Spatiotemporal Analysis of the Achievement of Equitable Quality Basic Education in Gansu Province, Northwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper provides a potentially useful analysis of equity and equality in one province of China. However, as I read through, I found it difficult to understand the logic of the development of the EDI and I had trouble interpreting the many graphs and tables. And while I appreciate the challenges of writing the paper in English, the grammar needs to be reviewed by a native English speaker, because at times the language doesn't make sense. I also think the paper is trying to cover too much ground. I would suggest limiting the scope of the paper considerably so there is just one or maybe two key points you are trying to make. I also feel that you can draw more extensively from the international literature. And you need to acknowledge the study's limitations. The attached file makes additional comments for consideration.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The title is appropriate for the content of the text. Abstract is well structured and it provides adequate information about the current situation, the methodology used and the key findings.

This is a potentially interesting study on achievement of equitable and quality basic education on practical scale.

However, the manuscript has a few weak points, that need to be attended:

(1) The text is difficult to understand. Extensive editing of English language is required. There is a pressing need for editing by someone with a better grasp of writing in english. The word choice and phrasing are an impediment to the reader, making accessing the work challenging.

(2) The discussion section has to be reworked. Authors should discuss the results in the light of previous studies. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Regarding my analysis in terms of the content of the article, I have to mention the following:

The article is based on a relatively interesting theme, concerning equitable and quality basic education achievement in Gansu Province, in China. Based on HDI, the authors proposed an EDI – education development index.

At the level of the formal structure, I believe that the theoretical framework and methodology could be further strengthened and clarified.

Another suggestion was to reinforce the triangulation of the literature and results with other international literature of reference (top indexed journals and authors).

In detail, the following aspects should be noted:

(Page 14) Regarding the title of the figure 4, is not formatted correctly.

(Page 19 to 21) Some errors in the references.

Reference number 3 and 62 are not in the required standard.

References 20 to 24… red colour?? Why? And also in the text, several words in blue. I think after English review.

Errors on references 27, 54 (all authors must be referenced, not et al.). A wide-ranging review is needed.

Globally, the text is well written, with well-defined ideas, with an adequate literature review.

The methodology used is interesting and pertinent. The results presented reinforce this line of research.

In this way, I consider that the article meet the characteristics of a good scientific article, with acceptable quality, and should be accepted for publication in this journal.

Kind regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article addresses research on basic education development, resource allocation and spatial equality. The article meets the publication requirements, but with minor revisions. Since in row 117, the authors say that in the province there are 64 counties in row 427 are 70 out of 86 counties what is the total number of counties?
In row 436 is found  written 3, 35 and 7 counties, row 438 is found  written 5, 29 and 9 counties with reference to Figure 5. What the numbers represent 3, 35, 7, 5, 29 and 9? The representation of these numbers is not found in figure 5.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I note the significant revisions made to the manuscript which have improved readability. The manuscript still requires editing for English language grammar. There are still several sections that don't make sense to me.

In my previous review I commented that the paper was trying to do too much, and the number of graphs and tables was confusing. The number of graphs and tables hasn't changed so I still believe the paper is to complicated.

I also suggested a number of references for inclusion. These suggestions have been ignored.

Several of the figures and tables were unreadable in the PDF I reviewed, so I cannot make a final assessment of this paper till I can see those figures and tables properly.

I note that you have included some limitations in your conclusion, but really I don't think the limitation is about the availability of data. What you have presented suggests there is ample data, but the weaknesses are more associated with the critical analysis of the data which is largely missing. For example, there is no critical analysis of why the differences between prefectures exist. You discuss some of the factors like the quality of teachers and inequality between rural and urban areas, but why should those factors be a problem? I don't think there is a need for more statistical analysis as you've suggested. Rather, there is probably a need for more qualitative research that explores why and how inequalities are perpetuated. I've noted some comments in the attached annotated manuscript.

  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There is a weak point that authors have not taken into account. I don´t think the authors have attended the suggested changes about the discussion section. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses.  It hasn't been done. No previous studies have been mentioned in the discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Having reviewed the manuscript again, I can definitely see improvements. The English language is now generally fine and I note the reduction in number of figures and tables which certainly helps the readability of the paper.

However, there are some points that still need attention. The methods and procedures are reasonably clear, but given this is a largely quantitative analysis, I would expect to see a hypothesis of some kind indicating what you were expecting to demonstrate/prove. A second important missing piece of information relates to ethics. While I understand that this paper draws mostly from secondary data, I believe some mention of ethical clearance processes, which I assume have been completed.

I note the inclusion of the references I recommended. However, it is clear to me that you have not read any of the papers. Please go back and read them and then review your work in the light of the points they make. My point in recommending culturally responsive pedagogies is that they draw from the local culture and context, and they point to the need for nuanced, contextually sensitive approaches to teaching and learning, which I think you would be arguing for. 

I also raised the lack of discussion about limitations and suggested that you consider the need for qualitative research as a follow-up to this quant study. You have totally ignored this and the revised manuscript makes no mention at all of limitations of your study. There are always limitations! But what you need to do is use some critical thinking to reflect more fully on what the data shows and what it doesnt show as well, and what the implications of your findings are for more equitable education. As it is, the paper is now effectively a dump of data that reports uncritically on findings as if this is all there is to know on the subject. A deeper exploration of the international literature is warranted too.

Author Response

We are really sorry that we didn't receive an email. We didn't see the review comments until April 29,2021, so the revised manuscript was not completed until now. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments of the reviewer have been taken into account in this version of the manuscript.

Author Response

We are really sorry that since we didn't receive the email, we didn't see the review comments until April 29,2021, so the revised manuscript was not completed until now. 

Please see the attachmen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx