Examination of the Effects of COVID-19 on Happiness in Different Geographical Regions with Piecewise Linear Panel Data Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In their work, the authors raised the issue of the impact of the Covid epidemic on the happiness of the inhabitants of selected regions of the world. Unfortunately, the work does not represent a very high scientific level and is based on a simple analysis of selected statistical parameters stored in databases.
- I admit that I do not quite understand the statement: "Panel data analysis was used to model happiness data in this study"?
- why was the definition of happiness given by TDK used in the introduction, and not a more universal source of definition (line 32) was sought?
- the "Intruduction" part certainly lacks a description of numerous protests by residents of many countries protesting against the restrictions resulting from the Covid-19 virus epidemic,
- the Material and methods section is certainly not a description of the research methodology used by the authors (maybe with the exception of the fragment in line 165);
- I was surprised by the absence of the Czech Republic in the list of analyzed countries (lines 175-178), the more so that the authors refer to similar studies and quote the position of literature [5]);
- it is more about "happy inhabitants of countries" than about "happy countries";
- presentation of the results of the analyzes in the form of (probably) averaged (without weighting) parameters (figures 1-10) is clearly a large and significant error, as is the regionalization adopted by the authors);
- I consider modeling itself to be a trivial procedure, resulting in logically understood results that can be achieved by a child in primary school.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2324019
Title: Examination The Effects of Covid 19 on Happiness in Different Geographical Regions with Piecewise Linear Panel Data Models
The authors (Dr. Elif Tuna, Dr.Atıf Evren, Ms. Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu and Mr. Mert Veznikli) are thankful to the Reviewer 1 for providing valuable comments help improve the quality of manuscript. The authors also appreciate the time and effort that Blanche Yao has dedicated to providing her valuable feedback on the manuscript. The authors carefully revised the manuscript by considering the comments of Reviewer 1 and the following is the point-by point reply.
Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu
Corresponding Author
Yildiz Technical University
Review Report Form
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Broad Comments
In their work, the authors raised the issue of the impact of the Covid epidemic on the happiness of the inhabitants of selected regions of the world. Unfortunately, the work does not represent a very high scientific level and is based on a simple analysis of selected statistical parameters stored in databases.
Comment 1: I admit that I do not quite understand the statement: "Panel data analysis was used to model happiness data in this study"?
Response 1: Panel data allows you to control for variables such as cultural factors or geographic region differences that you cannot observe or measure for an abstract concept like happiness or variables that change over time but do not change between institutions (e.g. national policies, federal regulations, international agreements, etc.). The above illustrates the importance of including individual heterogeneity in the model.
We analyze the effects of COVID-19 on modelling some variables representing the degrees of life satisfaction and emotional well-being on happiness by using piecewise linear panel data.
Happiness is explored for 76 countries in the world in 7 regions. The observed period ranges from 2006 – 2021.
Comment 2: Why was the definition of happiness given by TDK used in the introduction, and not a more universal source of definition (line 32) was sought?
Response 2: We agreed about this comment. We will change the definition of ‘Happiness’ due to your suggestion. You can see the reviewed manuscript at attachments.
“Happiness is a crucial human disposition that denotes a construct characterizing positive feelings in individuals and overall well-being. It can be perceived as a relatively stable state linked to diverse facets of an individual's life and distinguishes itself from transient emotions like joy or sadness. The comprehension of happiness holds a significant position in philosophical, psychological, scholarly, narrative, and governmental spheres, yet a conclusive agreement regarding the factors that genuinely engender happiness remains elusive.” [1]
- Freedman, Jonathan L. Happy People: What Happiness Is, Who Has It, and Why: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978.
Comment 3: The "Intruduction" part certainly lacks a description of numerous protests by residents of many countries protesting against the restrictions resulting from the Covid-19 virus epidemic.
Response 3: The reactions and protests of citizens against the restrictions due to the Covid-19 epidemic vary depending on different parameters in each country. In this study, rather than examining the individual variables that constitute the reasons for protests among citizens, we included variables such as freedom and trust in the government in our research. In a separate study, the percentage of households that participated in protests against restrictions and the variables that led them to participate in these protests can be individually investigated, and a modeling can be performed for Covid-19 globally. Thus, factors that may cause protests in the event of a future pandemic can be attempted to be eliminated by governments.
