs and NEETs between countries.
• Comment: “The authors successfully demonstrated that the NEET label doesn't illuminate the issues faced by youth often categorized with it, which is used differently across regions.”
• We apologize if we gave the impression that our goal was to demonstrate “that the NEET label doesn't illuminate the issues faced by youth often categorized with it”; and we agree with the reviewer that it is something that many others have already shown in many previous studies. Our goal was to show that, even knowing that the profile/idea/concept of NEET covers a wide spectrum of people, that profile/idea/concept (with the focus on education attained) also varies considerably between countries . We mentioned that other studies have signalled the regions as a factor to consider, but we ourselves mentioned that we couldn’t enter that field within the framework of this research.
• Comment: “The work confirms what is not being explained and how the promise of policy support for youth can be improved.”
• We imagined that  “what is not being explained” may derive from the issue mentioned previously, the miscommunication of the goal of the manuscript. However, if it is not explained to us, we cannot know what the reviewer meant.

 

Yours faithfully,

The author(s).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

The article is timely because the crisis facing young people in the global north shows no sign of abating. In this regard, it would be helpful to provide a short introduction on the overall case for reviewing this category in terms of their evolving experiences as well as the issue of terminology.  The article dives into the definitional issue in the first paragraphs, whereas this section could be used to briefly summarise the historical development of problems that led to this situation.

Transnational terminology

A core argument is the common use of the NEET category across different systems in the Global North.  It would be helpful to have sources for this assertion beyond that of observation.

Historical observations on pp2/3 could be amplified to provide more explanation on alternative terminology (e.g. Status Zero, early school leaving etc) and thus why NEET has emerged as the main descriptive category.

 

Objectives and key research questions

The objectives of the article are considered on pp2/3 and a research question is embedded in the text on p4.  However, the article would benefit from the development of a number of explicit research questions to reinforce the coherence of the article and also provide a possible structure for the final discussion.

Methodology

It would be helpful to provide a short section justifying the quantitative approach (pp4/5) rather than simply presenting caveats.

Moreover, this important section could be presented more clearly, again with the judicious use of sub-headings to provide the methodology section with a more visible structure.

 

Results and Discussion

The narration of results is difficult to follow.  Again, it would be useful for internal sub-headings to be used to structure both sections, possibly using the variables to more explicitly provide the themes.

In the Discussion section, cross-referencing to previous studies or wider literature is employed.  However, this could be extended to each of the reporting themes to evaluate the significance of the quantitative results.

A final short para on the significance of the study and its contribution to knowledge would be helpful

Presentation

The article is structured around four main parts.  However, within these, it will be helpful to have internal subheadings to help the authors reflect on the background literature, aspects of methodology, narration of results and a thematic approach to discussion and to help the reader navigate complex data-led narration.   

 

Summary of requested revisions

1. Early introduction to the historical significance of the category
2. Sources to support the diversity of definition.
3. Development of explicit research questions.
4. Development of internal sub-headings throughout to guide both the authors and readers.
5. Further use of literatures in the Discussion part to clarify the significance of the Results.
6. A final short para on the significance of the study and its contribution to knowledge

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your contribution to the improvement of this manuscript. Here we try to response your comment individually:

• Comments: “it would be helpful to provide a short introduction on the overall case for reviewing this category in terms of their evolving experiences as well as the issue of terminology” and “Historical observations on pp2/3 could be amplified to provide more explanation on alternative terminology (e.g. Status Zero, early school leaving etc) and thus why NEET has emerged as the main descriptive category.”
• We understand the approach of the reviewer, however that is not the goal of the article. Many other authors have already responded to the issue of the terminology and its history in much better ways that we could. Thus, we modified the article in a way that acknowledges them and provides references for those who would like to find a deeper explanation on the development of the use of the term NEET and other categories.
• Comment: “the article would benefit from the development of a number of explicit research questions to reinforce the coherence of the article and also provide a possible structure for the final discussion.”.
• We modified the article, introducing more explicit research questions.
• Comment: “It would be helpful to provide a short section justifying the quantitative approach (pp4/5) rather than simply presenting caveats.”.
• We extended the Methodology section in order to address that issue.
• Comments: “The narration of results is difficult to follow.  Again, it would be useful for internal sub-headings to be used to structure both sections, possibly using the variables to more explicitly provide the themes.” and “The article is structured around four main parts.  However, within these, it will be helpful to have internal subheadings to help the authors reflect on the background literature, aspects of methodology, narration of results and a thematic approach to discussion and to help the reader navigate complex data-led narration.”
• We included the use of subheading and adapted the different sections coherently, in order to facilitate the comprehension of the article.
• Comment: “A final short para on the significance of the study and its contribution to knowledge would be helpful”.
• We modified the final paragraphs aiming to cover this and other related issues signalled in the comment.

 

Before closing, we hope we managed to improve the article to a high standard, but in case any of the modification is not solving the signalled issues or needed to be improved, we would be grateful to receive more feedback.

 

Yours faithfully,

The author(s).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The elaboration of the sections on methods and materials, and the discussion, makes the findings clearer to the reader and underscores the need for further research on young people not engaged in education, employment, or training. The paper demonstrates that it is too early in this research agenda to make claims that extend beyond individual countries or regions, and that program development must focus on local attributes and parameters.

Elaboration of the study's limitations is helpful in providing caution and direction in future work with this population.