Connectedness and Successful Aging of Older Adults in Croatia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Firstly, it is worth highlighting the relevance of the theme addressed in the article, wich focuses on sustainable resolution of aging societies to face inequalities between life expectancy and fnal years of healthy living. This importance is further emphasized by the fact that responsability of caring for disabled elderly individuals generally falls on families, which can generate problems of unsustainability, according to the authors. It is also necessary to mention that the identification of predictors of successful aging is essential for policymakers in the areas of health, safety, education, and others fields related to the needs of older people. Under these circumstances, the study’s content is succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and current theoretical background and empirical research on the topic.

With the objective of evaluating the 'connection and self-perception of successful aging in the elderly' by examining eventual distances and approximations of basic characteristics, the research employs a multidimensional model of connectivity and interviews participants in the Republic of Croatia. While the authors note a “lack” of studies analyzing connectivity from a perspective of multiple dimensions, they reference several works with approximate methodological designs, which somewhat reduces its originality. Nonetheless, the text provides interesting scientific contributions and engages with sources as well as recent scholarship. In this context, it is important to highlight the article’s references, which are not only pertinent, but also relatively up-to-date, with approximately 42% and 16% dating from the last quinquennium and from a period of six to ten years, respectively.

Generally, the research design and methods are clearly stated, although there could be more specificity regarding central research questions and respective answers, as well as investigative hypotheses and corresponding tests. Even so, the arguments and discussion of findings are, to a great extent, coherent, balanced and compelling. The empirical results are presented with clarity, notwithstanding they could have enable other important relational analyzes, which, eventually, can be developed in complementary studies.

Despite the various tests applied to the data and the relatively significant sample size of 824 respondents (with a probable sampling error of less than 5% and confidence level greater than 99%), it is not possible to ascertain whether the proportions of 38.7% of men and 61.3% % of women are statistically representative of the total population, as these proportions differ from national censuses and specific information is not presented for Osijek-Baranja County. The same comment holds true for the average age of 72 for the target group.

For the most part, the text demonstrates logical coherence, strong arguments, and academic soundness. The structure is of good quality and the writing is clear, although some unnecessary repetitiveness of contents could be avoided.

As relevant aspects of sensitivity in social research, ethical issues were apparently duly respected. However, some mentions to the nursing area and its professionals are taken out of context.

Finally, it is interpreted that, as well as the aforementioned complementary analizis of the results, the conclusions could be thoroughly supported by them. Likewise, they could reiterate limitations of the research in association with contributions to future studies.

Some spelling and grammatical adjustments are necessary, as well as the elimination of unnecessary content repetitions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We want to thank you for recognizing the relevance of the article. The paper has been improved by taking into account the comments we received from You. All the concerns have been carefully addressed. In the following list we summarize the changes we have made respecting each comment. To make it easier for reviewer to check the changes that have been made to the first version of the paper all the modifications in the manuscript are written in red. A second proofreading was performed throughout the manuscript by a native speaker, PhD in English language. Appropriate references were added.

 

Firstly, it is worth highlighting the relevance of the theme addressed in the article, wich focuses on sustainable resolution of aging societies to face inequalities between life expectancy and fnal years of healthy living. This importance is further emphasized by the fact that responsability of caring for disabled elderly individuals generally falls on families, which can generate problems of unsustainability, according to the authors. It is also necessary to mention that the identification of predictors of successful aging is essential for policymakers in the areas of health, safety, education, and others fields related to the needs of older people. Under these circumstances, the study’s content is succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and current theoretical background and empirical research on the topic.

With the objective of evaluating the 'connection and self-perception of successful aging in the elderly' by examining eventual distances and approximations of basic characteristics, the research employs a multidimensional model of connectivity and interviews participants in the Republic of Croatia. While the authors note a “lack” of studies analyzing connectivity from a perspective of multiple dimensions, they reference several works with approximate methodological designs, which somewhat reduces its originality. Nonetheless, the text provides interesting scientific contributions and engages with sources as well as recent scholarship. In this context, it is important to highlight the article’s references, which are not only pertinent, but also relatively up-to-date, with approximately 42% and 16% dating from the last quinquennium and from a period of six to ten years, respectively.

