The Impact of Migration on Forecasting Budget Expenditures on Education: The Sustainability Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The main novelty of the paper is the implementation and adaptation of cohort methodology to budget expenditures on education on the example of Ukrainian data. There are changes in the text on pages 2 and 4.

The literature review contains references to methodological studies (21-23 and 24-28), but there is no discussion about the differences with the one described in the paper.

A detailed analysis of the differences of methodological works [21-23] and [24-28] from the research described in the article is presented.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The topic of the paper is interesting as well as the findings, the authors are filling the gap in the literature on expenditure on education system in Ukraine.

In my opinion the literature (which is clearly presented) should include also other studies on Ukraine educational system, as well as some (if existing) studies on students mobility for education.

The methodology used in the paper is clearly stated.

The source of data should be clearly stated, as in the paper I found only “The State Statistics Service of Ukraine, the National Bank of Ukraine, and the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine are the sources of factual data for the base period year”. I recommend that the entire data set to be described and maybe, some descriptive statistics for macroeconomic variables mentioned to be included.

The obtained results are clearly presented, but in my opinion the results may be better linked with the support literature.

Considering the previous remarks, I would suggest to revise the paper, insisting more on the relevance of the findings.

 

Author Response

In my opinion the literature (which is clearly presented) should include also other studies on Ukraine educational system, as well as some (if existing) studies on students mobility for education.

Works 36-40 were added, which relate to the education system in Ukraine and academic mobility of students.

The detailed information is added for description of data sources (page 10).

The obtained results are clearly presented, but in my opinion the results may be better linked with the support literature.

Considering the previous remarks, I would suggest to revise the paper, insisting more on the relevance of the findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Below our remarks/ recommendations to improve your research study:

1. Moderate editind of English language are required.

2. Introduction : Youmust improve more this section (objective, main findings, structure of your sections, etc.)

3. Literature review:

* More recent research papers (see: Sustainability MDPI, Economies, Administration Sciences, Springer Nature, Elsevier databases). We can help with these usefull reference papers:

Dhayal, K. S., Brahmi, M., Agrawal, S., Aldieri, L., & Vinci, C. P. (2023). A Paradigm Shift in Education Systems Due to COVID-19: Its Social and Demographic Consequences. In M. Tunio & A. Memon (Eds.), Frugal Innovation and Social Transitions in the Digital Era (pp. 157-166). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5417-6.ch015

Brahmi, M., Aldieri, L., Dhayal, K. S., & Agrawal, S. (2022). Education 4.0: Can It Be a Component of the Sustainable Well-Being of Students?. In E. Shaikh & M. Tunio (Eds.), Sustainable Development of Human Resources in a Globalization Period (pp. 215-230). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-4981-3.ch014

4. Research hypotheses : Are very important to buld your study (to comapre your results to the theoritical hypotheses for validation in the final discussion section in your manuscript)

5. Method used : You have presented this method according the three levels of eductions (preschool, secondary, vocational and higher educations). But for every level have its specification. You must present a simple and clear table to summarize these models with cited references (authors have used those models).

6. Findings/ results:

Author are invited to improve this section :

* Present for each educaion level (the numerical model with statistical table)

* Tables / figures : add the resources and software used

* Your discussion section : present the resume of all finding and the valdation of your hypotheses (supported / or not)

7. Limitations & Future recommendations: is very important to add this section 

8. Conclusion: Do not miss the original value of this study.

9. References: 

All new research papers added in the literature section, must be added with the DOI in this section.

 

-

G luck

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate ediing of english language are required.

Author Response

1. Moderate editind of English language are required.

We improved introduction section – added goal, main tasks and the structure of the paper.

We added more recent research papers to the paper.

We added research hypothesis on page 2.

We added summary table for each type of education on page 9.

We changed structure of results section (added block for each educaion level).

We added the sources for each figure and table.

Highlighted discussion and confirmation of our hypotheses in conclusion section on pages 17-18.

We added limitations and areas of future research on page 18. 

Added DOI for all new research papers in the literature section

In the literature review, recommended articles were added and directions for further research on migration models were outlined, taking into account the results of these articles.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a great topic. 

I do have a few observations that I would like to share here:

In the introduction, the second paragraph starts with a sentence that repeats what was already shared in paragraph 1. This can be removed and the ending of the second paragraph could be added to the first paragraph. 

In the literature review, your first paragraph does not have any supportive citations... Perhaps you meant for this to be an introduction!!! 

The scholarly works reviewed in this section contributes to the readers understanding of the current study which is why it is helpful to provide a simple summary of each of the articles you reviewed. Otherwise, the readers feel that they need to look up the publication to find out the connection. This distracts from the flow so, when necessary/possible, it is best to provide more information. 

In terms of the methodology, I suggest improving paragraph (1) and offer a simple discussion of the method that can be easily understood by readers who are not familiar with it. 

In the results and discussion, I would encourage you to limit the lengthy narratives particularly if they are a repeat of information presented earlier. Instead, I recommend that you get into a discussion of the findings as quickly as possible. 

Finally, there are some minor issues with the phrasing of some of the sentences which could be easily corrected. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This is a good manuscript with an important topic but I had a little bit of difficulty following it at times. This could be related to the complexity of the method used in the study but there it could also be related to some wordy sentences and some repetition of information. 

I offered additional recommendations in my comments and suggestions. 

All the best to you with your important work. 

Author Response

There are changes in the introduction section on pages 1-2.

We added supportive citations in the first paragraph of the literature review.

The scholarly works reviewed in this section contributes to the readers understanding of the current study which is why it is helpful to provide a simple summary of each of the articles you reviewed. Otherwise, the readers feel that they need to look up the publication to find out the connection. This distracts from the flow so, when necessary/possible, it is best to provide more information.

We added short discussion of the method at the first paragraph of the methodology section (page 4).

In the results and discussion, I would encourage you to limit the lengthy narratives particularly if they are a repeat of information presented earlier. Instead, I recommend that you get into a discussion of the findings as quickly as possible.

Finally, there are some minor issues with the phrasing of some of the sentences which could be easily corrected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This is a good manuscript with an important topic but I had a little bit of difficulty following it at times. This could be related to the complexity of the method used in the study but there it could also be related to some wordy sentences and some repetition of information.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

I appreciate the effort to provide a clearer overview of the relevant literature and the unique aspects of the work compared to said literature. Although I struggle to find scientific value in the proposed exercise, at least from the perspective of the economic methodology, I understand that the results may be of some interest from an educational policy programming point of view. For this reason, I agree to the publication of the current version.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and ideas contribution! 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper improved. The authors responded to all my concerns. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and ideas contribution! 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author

Thank you for your revised version.

- Extensive editing of English language required.

-.Structure of the tables : revise

- Reference section : revise according the Sustainability author's guidline.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

- We checked the English

- We checked the structure of tables