Group Heterogeneity of Rural Households’ Satisfaction with Good Life from the Perspective of Rural Revitalization—A Case Study from Zhejiang Province of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors and Editor.
I read the paper entitled: »Group Heterogeneity of Farmers’ Satisfaction with Good Life 2 in Zhejiang from the Perspective of Rural Revitalization—3 Based on Latent Profile Analysis« and here are some my major and minor comments.
In general, the paper has a lot of mistakes which can be done only because of the superficiality of the authors. Authors should carefully check the paper throughout and fix the language mistakes. The 3.2 -3.5 sections should be deeply explain and put the information into sections which are crucial for understand the methodology background.
In formulation the equations some shortcomings can be recognized. The “random” residue is missing. Authors mentioned the logit and probit models?. However, subsection 2.3.2 should be clarified.
The conclusion section should give more clearly suggestions and “strong” conclusions. The limit of the study and challenges for further study development are missing. In the introduction section authors should explain what the topic of this study and investigation results bring to scientific area.
Also some minor comments:
- Technical issues – the literature are not cited correct
- Lines 154, 185 – “Error….” – please fix it
- Table 5, last column “Post-hoc test”
After fix all these shortcomings by authors I can read the paper again.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the chapter Materials and methods it would be good to give a geographical position Zhejiang Province for many of us who do not know exactly where it is and in which climate zone it is placed
The explanations for the table and figures are not adequate, should be improved.
Suggestion are also not good. They are well defined but only listed. Try to connect them with the research results.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors for their study. Some comments to improve the paper:
1) More literature sources must be used and reviewed to develop more deeper scientific theoretical and empirical discussion (references on more international and latest research should be included) on rural revitalization, concept of "good life".
2) China is a huge country and most likely with uneven regional /rural development potential and reality. Therefore, it is absolutely important and necessary to provide both quantitative and qualitative analysis and description about social, economic and demographic trends in rural areas particularly emphasizing situation in sample areas (regions and villages selected for the study) within a framework of rural revitalization, development, and understanding of good life. Maps and graphs with supportive visual information would be very helpful for the international readers who are not familiar with China.
3) More specific information on the field work and research process must be provided in the section 2.1. Data source. Again, a map indicating sample villages and regions would help to understand the research. Sample selection must be justified (why exactly these regions and villages were selected, are they typical cases or specifically urged for rural revitalization etc.). The authors use formulation "367 samples" (e.g. line 318) which is not correct because samples are regions and villages selected for the study and 367 are respondents/valid questionnaires in these villages. More detailed/ comparative description of chosen villages should be included, what are they local rural problems, why it is important to study rural revitalization and good life there. The very process of data collection must be described - when, how the survey was conducted, who participated in the survey, what is sample description (demographic data), what are research ethical considerations (e.g. informed consent, anonymity, equality, etc.), what were the questions in the survey.
4) Scientific discussion must be elaborated in the conclusion and discussion part focusing on ideas and research results from the reviewed studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors done a good job.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors. The article is greatly improved.
