Defining the Concept of Family through the Lens of Fertile-Aged Women in Bucharest, Romania—between Traditionalism and Inclusion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overview

This is a detailed and reflective paper that is clearly structured, well presented and makes a useful contribution to developing a knowledge and understanding of 'family' in contemporary Romania.  The choice of case-study (Bucharest) is appropriate, timely and is well-framed within the wider demographic and social context of the country.  The results are presented clearly and the discussion is direct and insightful. Overall I enjoyed reading the paper. 

I have only a few suggestions to make in terms of content and have included some observations/suggestions about phrasing and grammar.  The latter are indicative rather than comprehensive.  

Comments on case study section

Most of my suggestions for adding extra material are related to the Case Study section.  In this section it would be helpful to have a little more information about how the sample was chosen, how was the survey undertaken e.g. face-to-face, online? and what were the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking the survey in this way?.  Also on line 114 perhaps provide some examples of 'other studies'.

Other observations/suggestions 

Abstract

Line 1

14  within rather than in conditions

19 of rather than done on

20 include Romania after Bucharest 

21 insert comma after income level

22 check to see if you mean correlated in the true statistical sense of the word

23 use of the word mentality here and throughout.  You may wish to think about using phrases such as perspective, way of thinking, frame of mind, mind-set or mental attitude rather than 'mentality' per se.

27 demographic rather than demographical

Introduction

36 check sentence ... as a country's ...

39 delete apostrophe after ones

41-46 very long sentence - perhaps subdivide

50 state when was the communist era

52 perhaps not 'accents' rather characteristics or specificities?

54 continue sentence on from previous one - no need for new paragraph

56 consist of determining (rather than probing)

59 difficulties for the authors to obtain statistical ...

61 marriage instead of nuptuality 

63 perhaps use on the one hand... on the other hand

70 shrinking not shirking

71 change in outlook?

79/80 men from divorced families are committed in their interpersonal relationships ...

Case study

83 the sample city

perception of family?

Materials and methods

109 when is the forthcoming referendum?

109 how was the sample chosen? how were the data collected etc.

Data mining

114 examples of other studies

Results

176 the data reflect (please check throughout the article for correct usage i.e. data = plural so e.g. data were, data are

182 insert number of participants underneath this table e.g. n= and under any of the other tables where relevant

186 try not to start new sentence with a figure - perhaps start e.g. a total of ... or  in all....

190 relationship rather than union?

193 strive toward offering

215 those who  rather than those that

219 many responsibilities rather than high responsibilities

221 source of 'dynamic pessimism'

227 example references?  Also perhaps some references for using word clouds in this type of research?

236 desire to have a big or large family rather than reach a.

237 for a large number of Romanians living in

252 to have developed personally

261 this sentence in relation to the 1950s cohort perhaps needs reworking for clarity

280 data show

290 table 4 - years old (rather than year old)

293 as delayed adulthood

317 less common rather than 'present'

375 note sentence starts with a figure (please see earlier comment)

Discussion

406 Fall short of this mind-set? perspective? rather than mentality

408 illustrates rather than proves

417 relationship?

418 in Romania's (rather than Romanian's)

Conclusion

444 leads in what sense? 

446 cities

457 higher level studies (rather than superior)

 

Acknowledgments

Please note that the acknowledgments still has the original instruction wording rather than specific acknowledgments if any

 

Author Response

Comments on case study section

Most of my suggestions for adding extra material are related to the Case Study section.  In this section it would be helpful to have a little more information about how the sample was chosen, how was the survey undertaken e.g. face-to-face, online? and what were the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking the survey in this way?  Also on line 114 perhaps provide some examples of 'other studies'.

Other observations/suggestions 

Abstract

Line 1

14 within rather than in conditions

19 of rather than done on

20 include Romania after Bucharest 

21 insert comma after income level

22 check to see if you mean correlated in the true statistical sense of the word

23 use of the word mentality here and throughout.  You may wish to think about using phrases such as perspective, way of thinking, frame of mind, mind-set or mental attitude rather than 'mentality' per se.

27 demographic rather than demographical

Introduction

36 check sentence ... as a country's ...

39 delete apostrophe after ones

41-46 very long sentence - perhaps subdivide

50 state when was the communist era

52 perhaps not 'accents' rather characteristics or specificities?

54 continue sentence on from previous one - no need for new paragraph

56 consist of determining (rather than probing)

59 difficulties for the authors to obtain statistical ...

61 marriage instead of nuptiality 

63 perhaps use on the one hand... on the other hand

70 shrinking not shirking

71 change in outlook?

79/80 men from divorced families are committed in their interpersonal relationships ...

Case study

83 the sample city

perception of family?

Materials and methods

109 when is the forthcoming referendum?

109 how was the sample chosen? how were the data collected etc.

Data mining

114 examples of other studies

Results

176 the data reflect (please check throughout the article for correct usage i.e. data = plural so e.g. data were, data are

182 insert number of participants underneath this table e.g. n= and under any of the other tables where relevant

186 try not to start new sentence with a figure - perhaps start e.g. a total of ... or in all....

190 relationship rather than union?

193 strive toward offering

215 those who rather than those that

219 many responsibilities rather than high responsibilities

221 source of 'dynamic pessimism'

227 example references?  Also perhaps some references for using word clouds in this type of research?

236 desire to have a big or large family rather than reach a.

237 for a large number of Romanians living in

252 to have developed personally

261 this sentence in relation to the 1950s cohort perhaps needs reworking for clarity

280 data show

290 table 4 - years old (rather than year old)

293 as delayed adulthood

317 less common rather than 'present'

375 note sentence starts with a figure (please see earlier comment)

Discussion

406 Fall short of this mind-set? perspective? rather than mentality

408 illustrates rather than proves

417 relationship?

418 in Romania's (rather than Romanian's)

Conclusion

444 leads in what sense? 

446 cities

457 higher level studies (rather than superior)

 Acknowledgments

Please note that the acknowledgments still have the original instruction wording rather than specific acknowledgments if any

 

Dear reviewer,

 

First of all, thank you very much for your detailed and specific analysis of our material, it is rare that we find someone willing to traverse a material with such conscientiousness and we feel really lucky that we found you.

Secondly allow us to answer in one paragraph on all your kind advice. We have reread carefully the material and we have addressed all of your observations (we hope successfully) and corrected or clarified a few more. We have changes mentality to, depending on the context of the phrase, metal attitude or perspective.

At your suggestion as well as the other kind reviewers we have improved the “materials and methods” section in which we clarified questions regarding: how the questioners were applied and why, the presented a clear description of the respondents’ profiles, the included additional information on other methods we used: word clouds, symbolic interaction theory. We also included more information on the demographic history in Romania in the “introduction” section and we hope that gives more substance to our choosing to quote Park on the description of 1950s cohorts. We have improved the “Acknowledgments” section, thank you very much for pointing this out.

We are looking forward to hear your opinion about our modifications and future suggestions on how we can improve it. 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is a prospective study that analyzed how do people perceive family in Romania. The topic is essential to explore amid numbers of political, economic, and social changes the country has gone. However, the paper needs some improvements. a. A literature review is missing in the paper. The authors have mentioned some literature in the findings; the best approach is to have the literature review after introduction. While doing literature review or right after the literature review, the authors need to discuss the issues that other literature did not addressed in those literatures and how this study will fill those gaps.  If this is a meta-analysis, the authors do not need a literature review. However, it must have a paragraph in the methods sections discussing how did the meta-analysis done. b. The authors need to use sociological theory to explain the findings—primarily the responses of the open-ended question. Authors can use symbolic interaction theory as this is a micro-level study. c. Methods: While explaining data mining, the paragraph on what is SPSS, Correlations, and regression is not needed. The readers of the journal know what these are. However, authors can explain which regression methods ( ordinary least square or logistic regression, etc.) they have chosen and why. There is a good discussion on types of analysis in the second paragraph of data mining. However, the sections need to include what kinds of regression the authors chose and why. d.  Results: The authors need to explain how did they organize the findings before they start discussing the results. The authors discussed the results of other literature first. That is confusing to the readers. This section is all about what did the authors have found in their research. If this is a meta-analysis, then the author needs to have a separate section on these analysis. The authors should not blend the literature with the quantitative findings at the beginning of the paragraph. The authors can use some of the previous research with similar results after explaining their quantitative and qualitative responses. I have not seen any regression analysis in the paper.  There is only one correlation analysis; the authors need to clarify.  

Author Response

This paper is a prospective study that analyzed how do people perceive family in Romania. The topic is essential to explore amid numbers of political, economic, and social changes the country has gone. However, the paper needs some improvements.

Thank you for offering your time and expertise in helping us improve our material. We hope that the new version of the article is more in line with your expectations and we are looking forward to hearing your future opinions and suggestions.

1. A literature review is missing in the paper. The authors have mentioned some literature in the findings; the best approach is to have the literature review after introduction. While doing literature review or right after the literature review, the authors need to discuss the issues that other literature did not addressed in those literatures and how this study will fill those gaps.  If this is a meta-analysis, the authors do not need a literature review. However, it must have a paragraph in the methods sections discussing how did the meta-analysis done.

We have included a new section entitled “Literature Review”, this section contains the references scattered around the materials (as you observed in section d.) and also included new sources which we hope strengthens our research. We have also addressed the reason, for our perspective, why this is study is needed and the gap it fills. The authors consider this study necessary and novel especially because the 2018 referendum that was aimed specifically at defining what a family is, showed the polarized opinions of the Romanian population, with modern views clashing with strong traditional ones. This study intends to clarify the causality of this phenomenon by approaching it from a complex perspective that includes economic, historic, social, and demographic factors.

1. The authors need to use sociological theory to explain the findings—primarily the responses of the open-ended question. Authors can use symbolic interaction theory as this is a micro-level study.

We would like to thank you for this observations more than anything. It has given us a chance to learn new methodologies and acknowledge the powerful connection of interdisciplinary.

1. Methods: While explaining data mining, the paragraph on what is SPSS, Correlations, and regression is not needed. The readers of the journal know what these are. However, authors can explain which regression methods (ordinary least square or logistic regression, etc.) they have chosen and why. There is a good discussion on types of analysis in the second paragraph of data mining. However, the sections need to include what kinds of regression the authors chose and why.

The descriptive parts have been removed. A linear regression was applied because it has many elements in common with the Pearson correlation and as such has the capacity to strengthen the existing correlation and explain the connection between analysed variables. For this study the linear regression was used to emphasize the correlation between the number of children the respondents have and the desire to have more.

1. Results: The authors need to explain how did they organize the findings before they start discussing the results. The authors discussed the results of other literature first. That is confusing to the readers. This section is all about what did the authors have found in their research. If this is a meta-analysis, then the author needs to have a separate section on these analyses. The authors should not blend the literature with the quantitative findings at the beginning of the paragraph. The authors can use some of the previous research with similar results after explaining their quantitative and qualitative responses. I have not seen any regression analysis in the paper.  There is only one correlation analysis; the authors need to clarify.

The literature review was extracted from the “results” section and introduced in the “literature review” section, we hope this will make the text easier to follow and understand. The present paper uses the Pearson correlation in multiple situations: to analyse the relation between income and desire to have (more) children, as well as the current number of children and the desire to have (more children). The authors felt this was an effective way to become available to a large spectrum of readers.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article needs a lot of improvement.

First, the title of the article is not adequate to its content. It suggests some changes in defining family in Romania. The article does not talk about changes in the definition of a family in Romania, it rather shows the high stability in understanding what a family is. By the way, the text refers only to female residents of Bucharest, only to women of reproductive age, in fact. 

Secondly, the research method is absolutely unclear. It is not known how the respondents were recruited. Was it a survey using a survey posted on the Internet? Was it rather a street survey and interviewers chose the respondents freely? The lack of a description of how to implement this study undermines its scientific dimension.

Thirdly, the authors never provide the number of responses (only percentage distributions). There is a lack of basic information about the socio-demographic structure of the surveyed women, for example structure regarding age of respondents, education, marital status etc.

Fourthly, there is no deeper reference to the history of population policy in Romania from 1965-1971 and its impact on the contemporary demographic situation of Romania.

Fifthly, there are no clear recommendations from the authors of the text on the factors that are conducive to improving the situation of families in Romania.

Author Response

Thank you for offering your time and expertise in helping us improve our material. We hope that the new version of the article is more in line with your expectations and we are looking forward to hearing your future opinions and suggestions.

 

First, the title of the article is not adequate for its content. It suggests some changes in defining family in Romania. The article does not talk about changes in the definition of a family in Romania, it rather shows the high stability in understanding what a family is. By the way, the text refers only to female residents of Bucharest, only to women of reproductive age, in fact. 

The title was changed in order to reflect the study location and the target group.

 

Secondly, the research method is absolutely unclear. It is not known how the respondents were recruited. Was it a survey using a survey posted on the Internet? Was it rather a street survey and interviewers chose the respondents freely? The lack of a description of how to implement this study undermines its scientific dimension.

The “Materials and Methods” section was strengthened and enlarge to include information about how the interviewed were conducted, the main advantages and disadvantages, as well as a comprehensive description of the respondents. Information about the other methodologies used in the article were also included.

 

Thirdly, the authors never provide the number of responses (only percentage distributions). There is a lack of basic information about the socio-demographic structure of the surveyed women, for example structure regarding age of respondents, education, marital status etc.

The number of eligible respondents (499) out of the total number of interviews done face to face (551) was included in multiple paragraphs as well as tables was included in order for the reader to more easily follow our analysis. 

 

Fourthly, there is no deeper reference to the history of population policy in Romania from 1965-1971 and its impact on the contemporary demographic situation of Romania.

An entire section about the demographic history of Romania was included in the “Introduction” section while also emphasizing the mental remnants that the drastic communist policies have had on the population.

 

Fifthly, there are no clear recommendations from the authors of the text on the factors that are conducive to improving the situation of families in Romania.

While the authors did not intend to look for factors that would contribute to improving the situation of families in Romania, we have briefly mentioned the fact that due to worsening economic conditions several financial incentives meant to help young couples have been made more challenging to access but this is only scraping the surface for the issue “how can we improve the family situation”, so we thank you for this suggestion and we are interested in shaping our future research on this topic.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for addressing my concerns. The methodology has all the required information. Now we have more information about who the respondents are and how the data is collected. Findings are clear to understand. Many of your findings have policy implications, such as how women choose to have fewer children because of financial constraints. In your manuscript, you have mentioned, "Without the implementation of viable and successful measures to support young couples or recently formed families, it seems that the number of children per family will continue to decrease and/or to remain very low." Can you suggest some measures based on your observations or measures adopted in other countries? Or this can be a future research. Overall this is an excellent work.

Author Response

Thank you for your time.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revision is satisfactory.

The Authors addressed more or less properly all my comments,

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time.