Regional Development in Romania: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Factors for Measuring a Prosperous and Sustainable Economy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting and up-to-date. The main problem described in the paper is very and paper is generally well written.
But it has some flaws:
- Describe what is the research gap of the paper and what new is in it.
- Please describe the links between the research gap and the goal of the.
- The paper also lacks the discussion part. There are here results without links to literature. In this part, the Authors should write how they research are with competition to others researchers. What are the similarities and differences. They should compare the results with theoretical models from literature, etc.
- Add some social implications to the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Title. After the read of the article, I would suggest to review the title in order to better reflect the research object.
- Research object - should be better defined. There is some ambiguity or fluidity in the research construct, theoretical background that makes the article rather loosing the focus and the consistency.
- Abstract. Should be rewritten. Micro-regions mentioned, but non-existant in the article itself. A number of unemployment and employment as well as a number of companies are not "financial" rations. Never were. They structural indicators. I think the categorization should be reviewed.
- Keywords. Review needed, to include keywords after the updates of the article. Romania also as a keyword should be included, I think.
- Introduction and literature review need major review that would bring clarity, clear linkage of the problem to theoretical background. For now it is non-consistent.
- Methods should be described clearer. The regions, I think, under analysis should be presented prior to the presentation of results.
- Lines 304-305. What is "...proper application of public policies..."? From the context of the text it is nor clear and not well discussed previously to jump to that "result explanation".
- Lines 330-331. What is "...normal relationships..."?
- Hypotheses. I doubt about "data series..." issues like hypotheses... For me it is more an issue of the methodology ans assumptions made...
- Discussion is not made. Should be presented.
- The redaction and English language style should be reviewed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The abstract of your article is rather generalized; the purpose of the research is not indicated. I recommend the authors introduce major improvements/revise substantially this abstract. You can make it structured for clarity. It is advisable to follow these guides:
The abstract should be no more than 250 words and structured under the following subheadings.
Purpose of the Study: In simple terminology, tell the readers about the aim of this study. No discussion or research background is to be included in this part [50 words].
Methodology: Provide the names, brands, types of tools, methods, software, reviews, and surveys that have been used to conduct the study. No discussion or explanation is included in this part [50 words].
Main Findings: Write only the main results in a few words. No discussion or explanation is included in this part. Results imply only a concrete result, belonging to a particular instance [50–words].
Applications: Describe how this study might be useful by giving the name of the area or discipline [50 words].
Novelty/Originality: Identity what is new in this study that may benefit readers or how it may advance existing knowledge or create new knowledge on this subject [50 words].
This will ensure that readers can easily follow the article. If the abstract quality is not satisfactory, it will be returned for revision in the first stage of the submission process.
Please avoid general statements and conclusions. Try to use the most specific language possible to explain the research methods and results so that the reader has a clear and comprehensive understanding of the author’s research. Do not simply repeat the information already stated in the title; faithfully reflect the research work done and provide as much quantification as possible.
2. The Keywords section should provide relevant terms. Please consider that keywords should be used at least once in the Abstract and several times (at least five) in the article's text.
3. Introduction and Literature Review sections are based on irrelevant sources. I recommend using the 2020-2021 sources to substantiate the relevance and problem of the study. The economic situation has changed significantly under the pandemic's influence; therefore, it is an improper tactic to rely on outdated references in your research.
4. The Materials and Methods section should include:
a) Designating the experimental facilities and survey sample;
b) Describing each method and technique separately (in separate paragraphs) in detail, but at the same time, concisely. Sometimes it is required to describe why a particular method was chosen.
c) Providing a brief description of the research design and period.
Currently, the author's method is not reproducible. The authors should describe it in more detail. And it is necessary to give a numerical example.
5. The Results section should comprise the following:
a) Submission of experimental data only;
b) Provision of explanations for all figures and tables, which indicate a reference to a particular table or figure;
c) Formulation of all key statistical data (number of samples, variance index, levels, etc.).
6. Please add into the Discussion section:
a) a brief overview of your research;
b) a brief description of the most significant results that were identified in the Results section and their comparison to other studies on similar topics, highlighting problem areas and the absence of some aspects.
7. The Conclusion section should consist of:
a) a brief presentation of the research problem and author’s results obtained in the course of the research;
b) the generalization of the research findings (each point should be devoted to the answer to the tasks set in the Introduction or be an argument for proving the hypothesis statements (if any) that were indicated in the Introduction).
Your conclusion contains rather vague provisions. Also, the scientific novelty of the research is not clear. Why is this article written? What contribution does it make to science? What provisions can be used in practice? It is not clear.
After reading the article, I have a feeling that it is somewhat irrelevant and out-of-date. I would like to see fresh scientific ideas that are applicable to the current situation of the state of the global economy.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have implemented my remarks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Please check the references to Tables in the text. For example, I can not see anything in Table 2 bout the macroregion's 8 GDP per capita :-) (lines 409-410).
- Concerning discussion. I would love to see more references to other authors (instead of "literature").
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
English language and style are minor spell check required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
