Cross-Regional Allocation of Human Capital and Sustainable Development of China’s Regional Economy—Based on the Perspective of Population Mobility
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thanks for submitting your manuscript for publication, the paper aims at studying the influence of human capital cross-regional allocation on regional economic growth in China.
As a result of completed review, the following comments and recommendations can be suggested:
The paper should be edited and checked as there are some difficulties in understanding it.
The abstract should be reorganized according to the standard structure, as a rule, an abstract contains brief statements of the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of a study.
Section 2. Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis (page 4): the provided information on page 4 should be supported with references (there are no references supporting the theory).
Discussion section should be added. In this section provide the information on comparison of your obtained results with the results of similar previous studies.
In Conclusion section please specify the limitations of the paper and provide recommendations for future studies.
The paper should be edited and checked as there are some difficulties in understanding it.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for reviewing our manuscript and giving us valuable comments and suggestions. We have improved our paper according to your recommendations.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The paper should be edited and checked as there are some difficulties in understanding it.
Response 1: We have already edited and checked the paper. Please see the revised manuscript.
Point 2: The abstract should be reorganized according to the standard structure, as a rule, an abstract contains brief statements of the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of a study.
Response 2: According to the standard structure, the abstract has be reorganized containing the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of our study. Please see the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Section 2. Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis (page 4): the provided information on page 4 should be supported with references (there are no references supporting the theory).
Response 3: We added relevant references ([30]-[52]) to support our theoretical analysis and research hypothesis. Please see the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Discussion section should be added. In this section provide the information on comparison of your obtained results with the results of similar previous studies.
Response 4: We added discussion section (page 26) in which we compare our results with the results of similar previous studies. Please see the revised manuscript.
Point 5: In Conclusion section please specify the limitations of the paper and provide recommendations for future studies.
Response 5: We added “Limitations and Future Research” (page 28) in which we specify the limitations of the paper and provide recommendations for future studies. Please see the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, your paper is very interesting due to the subject as well as presentation of properly described the concept. The shape of the paper is quite good and proper. My specific recommendation for some improvement you can find below.
Page 2: in the first chapter you provide a lot of generic statements, such as: “The world economy is in a downturn. Economic globalization has been thwarted. Pro- found changes in the global energy supply and demand landscape have taken place. Economic & trade cooperation and investment have been hit. Education and the dissemination of knowledge have been hindered. Global supply chains have been disrupted, and the introduction of advanced technologies has been difficult”. Why do you think in that way? Please explain each of provided statements or give appropriate literature sources.
Page 2: In the second chapter please provide appropriate literature sources for the mentioned report.
There is a lack of source(s) below the Figure 1 on page 5. Please provide proper information about the authorship of the mechanism presented.
Page 9: Such statements as „(1) Resource Endowment.”, „(2)Fiscal policy.” and other exist in the text. These sentences seem inappropriate and strange in the text. I recommend to change the way of showing variables related to economic growth.
Results part: please indicate clearly if your hypotheses are positively or negatively verified. In present state you have mentioned that they are just verified.
Page 25: in the conclusion part please provide appropriate comparison(s) to show how your results look like in the background of present state of art (compare them with the existing literature data).
The literature shall to be updated to give the reader broad view on current state of the art. Now the literature mostly support Chinese sources, what is not bad, however seems to be too narrow to describe the present state of art.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for reviewing our manuscript and giving us valuable comments and suggestions. We have improved our paper according to your recommendations. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors use the net inflow rate of labor force as a measure of human capital cross-regional allocation, but as far as we know, the primary definition of human capital does not come from mobility. The consensus among economists is that human capital refers to the knowledge and skills acquired by people during education and working, and their role and contribution to production, innovation, and services, etc. Human capital can be acquired and accumulated through education, training, experience, and practice.
Please elaborate further on the relevant measures of human capital or add new indicators.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for reviewing our manuscript and giving us valuable comments and suggestions. We have improved our paper according to your recommendations. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
The study aims are explicit, the research methodologies are appropriate, the research conclusions are compatible with experience, and the policy recommendations are well-guided. Overall, the paper is clearly presented and meets the standard of publication.
However, I have a few questions about this paper.
1. In page 6, authors proposed ‘Hypothesis 1: Human capital cross-regional allocation is the new power source of urban economic growth, that is, the net inflow of labor force can promote urban economic growth.’
Human capital is a key power of urban economic growth, while not the new power. Whenever and whenever there is a continuous flow of people in and out.
2. The conclusion section should contain the limitation of this work as well as the future research directions. Further, the authors should compare their results to what is in the literature.
3. There should be included much more relevant references.
The English language is not appropriate – the text shall be proofread and corrected by a native English speaker, Grammarly Free Online Writing Assistant or similar software used.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for reviewing our manuscript and giving us valuable comments and suggestions. We have improved our paper according to your recommendations. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thanks for submission of revised paper, the quality of the paper improved, and it can be suggested for publication in present form.
