Does Education Affect Economic Growth? A Re-Examination of Empirical Data from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article meets all the requirements for a scientific article. However, we would like more clarity about the value of contribution test. You claim that ‘The contribution test between the variables was used, and the results in Table 6 show that none of the contribution values between the variables is greater than 10, indicating that the variables are independent of each other’. Do you mean the contribution test as the multicollinearity test (VIF) (Table 6)? What literature source do you support in stating that the contribution values between the variables can be up to 10?

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your suggestions, and we have made the following modifications.

 

Reviewer 1:

The article meets all the requirements for a scientific article. However, we would like more clarity about the value of contribution test. You claim that ‘The contribution test between the variables was used, and the results in Table 6 show that none of the contribution values between the variables is greater than 10, indicating that the variables are independent of each other’. Do you mean the contribution test as the multicollinearity test (VIF) (Table 6)? What literature source do you support in stating that the contribution values between the variables can be up to 10?

 

Reply: According to the review comments, we further checked the relevant literature and Econometrics books. We found a big mistake. We wrote collinearity and mistake into contribution.

There are many methods to detect multicollinearity. The VIF value in regression analysis is often used. The larger the VIF value, the more serious the multicollinearity. It is generally believed that when the VIF is greater than 10, the model has a serious collinearity problem.

 

Sometimes tolerance is also used as the standard. Tolerance value=1/VIF. Therefore, if the tolerance value is greater than 0.1, it means that there is no collinearity. There is a logical correspondence between VIF and tolerance value. Generally speaking, a study can choose either of the two indicators.

 

In addition, it is also a judgment method to directly conduct correlation analysis on independent variables and view the correlation coefficient and significance. If the correlation coefficient between an independent variable and other independent variables is significant, it indicates that there may be multiple collinearity problems.

 

In this paper, we use the VIF value to determine the collinearity problem, and corrected the original misspelling.

 

Thanks again for your review. If there are any further comments, we are willing to continue to improve the article.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Yu Zhang, Jianguo Liu

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting piece of research which is relevant to the topic of the journal. The literature review, the methodology, and the findings are clear and well organized. However, some relevant references should be added to the discussion of the findings. Conclusion: Most importantly, some additions are needed regarding the significance of the study as compared to other studies in the field. These will make the overall aim of the paper stand out.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your suggestions, and we have made the following modifications.

 

Reviewer 2:

 

This is an interesting piece of research which is relevant to the topic of the journal. The literature review, the methodology, and the findings are clear and well organized. However, some relevant references should be added to the discussion of the findings. Conclusion: Most importantly, some additions are needed regarding the significance of the study as compared to other studies in the field. These will make the overall aim of the paper stand out.

 

Reply: We add some relevant references in the part of discussion, and further strengthen the comparison with previous studies, and further strengthen the supplement of research significance.

We have marked in the text.

 

Thanks again for the comments of the reviewers. If there are any further comments, we are willing to continue to improve the article.

 

Yu Zhang, Jianguo Liu

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The literature review is based in a substantial bibliography of research journals. While the literature review is extensive, I would have liked more analytical focus and connection with critical thinking to better justify the RQ.

The research method is clearly described and shows good command of the main issues of the methodology, with a good take on limitations.

 Good analysis and synthesis, with a clear narrative reconnecting to the themes of the literature review and the objectives.

 Because the broad  positioning of the paper, the findings and contributions remain more on the descriptive side. The front end of the paper is considerable more developed than the back end.

 Good structure and clearly written. Good use of academic references.

 There are occasionally small imprecisions in language which should be reviewed.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your suggestions, and we have made the following modifications.

 

Reviewer 3:

1、The literature review is based in a substantial bibliography of research journals. While the literature review is extensive, I would have liked more analytical focus and connection with critical thinking to better justify the RQ.

Reply: In the literature review section, we expanded the evaluation content of the literature. We have marked in the text.

 

 

2、Because the broad positioning of the paper, the findings and contributions remain more on the descriptive side. The front end of the paper is considerable more developed than the back end.

 

Reply: We expand the discussion content of the article. In the text, we have marked.

 

3、There are occasionally small imprecisions in language which should be reviewed.

 

Reply: We have further improved and perfected the language of the article.

 

 

Thanks again for the comments of the reviewers. If there are any further comments, we are willing to continue to improve the article.

 

Yu Zhang, Jianguo Liu

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revised version and consideration of the comments.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Dear editor,

We have improved the language.

 

Yu Zhang, Jianguo Liu