Research on the Compilation of a Composite Index from the Perspective of Public Value—The Case of the Global Health Security Index

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have enjoyed reading the paper. I just have one minor comment about the sequence of the sections. Please make sure they follow the common convention. That is, at the end of the paper, first comes the results and discussion sections then comes the conclusion section. So, please make the necessary modifications.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. While I agree that the manuscript is very relevant, especially with the risk of a next pandemic always palpable, I advise that the manuscript be properly formatted to conform to the journal’s guidelines.

MAJOR CHANGES:

1. The manuscript should have a materials and methods section.

2. There should be a results section where only results are presented without discussing them.

3. The current conclusion and discussion sections should be combined into Discussion and rearranged. The following order may be reasonable: 5.1, 6.1, 5.2, and 6.2.

4. Where author names are included in-text, they should be followed by year of publication. For example, in Line 74, you state, ‘Aitken measured the disease burden of…..’ Aitken should be followed by the year of publication. Do this throughout the manuscript.

5. Many in-text number references are not in square brackets. For example, in Lines 157, 160, 165, 267, 269, 270, 381, 443, and 458.

6. Where more than one reference appears at the end of a sentence, this is not properly formatted. For example, in Line 34, you state, ‘…..governance[2][3].’ This should be ‘…..governance[2,3].’ Do this throughout the manuscript.

7. There is poor referencing in some sections of the manuscript where no references are provided. Please provide references for Lines 176-182, 277-278, 286, 348-357, 413-417, 418-435, 464, 466-469, 484-503, and section 4.4.

8. Write a short conclusion at the end of your manuscript.

9. Reference list should be formatted using the provided guidelines of the journal, both for documents from the web and journal articles.

MINOR CHANGES

10. In Line 166, you state, ‘The above research mainly focuses on how to use the GHSI to improve the national…’ It is unclear which research you are referring to. It will be easier to understand if you reference the research.

10. In Line 204, you state, ‘The decomposition degree of other main components is relatively low, so it is temporarily set aside’ Replace ‘…. So it is….’ With ‘so it was’.

11. In Table 2, state whether the loadings were rotated or not.

12. When you write P value, the p should be a small letter. Correct in Lines 221, 246, and 253.

13. In Line 280, global health and safety index should be written as an acronym.

14. In Line 291, you state, ‘Positive correlated variables are grouped together, while negative correlated….’ Replace ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ with ‘positively’ and ‘negatively’.

15. You mix COVID-19 epidemic and COVID-19 pandemic throughout the manuscript. COVID-19 is a pandemic so replace ‘epidemic’ with ‘pandemic’

 

 

Only a few minor changes required as presented above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper analyzes the Global Health Security Index. It is a valuable study, and I am honored to see this paper. However, there are some unclear points that I would like the authors to clarify.

1. The topic of this research is rather general. What is innovation? How can it be implemented in different situations? These need to be clarified.

2. The body part needs to be adapted to the standard format. For example, the format in "2. GHSI theoretical basis" is different from the format in "1. Introduction".

3. Introduction" is different. All other sections need to be revised according to the standard format.

4. Page 1, line 27. COVID-19 is not defined above. Please specify the word(s) represented by the abbreviation(s). Indicate each acronym the first time it is used in the manuscript. 4.

5. What is the basis for categorizing the indicators in Table 1? What are the principles of indicator construction?

6. The research methodology section is not very clear. In a sentence or two, tell the reader how important the method is to the study and why it would be helpful to use it. How do you know you won't get better results with other methods?

7. Page 9, line 290. "As shown in Figure 7, the relationship between variables can be 290 seen." it is not clear to me which Figure 7 is referring to and whether it is misrepresented.

8. Some references are not formatted in the text in a standardized way. For example [27]-[37]. Double check the formatting of the references.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

While the authors attempted to address my concerns, I am still worried that they have not separated methods, results, and discussion. In the results you find discussion while in the methods you also find results. Methods should just present what was done, results what was found, and discussion what the results contribute to literature and how they differ from previous studies. I therefore still cannot endorse this publication until this is addressed.

Minor edits are still required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing all my concerns. I have no further comments.