Chilean Universities and Universal Gratuity: Suggestions for a Model to Evaluate the Effects on Financial Vulnerability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Comments have been added as document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors attach a file indicating that their comments have been considered and that they are in blue in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
See the attachment (referee report)
Author Response
The authors attach a file indicating that their comments have been considered and that they are in blue in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article addresses an interesting topic but I think some improvements are needed:
Introduction: I consider this section should be rewritten more synthetically, with fewer references. These references could be moved to section 2.
Literature review: The paper proposes to examine the effects of gratuity on the financial vulnerability of higher education institutions. In this section, it is necessary for the authors to focus on this topic. Also, I think it would be necessary to identify and cite more works reflecting this issue at the international level, not just national ones.
Methodology: I consider additional explanations are needed regarding the data used, which are quite old.
Conclusions: The limitations of the research should be highlighted more clearly.
Author Response
The authors attach a file indicating that their comments have been considered and that they are in blue in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic is not so spread, the literature is not vast but you have discussed it in a rigorous way. Some tips to enhance the research are needed:
1) Center more the objective of your study circumscribing the perimeter of your research
2) Do not focus only on one country, but try to study the issue in comparison with other countries
3) Present better the model, with the adeguate literature at support. in Your case only few statements describe the methodology you used
Author Response
The authors attach a file indicating that their comments have been considered and that they are in blue in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for revising and resubmitting the working paper. I believe it has improved significantly due to the modification/updates. I thank you for taking the time to address my earlier comments and suggestion. I wish you the very best in publishing this research paper.
Regards,
See the above.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, I appreciate your comments on improving this manuscript's quality of English. That is why it was sent to an MDPI editing service, and later, it was reviewed by two native English specialists.
Bests regard
Juan Gallegos Mardones
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate the authors' efforts to revise and resubmit the paper in a significantly improved form.
I consider that some revision of the language and grammar is still needed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, I appreciate your comments on improving this manuscript's quality of English. That is why it was sent to an MDPI editing service, and later, it was reviewed by two native English specialists.
Bests regard
Juan Gallegos Mardones
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