Comment 4: The Material and methods section is certainly not a description of the research methodology used by the authors (maybe with the exception of the fragment in line 165);
Response 4: All presented results in the article have been thoroughly explained for the reader's understanding. Methodology has been revised in the Section 4. Changes can be seen in the revised version of the manuscript.
Comment 5: I was surprised by the absence of the Czech Republic in the list of analyzed countries (lines 175-178), the more so that the authors refer to similar studies and quote the position of literature [5]);
Response 5: The data we use is obtained from “Data for Table 2.1” at : https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/#appendices-and-data
We benefited from Petrovič, F. et all. article’s which is about Czech Republic, but it has some missing values for 2006, 2008 and 2009 years. Because of this reason Czech Repuclic is not included in the analysis.
Comment 6: It is more about "happy inhabitants of countries" than about "happy countries";
Response 6: You are right in this comment, but in the literature we examined, happiness is associated with countries and used as happy countries. For this reason, we used the concept of happy country in order to be suitable for the literature. As in the literature, we wanted to mean the happy inhabitants of that country by the concept of happy country.
Comment 7: Presentation of the results of the analyzes in the form of (probably) averaged (without weighting) parameters (figures 1-10) is clearly a large and significant error, as is the regionalization adopted by the authors);
Response 7: Following the reviewers suggestions, we decided to exclude the graphs from our study as they were seen outside the main focus of the research. We utilized the World Bank classification system as a reference point for the classification of geographical regions.
Comment 8: I consider modeling itself to be a trivial procedure, resulting in logically understood results that can be achieved by a child in primary school.
Response 8: During the application section, we employed three different static and dynamic panel data models in order to develop the methodological framework for the study.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on happiness in different geographical regions, using a piecewise linear panel data model. However, the proposed approach lacks coherence, and the results could benefit from greater clarity. Therefore, I would like to make the following comments:
1. An abstract should provide a brief summary of the paper's main points and conclusions without going into too much detail. At the beginning of the abstract, the concept of happiness is defined, which should not be done in the abstract. When mentioning changes in coefficients, it is important to specify which coefficients are being referred to. This will help readers understand the significance of the change and its impact on the overall analysis. The authors point to the obvious fact that Covid-19 is affecting one country and that other countries may be affected as well. This should not be done in the abstract.
2. The keywords used in the paper repeat the title. Authors are encouraged to use keywords that capture the main themes of the research and that do not repeat the title of the paper. This will make it easier for readers to find the study and understand its focus.
3. The last part of the introduction should give a brief overview of the rest of the paper. It is appropriate for the authors to explain the structure and logic of the rest of the paper.
4. The reference list is very short. The authors should carry out a more detailed analysis of the available studies and include a separate section on a literature review.
5. In the Materials and Methods section of the paper, it is important that the authors clearly explain their research methodology. While it is useful to provide background information on established methodologies such as the Gallup World Survey and the World Bank's country classification, this alone may not provide sufficient information on how the authors conducted their research. It may be difficult for readers to assess the validity and reliability of the results presented in the paper without a clear explanation of their research methodology. Therefore, the authors should have provided a more detailed description of their research methodology.
6. Authors should prioritize providing a clear explanation of their research objectives and contributions, together with a solid theoretical framework for their study. It is crucial that they provide adequate justification for all conclusions and proposals drawn from their study to ensure that they are based on sound reasoning and evidence. By doing so, authors can establish the credibility and significance of their research findings and make a meaningful contribution to the field.
7. The results presented in the paper appear to lack proper explanation and are based on a few assumptions. Without a clear and thorough explanation of the research methodology and data analysis, it may be difficult for readers to fully understand and interpret the results of the paper.
8. In the conclusion section, it is important that the author clearly articulates how their work contributes to the current state of knowledge in the field. This should be done by providing a scientific rationale for the study and explaining its potential uses and extensions, if applicable. In this way, readers will have a better understanding of the significance of the research and how it adds value to the field.
I hope this feedback is helpful, and I wish you the best of luck with your paper.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2324019
Title: Examination The Effects of Covid 19 on Happiness in Different Geographical Regions with Piecewise Linear Panel Data Models
The authors (Dr. Elif Tuna, Dr.Atıf Evren, Ms. Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu and Mr. Mert Veznikli) are thankful to the Reviewer 2 for providing valuable comments help improve the quality of manuscript. The authors also appreciate the time and effort that Blanche Yao has dedicated to providing her valuable feedback on the manuscript. The authors carefully revised the manuscript by considering the comments of Reviewer 2 and the following is the point-by point reply.
Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu
Corresponding Author
Yildiz Technical University
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on happiness in different geographical regions, using a piecewise linear panel data model. However, the proposed approach lacks coherence, and the results could benefit from greater clarity. Therefore, I would like to make the following comments:
Comment 1: An abstract should provide a brief summary of the paper's main points and conclusions without going into too much detail. At the beginning of the abstract, the concept of happiness is defined, which should not be done in the abstract. When mentioning changes in coefficients, it is important to specify which coefficients are being referred to. This will help readers understand the significance of the change and its impact on the overall analysis. The authors point to the obvious fact that Covid-19 is affecting one country and that other countries may be affected as well. This should not be done in the abstract.
Response 1: The Abstract was revised as necessary at the request of the Reviewer 2. Since it is studied with 3 regions and models and coefficients are interpreted differently in each region, the coefficients are explained in detail in the application and appendix section.
Comment 2: The keywords used in the paper repeat the title. Authors are encouraged to use keywords that capture the main themes of the research and that do not repeat the title of the paper. This will make it easier for readers to find the study and understand its focus.
Response 2: Thank you to the referee for their valuable comments. The keywords used in the article have been corrected.
Comment 3: The last part of the introduction should give a brief overview of the rest of the paper. It is appropriate for the authors to explain the structure and logic of the rest of the paper.
Response 3: The last part of introduction was revised.
Comment 4: The reference list is very short. The authors should carry out a more detailed analysis of the available studies and include a separate section on a literature review.
Response 4: The references have been organized and updated, and a separate literature section has been added to the article.
Comment 5: Authors should prioritize providing a clear explanation of their research objectives and contributions, together with a solid theoretical framework for their study. It is crucial that they provide adequate justification for all conclusions and proposals drawn from their study to ensure that they are based on sound reasoning and evidence. By doing so, authors can establish the credibility and significance of their research findings and make a meaningful contribution to the field.
Response 5: The methodology section has been developed. The deviations from the assumptions for each geographical region were examined and the appropriate model was decided.
Comment 6: The results presented in the paper appear to lack proper explanation and are based on a few assumptions. Without a clear and thorough explanation of the research methodology and data analysis, it may be difficult for readers to fully understand and interpret the results of the paper.
Response 6: All presented results in the article have been thoroughly explained for the reader's understanding. The manuscript has been modified in detail. The methods applied are explained together with the reasons supported by the diagnostic tests. Changes can be seen in the revised version of the manuscript.
Comment 7: In the conclusion section, it is important that the author clearly articulates how their work contributes to the current state of knowledge in the field. This should be done by providing a scientific rationale for the study and explaining its potential uses and extensions, if applicable. In this way, readers will have a better understanding of the significance of the research and how it adds value to the field.
Response 7: The results section has been changed. In line with the opinions of the reviewers, the contribution of the study to the literature is explained in the conclusion section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Significant revision seems to be needed. I have four major comments.
[1] In Section 3.1, the authors must explain the key variables of core regression equation. Here, three or four figures should be used. Because the findings shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2 are well known, both these figures and redundant sentences can be deleted. Ten figures are too much. Please make Appendix.
[2] The authors must show the results of unit root tests of the logged GDP (lnGDP), otherwise readers cannot evaluate the results shown in Table 3.
Although the authors wrote that "since the GDP variable generally contains a unit root, it was studied by taking ln in all groups", the results of unit root tests of the logged GDP are not given in the text.
The logged GDP does not always satisfy the characteristics of the stationary series. Are the logged GDP truly stationary series? If the logged GDP series are I(1), its first difference series should be used for Model 1 and Model 2.
[3] Focusing on FMLCit, Tables 3 and 4 can be summarized, and estimation results of European and Central Asian countries and Latin American Caribbean countries can be compared. Please consider editing tables.
[4] The authors wrote that the coefficient of the GDP variable is negative, contrary to expectations.
However, the non-linear relationship between GDP and (healthy) life expectancy at birth among developed countries is well known.
Before the model evaluation criteria, please cite the relevant literatures.
In addition, please reconsider the relationships between happiness, GDP and (healthy) life expectancy at birth.
You may delete the sentence below. When the per capita income exceeds a certain level, it does not provide emotional satisfaction to people.
