Rural Areas and Well-Being in EU Countries + UK: A Taxonomy and a Cluster Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reference list is too short (only 4 peer reviewed contribution) and excludes many important titles. A correct literature review can also help to clearly define the position of the paper, and its contribution to science. An exercise of showing that Euclidean distance and squared Euclidean distance will give a similar ranking is not an important result.
Tables are poor and needs a full revision.
A coherent notation of the variables could increase the readability of the paper. Once Var1, Var2, later abbreviations like CorruzTot are not part of standard solution.
There is no such an English term like "significativity". It can be a p-value or significance.
Table 1 litsts the countries, while Table 9 mentions Obs1, Obs2. These are still the same countries, the authors should name them. GDP per capita is indicated in %. % of what? The values are too high to have any reasonable percentage.
Table 2-3: these tables contain exactly the same numbers. Table 2 can be deleted. Use the same length of decimals to show easy-to-compare values. Use country instead of nation, the database is for countries and not for nations (Italians living in Slovenia are in the database in Slovenia).
Fig 1 is map without the necessary elements of map (north, distance, etc). Anyway at least a legend is necessary!
Table 4-5 contain model statistics, they can be put in footnote for the table with the coefficients.
Repeating the same Wald-statistic and p-value in Table 7 and 8 is useless, editing a common table would be more than welcome.
Table 9 is unreadable. Obs1, Obs2, Pr(1), Pr(2) WITHOUT an explanation of their meaning is useless. Either improve the table or move to appendix.
Formula (2) is not clear. What con means? Is it a not translated word from Italian? Please check and revise.
Sentence in lines 147-149 is not finished. To be revised.
Discussion is not discussion in the current form. A discussion chapter should compare previous results to the new ones. With only one, almost 40 years old reference in this chapter, this goal is far not achieved. To be completed.
Based on the above changes, the conclusion should be also fundamentally revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The first part of the abstract is more specific to an introduction. Please have an abstract of about 200 words including the objective, which you already have, the methodology used, and the findings.
Add a few more keywords and try to be more specific, for example well-being should be among them, index and cluster are rather vague. It is just a recommendation to help your research be discovered
You start the abstract and the introduction with a statistic, please add the source and keep the statistics only in the introduction not in the abstract.
Add a Literature review section to elaborate on other papers studying the same topic and have a critic perspective on them.
You include UK among EU countries but it is not in EU anymore. Explain it better in the text
Table 2 seems like a printscreen because of its poor quality, please write the table from scratch and add a more explanatory title. The same with Table 3. Explain the relevance of colours.
Explain figure 1.
Tables 7-10 should have the same format as the rest. The font seems different
Line 422. These should be with capital T.
Add in the conclusion short paragraphs about the theoretical and practical implications of your paper, limitations of your research and future research directions.
And more importantly, the reference list should be enriched. Add a Literature review section and add at least 20 other papers for presenting them in comparison with your research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is improved compared to the previous version. Revisions are still necessary:
Table 2 is still useless, it does not contain any information that is not included in Table 3.
Diagnostic tests in Tables 4-5-6 do not add to the main message of the paper. The most important indicators can go to a footnote or into the footnote of the results table. If for the authors variable names are not enough important to include in the tables, this technical information (less interesting for the non-technical reader) should be also less important. The paper is NOT a methodological paper where all technical details should be shown.
Formula (2) is still wrong, it was not corrected.
The discussion is not yet a discussion. In a real discussion, new findings and previous findings are compared. All new references are added into the Dutch disease, and none of them anywhere else. I understand that it is comfortable to insert new reference at one place, but it is not done by the scientific ethics. Chapter "Discussion" is not discussion.
Author Response
- Table 2 is still useless, it does not contain any information that is not included in Table 3.
Table 2 has been deleted
- Diagnostic tests in Tables 4-5-6 do not add to the main message of the paper. The most important indicators can go to a footnote or into the footnote of the results table. If for the authors variable names are not enough important to include in the tables, this technical information (less interesting for the non-technical reader) should be also less important. The paper is NOT a methodological paper where all technical details should be shown.
Tables 4, 5, 6 were moved to the appendix. Variables names were included in the table in the text
- Formula (2) is still wrong, it was not corrected.
Formula 2 was corrected
- The discussion is not yet a discussion. In a real discussion, new findings and previous findings are compared. All new references are added into the Dutch disease, and none of them anywhere else. I understand that it is comfortable to insert new reference at one place, but it is not done by the scientific ethics. Chapter "Discussion" is not discussion.
Chapter "Discussion" is improved
Reviewer 2 Report
I have the following recommendations:
1. At least 5 keywords relevant to the research, it is in the interest of the authors.
2. Footnotes are not recommended. You should check the guidelines of the journal regarding the way works are cited in the paper.
3. Regarding UK, explanations should be done in the text not in the footnote and all tables having the caption EU countries should be modified into something like this: EU-27 plus UK.
4. Line 220. There is .1. before heading. I think there is a mistake
5. Table 2 and 3 should have a more explanatory caption/title, not just a word.
6. I noticed adding the literature review and the other sources, Reisinezhad or Torvik. And others but not all of them are in the reference list. Check the entire paper
7. Ensure that you have at least 40 references for your paper (in the text and at the end).
8. Use the template for formatting the equations and the reference list, in the text and at the end.
9. Also, check headings because you have punctuation marks that should be there, for example line 154 (delete the line), 220 (a mistake with the numbering there).
10. The title is also vague, maybe you should add in EU countries plus UK for better explaining to the readers what you intend to do there or A cluster analysis regarding... Make it more interesting.
Author Response
- At least 5 keywords relevant to the research, it is in the interest of the authors.
5 keywords were entered
- Footnotes are not recommended. You should check the guidelines of the journal regarding the way works are cited in the paper.
Footnotes have been eliminated
- Regarding UK, explanations should be done in the text not in the footnote and all tables having the caption EU countries should be modified into something like this: EU-27 plus UK.
The correction has been made
- Line 220. There is .1. before heading. I think there is a mistake
Mistake has been corrected
- Table 2 and 3 should have a more explanatory caption/title, not just a word.
Title has been improved
- I noticed adding the literature review and the other sources, Reisinezhad or Torvik. And others but not all of them are in the reference list. Check the entire paper
The citation of m Reisinezhad has been added, The citation of Torvik was already present:
Matsen E, Torvik R, (2005) Optimal Dutch disease, Journal of Development Economics, Volume 78, Issue 2, Pages 494-515, ISSN 0304-3878
- Ensure that you have at least 40 references for your paper (in the text and at the end).
Done
- Use the template for formatting the equations and the reference list, in the text and at the end.
Done
- Also, check headings because you have punctuation marks that should be there, for example line 154 (delete the line), 220 (a mistake with the numbering there).
Mistakes have been corrected
- The title is also vague, maybe you should add in EU countries plus UK for better explaining to the readers what you intend to do there or A cluster analysis regarding... Make it more interesting.
The title was changed
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was improved and is acceptable in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the article meets the minimum conditions to be considered for publication. I noticed some formatting problems but I suppose the MDPI editors will correct that.
The references are not formatted like in the guidelines and I think the authors could have done a better work with the literature part. I still think more references are needed.
I am satisfied with the title, I think it looks much better now.
Great success in your career.