Response 1: Thank you for recognizing that we have tried to include the most recent, relevant literature that is available. The co-authors invested a lot of time and effort in searching for such literature.

Generally, the research design and methods are clearly stated, although there could be more specificity regarding central research questions and respective answers, as well as investigative hypotheses and corresponding tests. Even so, the arguments and discussion of findings are, to a great extent, coherent, balanced and compelling. The empirical results are presented with clarity, not with standing they could have enable other important relational analyzes, which, eventually, can be developed in complementary studies.

Response 2: As this is the first research of connectedness on Croatian elderly population, we expect that further research will deal with more specific questions. We belive that our young scientists, who are partly co-authors of this article, include appropriate analyzes in order to address those specific questions

Despite the various tests applied to the data and the relatively significant sample size of 824 respondents (with a probable sampling error of less than 5% and confidence level greater than 99%), it is not possible to ascertain whether the proportions of 38.7% of men and 61.3% % of women are statistically representative of the total population, as these proportions differ from national censuses and specific information is not presented for Osijek-Baranja County. The same comment holds true for the average age of 72 for the target group.

Response 3: Changes were made.

According to the 2021 census, the population of the Republic of Croatia is 3,888,529 people. Of these, 868 638 (22.3%) are over 65 years old with proportion of 58.41% (361 518) women and 41.60% (507 721) of men [24], making Croatia one of the countries with the oldest population in Europe.

The gender distribution in this research is similar to the proportion of men and women in Osijek-Baranja County, where 40.86% of men are over 65 years old, and 59.14% of women.

For the most part, the text demonstrates logical coherence, strong arguments, and academic soundness. The structure is of good quality and the writing is clear, although some unnecessary repetitiveness of contents could be avoided.

As relevant aspects of sensitivity in social research, ethical issues were apparently duly respected. However, some mentions to the nursing area and its professionals are taken out of context. Finally, it is interpreted that, as well as the aforementioned complementary analizis of the results, the conclusions could be thoroughly supported by them. Likewise, they could reiterate limitations of the research in association with contributions to future studies.

Response 4: Thank You for the comment and recognition. As we mentioned, we are still working on similar research, already this year, with the elderly population. We took the limitations of this study into account and extended the research beyond our region. Also, we are working on qualitative research, conducting interviews with older people, in order to try to get a connection between the questionnaires used and the qualitative data from the interviews.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Some spelling and grammatical adjustments are necessary, as well as the elimination of unnecessary content repetitions.

Response 5: Changes were made. We did some elimination of unnecessary content repetitions (all the modifications in the manuscript are written in red letters). Second proofreading was performed throughout the manuscript by a native speaker with Ph.D. in English language.

The paper has been improved by taking into account the comments we received from You.

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study investigated the connectedness and self-perception of successful ageing in older people. This manuscript presents an interesting study. However, several issues need attention. The following comments summarise a few of my suggestions for this manuscript.

 

1. The study used the Connectedness Scale for Older Adults (RCSOA) and the Self-assessed Successful Ageing Scale; descriptions of both questionnaires should be added.
2. The introduction section can be described in sections to improve logic. At the same time, reduce or refine content that is not relevant to the research.
3. The discussion section is rich in content, and if the discussion can be divided into points, it will improve legibility.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

We would like to thank the reviewers who recognised the relevance of the article. The paper has been improved by taking into account the comments we received from You. All the concerns have been carefully addressed. In the following list we summarize the changes we have made respecting each reviewer comment. To make it easier for reviewers to check the changes that have been made to the first version of the paper all the modifications in the manuscript are written in red. A second proofreading was performed throughout the manuscript by a native speaker, PhD in English language. In order to make the introduction clearer, as well as discussion, the text was modified and the manuscript is reorganizided.

 

This study investigated the connectedness and self-perception of successful ageing in older people. This manuscript presents an interesting study. However, several issues need attention. The following comments summarise a few of my suggestions for this manuscript.

The study used the Connectedness Scale for Older Adults (RCSOA) and the Self-assessed Successful Ageing Scale; descriptions of both questionnaires should be added.

 

Response 1: Changes were made.

2.3.1. Register - Connectedness Scale for Older Adults

 

The second part of the questionnaire was a validated instrument Register – Connectedness Scale for Older Adults (R-CSOA). The construction of the R-SCOA was based on the Register's model of Generative Quality of Life for the Elderly. The instrument examines the frequency and relevance of different dimensions of connectedness from a multidimensional perspective. Relevance scores inform about the salience of links in the environment of older adults, and frequency scores help identify the types of links that an individual typically uses. The Croatian version of instrument is in the publishing phase. Register–Connectedness Scale for Older Adults (R-CSOA) has two parts. Each part contains 43 items distributed in 5 subscales: Self-Regulating, Facing Aging, Being Part of a Family, Having Friends, and Being Spiritual. In the first part respondents rate their satisfaction with each item (1 - not at all satisfied; 2 – poorly satisfied; 3 – mostly satisfied; 4 – completely satisfied). In the second part respondents rate importance of the same items (1 – not at all important to me, 2 – mostly not important to me, 3 – mostly important to me, 4 – very important to me) [17].

The applied Croatian version of the instrument was psychometrically analyzed on 698 elderly people in the Republic of Croatia and shows good construct validity, sensitivity and reliability. Internal reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value was 0.968, which meant that the questionnaire was a suitable instrument for assessing connectedness in our sample. The scale consists of five domains of good internal reliability, from 0.912 to 0.933. It is currently in the publishing phase.

 

 

2.3.2 Self-Assessed Successful Aging Scale

 

The third part of the questionnaire included the Croatian version of Self-assessed Successful Aging Scale [28]., the instrument to measure how respondents self-assess successful aging. The scale is based on the Croatian translation of the list of 20 characteristics of successful aging [19-20].

It included 20 items which respondents assessed on a 5-point scale (1 - does not apply to me, 2 - partially applies to me, 3 - applies to me, 4 - mostly applies to me, 5 - totally applies to me). The statements cover most of the dimensions that belong to the construct of successful aging. This questionnaire is reliable and applicable instrument in research of older adults since it is methodologically valid, has positive international rating and validated version in Croatian language. Internal reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value was 0.893, for the overall scale.

 

 

The introduction section can be described in sections to improve logic. At the same time, reduce or refine content that is not relevant to the research.

The discussion section is rich in content, and if the discussion can be divided into points, it will improve legibility.

 

Response 2: Changes were made. We reduce / refine content that is not relevant to the research and eliminate of unnecessary content repetitions. Subtitles have been added and text content has been organized into shorter sections (all the modifications in the manuscript are written in red letters).

 

The paper has been improved by taking into account the comments we received from You.

Sincerely,

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title of the work:  Association between Connectedness and Successful Aging of Older Adults in Croatia

 

Dear researcher(s), you are addressing an important and meaningful gap. Your paper is well-written and it has some important results, and if you edit your paper it can be much more effective. Here some humble suggestions to improve the paper, I would do the following to strengthen the paper. I have enjoyed reading the paper and am looking forward to seeing the paper published. You could increase the effect of your paper with some more recent studies suggested below or any other studies and not using the suggested ones. I have enjoyed reading the paper and please see my attached feedback.

 

Main points:

1.     Title: good and

a.     You may consider shorten the title because more and more journals are asking for manuscripts with lesss number of total words. If the title is brief, comprehensive the readers and researchers will be more likely to benefit from it more. However, you do not have to shorten it.

b.     You can use sth. like “Connectedness and Successful Aging of Older Adults in Croatia”

2.     Abstract and keywords clear and comprehensive: good and you can edit the first sentence to make it more flowing

3.     Overall language: good

-        The language is quite clear and well-written. You could use an active language for your future papers throughout the paper since an active language seems to be more effective. And more and more researchers go with an active language. However, you do not have to change for this paper- just a suggestion for your future work and I know some journals asking for a passive language.

-        For an active language see suggested papers

 

4.     Length of paragraph : good and

a.      you can check the paper and make sure every paragraph is not more than 5 sentences. The best is to stick with 3 to 5 sentences.

b.     And you can add some subtitles to be more organized and short sections. Please see the suggested papers above. I would suggest you to look at the suggested studies and use more subtitles to make the paper more organized.

 

5.     Introduction: good and can use subtitles to be more organized see suggested studies

6.     Thoroughness of the literature review: good

7.     Clarity of the description of the Theoretical Framework (TF): You do not have to construct a subsection called theoretical framework because you have enough explanation about which theories/perspectives have shaped your research. However, if you want to make your paper more effective I would construct a subsection called theoretical framework and briefly explains see suggested papers

8.     Research design: good

9.     Clearly providing research questions and/or purpose:yes and can provide under separate subtitle to be more clear- see suggested studies, yet do not have to do so.

10.  Choice of research method: very appropriate

11.  Appropriateness of procedures chosen for data collection and analysis: well-written

12.  Relevance of  data obtained in view of  the  purpose of the research: well-written

13.  Discussion of the results and their significance: well-written and make sure your paragraph consists of 3-5 sentences to help a reader follow.

14.  Soundness of conclusions in relation to data presented: well-written.

15.  Limitation:  well-written.

16.  Implication:  good

a.      you can increase the effect of your paper by constructing a new section entitled “implication” for clear and brief suggestions in at least two or three of the following most important to you mental health, education, research, administrators, services, etc.: see suggested papers  for implications for specific sections

b.     I would strongly suggest you to call future researchers to use Online Photovoice (OPV) to conduct research on the same or similar topics: utilizing Online Photovoice (OPV) to understand connectedness and successful aging among people with a high age; using OPV to examine life of elder people

c.      The researchers can use OPV, as one of the most recent and effective innovative qualitative research methods. OPV gives opportunities to the participants to express their own experience with as little manipulation as possible if at all, compared to traditional quantitative methods. As researchers one of our responsibilities is to inform others about recent and effective methods, which will increase the effect of your paper and the journal. Future researchers can conduct only qualitative or mixed method to see if OPV. And educators/trainers etc. also can use OPV for experiential activities to increase group and organizational synergy. Please see suggested papers if you wish to do so.

 

d.     Some of the first published quite effective papers:

 

Tanhan, A., & Strack, R. W. (2020). Online photovoice to explore and advocate for Muslim biopsychosocial spiritual wellbeing and issues: Ecological systems theory and ally development. Current Psychology, 39(6), 2010-2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00692-6

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Online+photovoice+to+explore+and+advocate+for+Muslim++biopsychosocial+spiritual+wellbeing+and+issues%3A+Ecological+systems+theory+and+ally+development&btnG=

 

Doyumğaç, İ., Tanhan, A., & Kıymaz, M. S., (2021). Understanding the most important facilitators and barriers for online education during COVID-19 through online photovoice methodology. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 166-190. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n1p166

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Understanding+the+most+important++facilitators+and+barriers+for+online+education+during+COVID-19+through+online+photovoice+methodology&btnG=

 

17.   Figure/tables: good

18.  In-text reference: well written

19.  References: if the journal aalows adding dois

-        Please use the following link to include all available doi numbers https://doi.crossref.org/simpleTextQuery simply include your reference one or more than one at a time and submit it. Then you should get all doi numbers if a manuscript has it.

 

I have enjoyed reading your paper and learned a lot- thanks for your contribution to social sciences. You are addressing an important and meaningful gap. Your paper has some important results, and if you edit your paper based on all or some of the humble suggestions above, it can be much more effective. I am looking forward to seeing the paper published. You could increase the effect of your paper with some more recent studies suggested above or any other studies and not using the suggested ones.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We would like to thank the reviewers who recognised the relevance of the article. The paper has been improved by taking into account the comments we received from You. All the concerns have been carefully addressed. In the following list we summarize the changes we have made respecting each reviewer comment. To make it easier for reviewers to check the changes that have been made to the first version of the paper all the modifications in the manuscript are written in red. A second proofreading was performed throughout the manuscript by a native speaker, PhD in English language. In order to make the introduction clearer, as well as discussion, the text was modified and the manuscript is reorganizided.

Dear researcher(s), you are addressing an important and meaningful gap. Your paper is well-written and it has some important results, and if you edit your paper it can be much more effective. Here some humble suggestions to improve the paper, I would do the following to strengthen the paper. I have enjoyed reading the paper and am looking forward to seeing the paper published. You could increase the effect of your paper with some more recent studies suggested below or any other studies and not using the suggested ones. I have enjoyed reading the paper and please see my attached feedback.

Response 1: Changes were made. We have posted the more recent studies you suggested.

Main points:

1. Title: good and
2. You may consider shorten the title because more and more journals are asking for manuscripts with lesss number of total words. If the title is brief, comprehensive the readers and researchers will be more likely to benefit from it more. However, you do not have to shorten it.
3. You can use sth. like “Connectedness and Successful Aging of Older Adults in Croatia”

Response 2: Changes were made. The title of the article has been shortened.

2. Abstract and keywords clear and comprehensive: good and you can edit the first sentence to make it more flowing

Response 3: Changes were made.

Abstract: Connectedness is a multidimensional model important in order to improve quality of life among older people and aging process. Connectedness as an experienced connection to the forces and processes that make up a sustainable quality of life is important for improving the quality of life of older adults.

3. Overall language: good

-        The language is quite clear and well-written. You could use an active language for your future papers throughout the paper since an active language seems to be more effective. And more and more researchers go with an active language. However, you do not have to change for this paper- just a suggestion for your future work and I know some journals asking for a passive language.

-        For an active language see suggested papers

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion to use active language for future papers. 

4. Length of paragraph : good and
5. you can check the paper and make sure every paragraph is not more than 5 sentences. The best is to stick with 3 to 5 sentences.
6. And you can add some subtitles to be more organized and short sections. Please see the suggested papers above. I would suggest you to look at the suggested studies and use more subtitles to make the paper more organized.

Response 5: Changes were made. Subtitles have been added and text content has been organized into shorter sections. Visible red in the article.

5. Introduction: good and can use subtitles to be more organized see suggested studies

Response 6: Changes were made.

6. Thoroughness of the literature review: good

Response 7: Thank You for the comment and recognition.

7. Clarity of the description of the Theoretical Framework (TF): You do not have to construct a subsection called theoretical framework because you have enough explanation about which theories/perspectives have shaped your research. However, if you want to make your paper more effective I would construct a subsection called theoretical framework and briefly explains see suggested papers

Response 8: Changes were made. Visible red in the article.

8. Research design: good

Response 9: Thank You for the comment and recognition.

9. Clearly providing research questions and/or purpose:yes and can provide under separate subtitle to be more clear- see suggested studies, yet do not have to do so.

Response 10: Thank You for the comment and recognition.

10. Choice of research method: very appropriate

Response 11: Thank You for the comment.

11. Appropriateness of procedures chosen for data collection and analysis: well-written

Response 12: Thank You for the comment.

12. Relevance of data obtained in view of  the  purpose of the research: well-written

Response 13: Thank You for the comment.

13. Discussion of the results and their significance: well-written and make sure your paragraph consists of 3-5 sentences to help a reader follow.

Response 14: Changes were made.

14. Soundness of conclusions in relation to data presented: well-written.

Response 15: Thank You for the comment.

15. Limitation: well-written.

Response 16: Thank You for the comment.

16. Implication: good
17. you can increase the effect of your paper by constructing a new section entitled “implication” for clear and brief suggestions in at least two or three of the following most important to you mental health, education, research, administrators, services, etc.: see suggested papers for implications for specific sections
18. I would strongly suggest you to call future researchers to use Online Photovoice (OPV) to conduct research on the same or similar topics: utilizing Online Photovoice (OPV) to understand connectedness and successful aging among people with a high age; using OPV to examine life of elder people
19. The researchers can use OPV, as one of the most recent and effective innovative qualitative research methods. OPV gives opportunities to the participants to express their own experience with as little manipulation as possible if at all, compared to traditional quantitative methods. As researchers one of our responsibilities is to inform others about recent and effective methods, which will increase the effect of your paper and the journal. Future researchers can conduct only qualitative or mixed method to see if OPV. And educators/trainers etc. also can use OPV for experiential activities to increase group and organizational synergy. Please see suggested papers if you wish to do so.
20. Some of the first published quite effective papers:

