Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with a very interesting problem of wage differences between generations in China. However, I have a lot of comments on the paper.

The author of the article uses the term "household registration discrimination" several times and then explains what it is. I think that a short explanation (literally a few words in parentheses) is needed when this phrase is used in the text for the first time.

Please rephrase the sentences that initially refer to literature (e.g. lines 31, 130, 134).

There are a lot of editing errors (e.g. lines 19, 83, 114).

The explanation of the formula (1) should be directly under the formula.

In line 153 the author writes "according to our labor laws". What does "our" mean?

The author uses the terms interchangeably: "country", "rural", "peasant", "migrant workers". I think there are too many of these terms. In the article "urban" is simply "urban". I think that in the case of "rural" should also be one or two terms.

Conflicting statements are made: lines 134-137 and lines 142-144. Besides, no source is given on lines 142-144 ("Results of an empirical analysis showed...").

There is an unclear statement on lines 193-194 (I think this sentence should be deleted).

The explanation of symbols used in formula (1) should be directly under formula (1).

In line 279, there is a statement "the correlation between education and omitted variable "ability" leads to...". It is not known why the author talks about the omitted variable, since this variable appears for the first time. If this variable is in the original Mincer's paper, the author should write about it.

In the formulas (7) and (8) there is a symbol "w". This symbol in earlier formulas was capitalized. The symbol should be standardized in all formulas in the article.

The "Analysis of empirical results" section should be improved. There is a lot of tables and figures but the description of the results is poor. The numbers that are interpreted are particularly lacking in the text. The author refers to several tables and figures and interprets the results, but it is not known which specific number in the table this interpretation applies to. 

There are no references in the text to the tables: 5, 6, 7.

Mincer's article has a different title (line 582).

Author Response

Please check the file attach 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the manuscript contains an interesting analysis on the Chinese labor market, it should be intensively revised and rewritten to be published on any journals for international scholars. For example, in the third sentence of Abstract, it says "By using cross-sectional data, consisting of the China Dynamic Migrant Survey and Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition methods and quantiles to analyze the data. , results confirmed the differences in wages between two generations of peasant and urban workers."

Not only this sentence but also lots of others are hardly readable. I strongly recommend to revise the whole manuscript and get a professional proofreading service.  

 

     

Author Response

Please check the document attach 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment.  Good luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please check the document attach 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper has been sufficiently improved.

I have only one comment - I still could not find any references in the the text to tables 5, 6, 7.

Author Response

Please, check attached document

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.