Minor comment: The definitions of C.FMLCit and C.CNGit are shown in lines between 311 and 314, but C.HLEBit or C. FMLCit are unclear. You can use the general explanation below. C.Xit is the interaction term consisting of the product of the dummy variable that takes the value 1 after Covid and X.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2324019
Title: Examination The Effects of Covid 19 on Happiness in Different Geographical Regions with Piecewise Linear Panel Data Models
The authors (Dr. Elif Tuna, Dr.Atıf Evren, Ms. Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu and Mr. Mert Veznikli) are thankful to the Reviewer 3 for providing valuable comments help improve the quality of manuscript. The authors also appreciate the time and effort that Blanche Yao has dedicated to providing her valuable feedback on the manuscript. The authors carefully revised the manuscript by considering the comments of Reviewer 3 and the following is the point-by point reply.
Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu
Corresponding Author
Yildiz Technical University
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Significant revision seems to be needed. I have four major comments.
Comment 1: In Section 3.1, the authors must explain the key variables of core regression equation. Here, three or four figures should be used. Because the findings shown in Figure 1 or Figure 2 are well known, both these figures and redundant sentences can be deleted. Ten figures are too much. Please make Appendix.
Response 1: Following the reviewers suggestions we decided to exclude the graphs from our study as they were seen outside the main focus of the research. An Appendix has been prepared upon the request of the third Reviewer. In this section, definitions of the variables used in the analysis are presented in tabular form.
Comment 2: The authors must show the results of unit root tests of the logged GDP (lnGDP), otherwise readers cannot evaluate the results shown in Table 3.
Although the authors wrote that "since the GDP variable generally contains a unit root, it was studied by taking ln in all groups", the results of unit root tests of the logged GDP are not given in the text.
The logged GDP does not always satisfy the characteristics of the stationary series. Are the logged GDP truly stationary series? If the logged GDP series are I(1), its first difference series should be used for Model 1 and Model 2.
Response 2: lGDP's unit root test results are included in the tables. Only for North American countries it is decided to use I(1) difference series for the static and dynamic model. However, when the I(1) series was used, no significant relationship was found in terms of the variables considered.
Comment 3: Focusing on FMLCit, Tables 3 and 4 can be summarized, and estimation results of European and Central Asian countries and Latin American Caribbean countries can be compared. Please consider editing tables.
Response 3: In Section 4, the results of 3 geographic regions were compared on the basis of model and coefficient.
Comment 4: The authors wrote that the coefficient of the GDP variable is negative, contrary to expectations. However, the non-linear relationship between GDP and (healthy) life expectancy at birth among developed countries is well known.
Before the model evaluation criteria, please cite the relevant literatures. In addition, please reconsider the relationships between happiness, GDP and (healthy) life expectancy at birth.
You may delete the sentence below.” When the per capita income exceeds a certain level, it does not provide emotional satisfaction to people.”
Response 4: Due to the reasons explained in the application section, the piecewise linear model in North American countries is meaningless. Therefore, the negative GDP coefficient situation has disappeared.
Minor comment: The definitions of C.FMLCit and C.CNGit are shown in lines between 311 and 314, but C.HLEBit or C. FMLCit are unclear. You can use the general explanation below. C.Xit is the interaction term consisting of the product of the dummy variable that takes the value 1 after Covid and X.
Response to Minor Comment: According to Reviewer’s request, all changes have been done.
Reviewer 4 Report
ID: Examination The Effects of Covid 19 on Happiness in Different
Geographical Regions with Piecewise Linear Panel Data Models
Although COVID-19 is an outdated problem, it is still worth working on. My recommendations for the article are as follows:
1) The abstract should present the findings of the study. I cannot see the results of the study in the abstract.
2) Visual figures should be used in the introduction, for example a graph showing the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths.
3) , Fisher Philips Perron unit root test ignores cross sectional dependence. If authors claim this, they should cite and prove it. I recommend using the CADF unit root test.
4) Fixed effect estimator also ignores cross sectional dependency. Novel panel estimators such as AMG, CC-EMG can be used.
5) COVID-19 may cause a fall or rise in stock prices and indirectly affect happiness. Discuss this mechanism using the following articles
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-09-2021-1465
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105431
6) Conclusions and recommendations should be further developed.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 4
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2324019
Title: Examination The Effects of Covid 19 on Happiness in Different Geographical Regions with Piecewise Linear Panel Data Models
The authors (Dr. Elif Tuna, Dr.Atıf Evren, Ms. Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu and Mr. Mert Veznikli) are thankful to the Reviewer 4 for providing valuable comments help improve the quality of manuscript. The authors also appreciate the time and effort that Blanche Yao has dedicated to providing her valuable feedback on the manuscript. The authors carefully revised the manuscript by considering the comments of Reviewer 4 and the following is the point-by point reply.
Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu
Corresponding Author
Yildiz Technical University
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
ID: Examination The Effects of Covid 19 on Happiness in Different Geographical Regions with Piecewise Linear Panel Data Models
Although COVID-19 is an outdated problem, it is still worth working on. My recommendations for the article are as follows:
Comment 1: The abstract should present the findings of the study. I cannot see the results of the study in the abstract.
Response 1: The Abstract was revised as necessary at the request of the Reviewer 4. Since it is studied with 3 regions and models and coefficients are interpreted differently in each region, the coefficients are explained in detail in the application and appendix section.
Comment 2: Visual figures should be used in the introduction, for example a graph showing the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths.
Response 2: In line with the opinions of the reviewers, the graphics were removed, and the statistics on the number of Covid cases were stated in the introduction.
Comment 3: Fisher Philips Perron unit root test ignores cross sectional dependence. If authors claim this, they should cite and prove it. I recommend using the CADF unit root test.
Response 3: The cross-sectional dependence of each geographic region was examined by the CADF or LM test according to the magnitude of N and T. And Unit Root tests were applied according to cross-section dependency.
Comment 4: Fixed effect estimator also ignores cross sectional dependency. Novel panel estimators such as AMG, CC-EMG can be used.
Response 4: The application was revised; Random Effect, FGLS and dynamic GMM models were applied.
Comment 5: COVID-19 may cause a fall or rise in stock prices and indirectly affect happiness. Discuss this mechanism using the following articles
Response 5: Citations have been reviewed and added to references.
Comment 6: Conclusions and recommendations should be further developed.
Response 6: We would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable comments. The Results and Recommendations section has been updated and can be found in the revised version of the manuscript. All presented results in the manuscript have been thoroughly explained for the reader's understanding. The literature review section has been added to the article. Citations, methodology and references have been updated. Changes can be seen in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors,
I am pleased to have read your article. However, it will require major revisions before it is suitable for publication. Please consider the following points of improvement:
-
Please indicate why your research is important. While you have explained the literature gap, it is crucial to address the urgency and relevance of your perspectives for the present time.
-
Section 2 should focus on the literature review. Please review past papers that explore the same topics as your study.
-
Section 3 should be dedicated to methodology. Please begin by introducing the origin of your model, explain how you expanded it to your version, and justify the selection of each variable. Additionally, explain the types of analysis conducted and your model based on the techniques used. Please include a table for sources of data.
-
Please justify your main outcomes, such as FMLC, with recent citations.
-
Please improve your policy recommendations.
Thank you for considering these revisions. I look forward to reviewing the updated version.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 5
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2324019
Title: Examination The Effects of Covid 19 on Happiness in Different Geographical Regions with Piecewise Linear Panel Data Models
The authors (Dr. Elif Tuna, Dr.Atıf Evren, Ms. Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu and Mr. Mert Veznikli) are thankful to the Reviewer 5 for providing valuable comments help improve the quality of manuscript. The authors also appreciate the time and effort that Blanche Yao has dedicated to providing her valuable feedback on the manuscript. The authors carefully revised the manuscript by considering the comments of Reviewer 5 and the following is the point-by point reply.
Zehra Zeynep Sahinbasoglu
Corresponding Author
Yildiz Technical University
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
I am pleased to have read your article. However, it will require major revisions before it is suitable for publication. Please consider the following points of improvement:
Comment 1: Please indicate why your research is important. While you have explained the literature gap, it is crucial to address the urgency and relevance of your perspectives for the present time.
Response 1: The economic impact of COVID-19 surpasses that of other epidemics, such as Zika, Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), due to its higher transmission rate. The results section has been changed. In line with the opinions of the reviewers, the contribution of the study to the literature is explained in the conclusion section.
Comment 2: Section 2 should focus on the literature review. Please review past papers that explore the same topics as your study.
Response 2: A comprehensive literature review was conducted on the topic, and the reference list has been enriched. Changes can be observed in the revised manuscript..