Tanhan, A., & Strack, R. W. (2020). Online photovoice to explore and advocate for Muslim biopsychosocial spiritual wellbeing and issues: Ecological systems theory and ally development. Current Psychology, 39(6), 2010-2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00692-6

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Online+photovoice+to+explore+and+advocate+for+Muslim++biopsychosocial+spiritual+wellbeing+and+issues%3A+Ecological+systems+theory+and+ally+development&btnG=

Doyumğaç, İ., Tanhan, A., & Kıymaz, M. S., (2021). Understanding the most important facilitators and barriers for online education during COVID-19 through online photovoice methodology. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 166-190. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n1p166

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Understanding+the+most+important++facilitators+and+barriers+for+online+education+during+COVID-19+through+online+photovoice+methodology&btnG=

Response 17: Changes were made.

4.2.  Implication for the Future Research

 

In future research, it would be desirable to include assessments of objective indi-cators, such as health status and assessments of close people, in addition to the self-assessments of respondents. Implication for future research state the use OPV (Online Photovoice), as one of the effective innovative qualitative research methods. OPV gives opportunities to the participants to express their own experience. Future researchers can conduct qualitative or mixed method on the same or similar topics: u-tilizing OPV to understand connectedness and successful aging among older adults; to examine life of older people and their experiential activity to increase group and orga-nizational synergy [71,72].

 

71. Tanhan, A., Strack, R. W. Online photovoice to explore and advocate for Muslim biopsychosocial spiritual wellbeing and issues: Ecological systems theory and ally development. Current Psychology 2020, 39(6), 2010-2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00692-6

 

72. Doyumğaç, İ., Tanhan, A., Kıymaz, M. S., Understanding the most important facilitators and barriers for online education during COVID-19 through online photovoice methodology. International Journal of Higher Education 2021, 10(1), 166-190. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n1p166

 

 

 

 

17. Figure/tables: good

Response 18: Thank You for the comment.

18. In-text reference: well written

Response 19: Thank You for the comment.

19. References: if the journal aalows adding dois

-        Please use the following link to include all available doi numbers https://doi.crossref.org/simpleTextQuery simply include your reference one or more than one at a time and submit it. Then you should get all doi numbers if a manuscript has it.

Response 20: Changes were made.  We include all available doi numbers.

I have enjoyed reading your paper and learned a lot- thanks for your contribution to social sciences. You are addressing an important and meaningful gap. Your paper has some important results, and if you edit your paper based on all or some of the humble suggestions above, it can be much more effective. I am looking forward to seeing the paper published. You could increase the effect of your paper with some more recent studies suggested above or any other studies and not using the suggested ones.

The paper has been improved by taking into account the comments we received from You.

Sincerely,

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be further improved through the following two changes:

1. I think the author can add a secondary heading to the introduction, summarizing the issues involved in the research and the purpose of the research, so as to make this part have a more complete structure.

2.  "4.1. Limitations of the Study" should be "5.1. Limitations of the Study", And the following "4.2. Implication for the Future Research" also needs to be revised.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you for the detailed review. We have made changes according to the suggestions. In the following list we summarize the changes we have made. To make it easier for reviewer to check the changes that have been made to the last version of the paper all the modifications in the manuscript are written in green.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be further improved through the following two changes:

1. I think the author can add a secondary heading to the introduction, summarizing the issues involved in the research and the purpose of the research, so as to make this part have a more complete structure.

Response 1: Changes were made.

In the introduction section, secondary headings have been added to give this section a complete structure. The text was modified and the introduction is reorganizided.

2. "4.1. Limitations of the Study" should be "5.1. Limitations of the Study", And the following "4.2. Implication for the Future Research" also needs to be revised.

Response 2: Changes were made.

The paper has been improved by taking into account the comments we received from You.

Sincerely,

The authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx