Czech–Polish Cross-Border (Non) Cooperation in the Field of the Labor Market: Why Does It Seem to Be Un-De-Bordered?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

very compliments for you paper "Czech-Polish cross-border (non)co-operation in the field of labour market: why does it seem to be un-de-bordered?". Its results are very very interesting and it gives novelties for CBC. Generally tha manuscript has a good write, but it needs some improvement, such as implement the references (as I indicate you in the notes), explaining better some sentences or some acronym in the text or in the tables.

If you correct and improve all the parts indicated in text using the suggestions and the corrections indicated in the notes, I think that your manuscript can continue in the publication process in Sustainibility Journal.

Best Whishes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

many thanks for the peer-review. We found your comment very useful and wish to thank you for them. The answers and reactions are below.

Authors

28 and 29: accepted

37 – We have read the suggested paper, and we didn't find relevant findings, corresponding to our sentence. Authors of the suggested article state, that some CBC activities in the area of nature protection are needed, but it is rather a postulate than a research finding. There is no evidence also, that the CBC in the field of nature is more developed than in other fields .

47 –  for the suggestion of adding the refrence, see above remark; Reform of all references system

53 – accepted

58 – accepted

85-87 – reformulated, accepted

98 – accepted

108 – corrected

129 – accepted

131 – accepted

137 –  accepted and citation changed

187 – accepted and corrected. We added information about sampling method and the references.

189 – accepted

247 –  accepted, corrected

286 – corrected

288 – corrected

353 - corrected

  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Undoubtedly authors refer to very important and interesting topic. They also can know a lot about the topic but description of the method and presentation of conclusions do not seem evidence-based efficiently. Therefore, I can see some points which should be improved before publication:

What does the title mean? I cannot find a clear answer to the question raised.

16-17 – “Authors therefore attempted to identify and classify the most important initiatives”. I cannot find a classification.

What notation is used for presentation of decimals? For example paragraph 83-92 makes confusion about it?

I can advise to add two-three sentences about the migration theory, push and pull factors.

„Institutional thickness “concept is interesting but then I cannot find reference to it among results.

I am not fully sure that authors distinguish mobility and commuting along whole paper. I can understand that in case of euroregions commuting can be a very interesting phenomena. Part’s 2.2 title deals with commuting whereas a list of reasons (108-116) deals with mobility – “the economic and social costs of moving” can stimulate commuting but be a barrier for mobility.

159-160 what is “possible role”? a future one?

185-186 “conduct an analysis of regional and professional media, searching for the information about job positions for Poles in Czechia and for Czechs in Poland”. How many offers where found? What kind of media where researched? Electronic, social media?

195-196 – the second question for experts suggests one clear answer. This in not a proper way for planning research.

Table 3 why did the second priority was not considered as a one stimulating cooperation in the labour market as it refers directly to employment rate? Here expertise of authors can be applied for explanation.

337-338 “Interestingly the actors, responsible for this growth of cross-border commuting are not the public actors, but the commercial employment agencies.” Are the responsible directly or rather as intermediaries? Comparing to the conclusions 355-367

I would highly recommend to strengthen the methodological dimension of the study through a careful review of the paper, referring to above-mentioned points and providing more details on the research process to make conclusions more evidence-based – now they can partly seem as a narrative of authors. Topic of the paper makes it really important and interesting so that this paper can be a valuable study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

many thanks for the peer-review. We found your comment very useful and wish to thank you for them. The answers and reactions are below.

Authors

Undoubtedly authors refer to very important and interesting topic. They also can know a lot about the topic but description of the method and presentation of conclusions do not seem evidence-based efficiently. Therefore, I can see some points which should be improved before publication:

What does the title mean? I cannot find a clear answer to the question raised. We added answer to the line 426 (new lining)

16-17 – “Authors therefore attempted to identify and classify the most important initiatives”. I cannot find a classification. – accepted, as there are not so many we skipped „tho most important“ and added „projects“

What notation is used for presentation of decimals? For example paragraph 83-92 makes confusion about it? - point; corrected.

I can advise to add two-three sentences about the migration theory, push and pull factors. - added, as well as the definintion of cross-border commuting.

„Institutional thickness “concept is interesting but then I cannot find reference to it among results – we are refering to that on cosing lines of summary

I am not fully sure that authors distinguish mobility and commuting along whole paper. I can understand that in case of euroregions commuting can be a very interesting phenomena. Part’s 2.2 title deals with commuting whereas a list of reasons (108-116) deals with mobility – “the economic and social costs of moving” can stimulate commuting but be a barrier for mobility – accepted and corrected. We agree with the reviewer, and eliminate this factor from the list. As commuting is one of the forms of mobility, the list of reasons deals with commuting as one of the forms of mobility. After improvement, we made, it is more transparent.

159-160 what is “possible role”? a future one? Changed for „potential“, what better fits our intentions

185-186 “conduct an analysis of regional and professional media, searching for the information about job positions for Poles in Czechia and for Czechs in Poland”. How many offers where found? What kind of media where researched? Electronic, social media? - improvements made. We searched online regional and local news websites, using a keywords (in Polish and Czech language), like „Polish workers needed in Czechia/Ostrava/Krnov/etc...“ Czech workers needed in Poland/etc…). Our findings are described in the next parts of article. Because we use the mixed method research, we do not describe separately the findings of each of these methods.

195-196 – the second question for experts suggests one clear answer. This in not a proper way for planning research. - Yes we are aware of this. But our intention (this intention is hidden in this question) was to find out, to what extenstion the INTERREG programe is recognized by the experts as the tool of cross-border cooperation. INTERREG is only one of the forms of CBC, and Entrepreneurs can be involved in other forms of cooperation.

Table 3 why did the second priority was not considered as a one stimulating cooperation in the labour market as it refers directly to employment rate? Here expertise of authors can be applied for explanation. The aim of the second priority is: „Increasing the region's visitability rate through greater use of the potential of natural and cultural resources“. This priority could support the labour market, but not the cross-border one. On the list of output indicators there is no indicator referred to the employment. In the priority description is one remark, refers to the labour market: „Projects should support economic growth, which will significantly contribute to growth of employment rate in the region“. That is, why we identify the potential impact of this priority on the cross-border labour market as indirect and weak, according to our previous research experiences, as well as the experts interviews.

337-338 “Interestingly the actors, responsible for this growth of cross-border commuting are not the public actors, but the commercial employment agencies.” Are the responsible directly or rather as intermediaries? Comparing to the conclusions 355-367

I would highly recommend to strengthen the methodological dimension of the study through a careful review of the paper, referring to above-mentioned points and providing more details on the research process to make conclusions more evidence-based – now they can partly seem as a narrative of authors. Topic of the paper makes it really important and interesting so that this paper can be a valuable study. Partly done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx