Trends in Life Expectancy in Romania between 1990 and 2018. A Territorial Analysis of Its Determinants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this article, the authors examine trends in life expectancy in Romania between 1990 and 2018. My comments on each section of the manuscript are as follows:
- Abstract: Please clarify what the methods/data are used in the study.
- Introduction: It is not clear to me the importance/contribution of the study to the literature. Are there previous studies on this topic? If yes, what does this paper do that is better than the others?
Line 79, page 2: The authors mentioned “the factors are best correlated with life expectancy” but did not point out what they are and based on what criteria that they can make that claim.
Line 84-84, page 2: The authors stated that the analyses are quantitative, which is kind of vague. It would be more informative if the authors can provide more detailed information on this.
- Materials and methods
After reading the material and methods section, it is still not clear to me 1) how the authors conducted these measures, 2) how the authors tested their hypotheses, and 3) what analyses they did.
Other minor comments:
Line 89-90, page 3: The authors mentioned that they gather information on life expectancy at birth in European States for contextualization. Can the authors explain the reason why it is important to do the contextualization analyses in this context?
Line 114, page 3: “The share of the population with higher education” – Please clarify how higher education is defined in this study.
- Results and discussions
I have been missing something but it seems to me that this article is a descriptive study in which the authors try to examine the trends of life expectancy in Romania and then provide some possible explanations of what happened without no much evidence to support them.
Line 170, page 4: The authors mentioned that “6 classes with a distinct profile were obtained, using the criteria mentioned in the methodology. However, I could not find these criteria in the methodology section. Also, please explain why there are 6 classes.
It is very nice that the authors have the figures in color.
Line 208-210, page 5: “…the countries with the lowest life expectancy at birth in Europe, with a strong gender gap and an increased incidence of morbidity caused by long-dammed factors in the west of the continent.” – I agree with the first part on the lowest life expectancy in Europe since Figure 1 shows this. However, do the authors have any evidence/citations to support the second part?
Line 226-226, page 6: Do the authors have any supporting evidence for their argument that the information over a 7-year period is enough to “capture the existence of some regional particularities or the specific incidence of certain causes”?
Line 228, page 6: Criteria of 6 classes – are they different from the ones that used to classify 6 classes in the previous section? – these are the ones for Romania and the above 6 classes are for the European countries.
Figure 2, page 6: It would be nice if the authors could put a note in Figure 2 to explain what the abbreviations of each disease group in the table stand for so that the readers do not have go back to the methods section to figure out what they are.
Table 2, page 9: Is national average in Table 2 for 2018? Could the authors explain why they present the results of counties with a high share of forests in the table? Three categories presented are not mutually exclusive. What kinds of medical centers do the counties with a high share of forests have (i.e. no medical centers, poor or good ones)?
Line 337-339, page 9: How do the results in Table 2 support the statement? Counties with main medical centers have higher average life expectancy than counties with poor medical centers over time. But compared with counties with a high share of forests, these numbers are almost the same.
Line 344-348, page 9: Please add citations to support the exclusion of related factors?
Figure 4, page 10: It would also be nice if the authors could add a note of what the abbreviations of these factors in the table are.
Table 3, page 12: I have the following clarification questions for this table.
1) LEX: dependent variables. Are GDP, PHYS, URB, HED, FT, FOR, SEW, DCS independent variables?
2) Are the numbers reported in the tables the coefficients? Why did the authors report the standard errors, significant levels (10%, 5%, 1%), and the number of observations in the table?
3) How is the difference in the third row measured for the dependent variable (LEX) and the independent variables?
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this article, the authors examine trends in life expectancy in Romania between 1990 and 2018. My comments on each section of the manuscript are as follows:
- Abstract: Please clarify what the methods/data are used in the study.
Response: Additional details have been introduced in the summary regarding the methods and data used in the study.
- Introduction: It is not clear to me the importance/contribution of the study to the literature. Are there previous studies on this topic? If yes, what does this paper do that is better than the others?
Response: Additional details on the existence of previous studies, the contribution of the present paper and the novelty elements it brings were introduced. Lines 79, 82-84 have been revised as requested.
Line 79, page 2: The authors mentioned “the factors are best correlated with life expectancy” but did not point out what they are and based on what criteria that they can make that claim.
See lines 106-109 in the revised manuscript.
Line 84-84, page 2: The authors stated that the analyses are quantitative, which is kind of vague. It would be more informative if the authors can provide more detailed information on this.
See lines 113-116 in the revised manuscript.
- Materials and methods
After reading the material and methods section, it is still not clear to me 1) how the authors conducted these measures, 2) how the authors tested their hypotheses, and 3) what analyses they did.
Response: Specifications on how the data were processed were introduced. The way in which the assumptions and the related analyses were tested was specified at the end of the section. Lines 89-90 and 114 were revised as required.
Other minor comments:
Line 89-90, page 3: The authors mentioned that they gather information on life expectancy at birth in European States for contextualization. Can the authors explain the reason why it is important to do the contextualization analyses in this context?
See lines 120-125 in the revised manuscript.
Line 114, page 3: “The share of the population with higher education” – Please clarify how higher education is defined in this study.
See line 147 in the revised manuscript.
- Results and discussions
I have been missing something but it seems to me that this article is a descriptive study in which the authors try to examine the trends of life expectancy in Romania and then provide some possible explanations of what happened without no much evidence to support them.
Response: In the Materials and methods section, the criteria underlying the selection of classes were specified, as well as the fact that the two series of data (at the continental level and at the national level, respectively) are not entirely comparable.
Citations have been introduced in order to support the statements in lines 208-210. Further explanations were inserted (as required) in lines 226 and 228. A note was added to Figure 2, as requested.
In Table 2 a further clarification was introduced in order to light up the issues indicated in table 2 and in lines 337-339.
Citations were added in support of the statements included in lines 344-348.
The specifications required in the title of Figure 4 and in Table 3 were introduced.
Line 170, page 4: The authors mentioned that “6 classes with a distinct profile were obtained, using the criteria mentioned in the methodology. However, I could not find these criteria in the methodology section. Also, please explain why there are 6 classes.
See lines 190-194 in the revised mansucript.
It is very nice that the authors have the figures in color.
Line 208-210, page 5: “…the countries with the lowest life expectancy at birth in Europe, with a strong gender gap and an increased incidence of morbidity caused by long-dammed factors in the west of the continent.” – I agree with the first part on the lowest life expectancy in Europe since Figure 1 shows this. However, do the authors have any evidence/citations to support the second part?
See line 245 in the revised manuscript.
Line 226-226, page 6: Do the authors have any supporting evidence for their argument that the information over a 7-year period is enough to “capture the existence of some regional particularities or the specific incidence of certain causes”?
See lines 263-264 in the revised manuscript.
Line 228, page 6: Criteria of 6 classes – are they different from the ones that used to classify 6 classes in the previous section? – these are the ones for Romania and the above 6 classes are for the European countries.
See lines 190-194 in the revised mansucript.
Figure 2, page 6: It would be nice if the authors could put a note in Figure 2 to explain what the abbreviations of each disease group in the table stand for so that the readers do not have go back to the methods section to figure out what they are.
See lines 280-284 in the revised mansucript.
Table 2, page 9: Is national average in Table 2 for 2018? Could the authors explain why they present the results of counties with a high share of forests in the table? Three categories presented are not mutually exclusive. What kinds of medical centers do the counties with a high share of forests have (i.e. no medical centers, poor or good ones)?
Line 337-339, page 9: How do the results in Table 2 support the statement? Counties with main medical centers have higher average life expectancy than counties with poor medical centers over time. But compared with counties with a high share of forests, these numbers are almost the same.
See table 2 in the revised form.
Line 344-348, page 9: Please add citations to support the exclusion of related factors?
See lines 389-390 in the revised manuscript.
Figure 4, page 10: It would also be nice if the authors could add a note of what the abbreviations of these factors in the table are.
See lines 411-413 in the revised manuscript.
Table 3, page 12: I have the following clarification questions for this table.
1) LEX: dependent variables. Are GDP, PHYS, URB, HED, FT, FOR, SEW, DCS independent variables?
2) Are the numbers reported in the tables the coefficients? Why did the authors report the standard errors, significant levels (10%, 5%, 1%), and the number of observations in the table?
3) How is the difference in the third row measured for the dependent variable (LEX) and the independent variables?
See the revised forme of the table 3.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript submitted is well written, concise and informative. The issue raised in the study is surely appealing to a broad audience of readers and of special interest for socioeconomic applications. Territorial disparities are a very important multidisciplinary issue and the authors investigate a latent - but very relevant - component of this process. The quantitative analysis is informative and rather simple. Results are clearly presented and carefully discussed in the final chapter. Overall, the length of the manuscript is acceptable. Figures and tables are clearly organized and present non-redundant data.
My main concerns regard with:
1) the state-of-the-art (introduction): authors are suggested to implement this part better clarifying the Europea/middle East/northern Africa/Mediterranean country context in terms of regional disparities. Many indexes were developed on the field, including, but not limited to, standard approaches of regional science. Please cite a couple of these and discuss in a broader perspective, limitations and constraints linked with databases and available information from European Environment Agency, FAO, OECD, EUROSTAT, etc.
2) discussion: I strongly suggest to discuss in a wider manner the recent evolution of the European legislation dealing with the specific issue. What is the contribution of your monitoring effort in this direction? Please comment extensively on this aspect.
3) Conclusions: what is the novelty of the paper? I see it, but the author(s) should formulate better this part, possibly in the framework of general sustainability and resilience. What is the possible application of this study to other countries in Middle East or Mediterranean region, possibly affected by this phenomenon?