Comment 3: Section 3 should be dedicated to methodology. Please begin by introducing the origin of your model, explain how you expanded it to your version, and justify the selection of each variable. Additionally, explain the types of analysis conducted and your model based on the techniques used. Please include a table for sources of data.
Response 3: Section 3 is defined as variables and data. Methodology and analyzes are done in detail in Section 4. The information you want about methodology and variables have been made in Section 4.
The data we use is obtained from “Data for Table 2.1” at : https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/#appendices-and-data
Comment 4: Please justify your main outcomes, such as FMLC, with recent citations.
Response 4: Literature studies of FMLC and all other variables that are effective on happiness are added to Chapter 2.
Comment 5: Please improve your policy recommendations.
Response 5: In the conclusion section, our policy recommendations are stated.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would recommend that the authors work on a revision of the language of the paper to ensure that it is clear, concise and consistent. Authors may also wish to consider using a professional editor or proofreader to ensure that the language used meets the highest standards of clarity and consistency.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Review Report Form
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Is the article adequately referenced?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: I would recommend that the authors work on a revision of the language of the paper to ensure that it is clear, concise and consistent. Authors may also wish to consider using a professional editor or proofreader to ensure that the language used meets the highest standards of clarity and consistency.
Submission Date
20 March 2023
Date of this review
18
Reviewer 2
Review Report Form
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Is the article adequately referenced?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: I would recommend that the authors work on a revision of the language of the paper to ensure that it is clear, concise and consistent. Authors may also wish to consider using a professional editor or proofreader to ensure that the language used meets the highest standards of clarity and consistency.
Submission Date
20 March 2023
Date of this review
18 Apr 2023 09:13:50
Response 1: English corrections were made by a professional team in line with the reviewer's suggestion. The proofreading certificate is attached.
Apr 2023 09:13:50
Response 1: English corrections were made by a professional team in line with the reviewer's suggestion. The proofreading certificate is attached.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please reconsider that the non-linear relationship between GDP and (healthy) life expectancy at birth among developed countries is well known. Please cite the relevant literatures. (See, the 4th comment)
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Review Report Form
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: Please reconsider that the non-linear relationship between GDP and (healthy) life expectancy at birth among developed countries is well known. Please cite the relevant literatures. (See, the 4th comment)
Submission Date
20 March 2023
Date of this review
18 Apr 2023 01:35:23
Response 1: In revised manuscript the response is shown at lines 156-162. “In the early stages of economic development, even small economic advances yield substantial returns in various aspects such as calorie intake, clothing, housing, medical care and ultimately life expectancy. However, when a society exceeds a certain development threshold, it reaches a point where further economic growth results in only marginal increases in both life expectancy and happiness . This nonlinear relationship between income and life expectancy is named the Preston curve after Samuel H. Preston, who first described it in 1975 [14,15].”
Since the countries in the South Asian country group are underdeveloped countries such as Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the HLEB variable was found to be significant in this country group, unlike other groups. The result is in line with what was expected for this group of countries, which is in the first stage of the Preston curve represent-ing low income. (line 634-639).
- Preston, S.H. The changing relation between mortality and level of economic development. Population studies 1975, 29, 231-248.
- Preston, S.H. The changing relation between mortality and level of economic development. International journal of epidemiology 2007, 36, 484-490.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors did not make use of visual presentations in the introduction. In addition, instead of applying the AMG and CCEMG tests, the researchers continued to apply the GMM test, which does not take into account the cross-sectional dependence.
It is not appropriate to publish an article that is lacking in methodological and visual aspects.
Author Response
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
( ) ( ) (x) ( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
( ) ( ) (x) ( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
( ) ( ) (x) ( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Is the article adequately referenced?
( ) ( ) (x) ( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
( ) ( ) (x) ( )
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: The authors did not make use of visual presentations in the introduction. In addition, instead of applying the AMG and CCEMG tests, the researchers continued to apply the GMM test, which does not take into account the cross-sectional dependence.
It is not appropriate to publish an article that is lacking in methodological and visual aspects.
Submission Date
20 March 2023
Date of this review
21 Apr 2023 07:29:35
Response 1: Thank you for your criticisms.
Reviewer 5 Report
Overall, i am satisfied with the revision made by the authors.
Author Response
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
(x) ( ) ( ) ( )
Is the article adequately referenced?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: Overall, i am satisfied with the revision made by the authors.
Submission Date
20 March 2023
Date of this review
18 Apr 2023 06:30:17
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and time.