4) generally speaking, I would see something more discussed in the behalf of novel interpretative frameworks defining territorial disparities in a broader context of adaptive systems. Your approach can significantly contribute in this direction. I know studies on this issue are rather scarce, but the author(s) can proposed a clearer methodological framework based on their novel approach.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript submitted is well written, concise and informative. The issue raised in the study is surely appealing to a broad audience of readers and of special interest for socioeconomic applications. Territorial disparities are a very important multidisciplinary issue and the authors investigate a latent - but very relevant - component of this process. The quantitative analysis is informative and rather simple. Results are clearly presented and carefully discussed in the final chapter. Overall, the length of the manuscript is acceptable. Figures and tables are clearly organized and present non-redundant data.
My main concerns regard with:
- the state-of-the-art (introduction): authors are suggested to implement this part better clarifying the Europea/middle East/northern Africa/Mediterranean country context in terms of regional disparities. Many indexes were developed on the field, including, but not limited to, standard approaches of regional science. Please cite a couple of these and discuss in a broader perspective, limitations and constraints linked with databases and available information from European Environment Agency, FAO, OECD, EUROSTAT, etc.
Response: References and citations have been introduced, as required (lines 51-55, 58-59, 63-64, 78-79 in the revised manuscript).
- discussion: I strongly suggest to discuss in a wider manner the recent evolution of the European legislation dealing with the specific issue. What is the contribution of your monitoring effort in this direction? Please comment extensively on this aspect.
Response: References were introduced in respect of the European legislation. The contribution of the study was clearly pointed out (lines 487-495 in the revised manuscript).
3) Conclusions: what is the novelty of the paper? I see it, but the author(s) should formulate better this part, possibly in the framework of general sustainability and resilience. What is the possible application of this study to other countries in Middle East or Mediterranean region, possibly affected by this phenomenon?
Response: Additional details regarding the novelty and motivation of the present paper were introduced (lines 51-55, 70-79, 94-100, 497-499 in the revised manuscript).
4) generally speaking, I would see something more discussed in the behalf of novel interpretative frameworks defining territorial disparities in a broader context of adaptive systems. Your approach can significantly contribute in this direction. I know studies on this issue are rather scarce, but the author(s) can proposed a clearer methodological framework based on their novel approach.
Response : The study was not intended to develop an analysis model. However, references were made to the need for adjustment to the context of the adaptive systems at the end of the concluding section (lines 543-551 in the revised manuscript).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Abstract should provide more information about the analysis done in this paper. Some key specific findings rather than generalized results can be presented.
2, Even though the Authors highlighted in the Introduction why this study is needed, but they should provide more information about the regional variation in Romania mainly in terms of their demography and social/health context in Introduction to strengthen their argument of doing this study.
3. For multiple regression results, please provide the p-values or significance levels to understand which factor is significantly effecting LEB in each period. Without checking the significance, one cannot say that this specific factor was important.
4. Please provide some limitations in the conclusions as this study has used different data sources. What are the points readers need to be careful when using the conclusions from this study?
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- Abstract should provide more information about the analysis done in this paper. Some key specific findings rather than generalized results can be presented.
Response: Additional details have been introduced in the summary regarding the methods and data used in the study. Some key specific findings have also been introduced (see lines 11-13, 18-24 in the revised form of the manuscript).
2, Even though the Authors highlighted in the Introduction why this study is needed, but they should provide more information about the regional variation in Romania mainly in terms of their demography and social/health context in Introduction to strengthen their argument of doing this study.
Response: Additional information supported by citations was introduced in order to further argue the need for the present study, as indicated (see lines 70-79 in the revised form of the manuscript).
- For multiple regression results, please provide the p-values or significance levels to understand which factor is significantly effecting LEB in each period. Without checking the significance, one cannot say that this specific factor was important.
Response: p-values were introduced in the table 3 and the confidence interval and tolerance were specified in the methodological section.
- Please provide some limitations in the conclusions as this study has used different data sources. What are the points readers need to be careful when using the conclusions from this study?
Response : Additional information regarding the limits of the study and how to use the conclusions was introduced in the Conclusions section (lines 497-499 in the revised form of the manuscript).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors for addressing my previous comments. There are a few more typos in the manuscript that need to be addressed. The following are some examples.
Line 18, page 1 & Line 21, page 1: it should be the period “.”, instead of “,” in ending those sentences.
Line 104, page 3: “their importance (is???) either decreasing or getting consolidated”.
Table 3, page 13: “Difference between 2000-2018 and 1990-200(???)”
Line 473, page 13: “the information brught (???)”
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments. Below is the answer to the latest requirements.
Line 18, page 1 & Line 21, page 1: it should be the period “.”, instead of “,” in ending those sentences.
Response: The spelling has been corrected. We apologize for your inattention.
Line 104, page 3: “their importance (is???) either decreasing or getting consolidated”.
Response: The meaning of the phrase has been corrected according to the requirements.
Table 3, page 13: “Difference between 2000-2018 and 1990-200(???)”
Response: The missing number was added in 2000.
Line 473, page 13: “the information brught (???)”
Response : The incorrect written term was corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
