Coupling Coordination between University Scientific & Technological Innovation and Sustainable Economic Development in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Abstract: and evaluates the indicators of the two above-mentioned in 30 provincial regions in China from 2011 to 2020. – Which are these indicators? The indicators should be stated explicitly, otherwise it is confusing for the reader (are the indicators: university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development, or: sustainable economic and social development?)?
- the goals and/or main goal of the paper should be more clearly defined in the abstract, while the conclusion does not necessarily have to be stated
- the hypotheses are not clearly defined/described
- the last paragraph of the Introduction also lacks a short and clear description of the goal of the paper (This paper aims to enrich the knowledge of the coupling between university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development – How?
- Titles and subtitles in the paper should be reorganized, e.g. after title 2. Coupling Mechanism Analysis, it is not logical to have again 2. Index System and Research Methods, the same goas for all other titles and subtitles
- „According to the Cobb-Douglas function, technology is an endogenous variable of economic growth“. It should be specified and/or described what Cobb-Douglas function is, including what is an endogenous variable of economic growth? This lacks references.
- the entire paper should be proof-read (there are typos and errors, e. g., double spacing, no spacing after full stops, etc.)
- Table 1 is unclear – what are the nine indicators in three dimensions? Besides mentioning twice: “nine specific indicators from three dimensions“ in the text, Table 1 mentions Level indicators, and the text mention specific indicators, Table 1 also mentions The secondary indicators? Iti s inconsistent, terminology should be consistent. Are secondary indicators the same as specific indicators? Then the numbers are not consistent (nine or ten?)
Therefore, it is necessary to use terminology consistently, in a uniform manner, in the entire text, as this inconsistent use of terms is confusing and leads to wrong conclusions.
(“…this paper constructs nine specific indicators from three dimensions: innovation inputs, innovation output and innovation environment. The evaluation index system of sustainable economic development includes nine specific indicators from three dimensions: economic scale, economic structure and economic quality”.).
- “This paper takes 30 provincial regions (excluding Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan) from 2011 to 2020 as the research objects.” – why were these four excluded from the research? Is there a reason?
- abbreviations should be explained upon their first mention in the paper: e.g., JTH index
- why will the index gain zero value after normalization – explain
- equations are not properly labelled/numbered according to order of appearance
- no references/sources for the equations
- There is no visual representation of results obtained by empirical analysis. It should be demonstrated how the coupling coordination degree was obtained (the text only states: “According to the data obtained from empirical analysis and the existing research”)
- Figure 2 is located in the chapter 3.1.1., but it is mentioned only in 3.3. The figure should be placed closer to the text it refers to.
- The average values of Jiangsu, Beijing, and Shanghai ranked in the top three,… based on which data/calculations/equations? This is not described. Figure 2. The evaluation value of university S&T innovation in provincial regions.
- Figure 3. The evaluation value of sustainable economic development in provincial regions – these were obtained based on data from Table 3, but how were the data obtained in Table 3, based on which data/calculations/equations? This was not described.
- The paper does not contain Table 4 „The coupling coordination degree of the two subsystems of 30 provincial regions in China from 2011-2020 is measured. The results are shown in Table 4.“
- … of China showed a slow growth trend year by year, especially in the central region, which showed the fastest growth, indicating that China's "innovation-driven development" strategy and sustainable economic development have achieved initial results.
This is contradictory, it should be rephrased in accordance with the facts and write correctly.
- It is recommended that the Discussion be followed by concluding remarks, a conclusion verifying or dismissing the previously mentioned hypotheses
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your comments which are very helpful to improve the quality of our manuscript. We provide a point-by-point response (please see below or the attachment) and highlight the changes in revised manuscript.
Point 1: Abstract: and evaluates the indicators of the two above-mentioned in 30 provincial regions in China from 2011 to 2020. – Which are these indicators? The indicators should be stated explicitly, otherwise it is confusing for the reader (are the indicators: university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development, or: sustainable economic and social development?)?
Response 1: We appreciate it for this good suggestion. As you suggested, we have added “university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development” in the abstract in line 18-19 in order to state the indicators explicitly.
Point 2: The goals and/or main goal of the paper should be more clearly defined in the abstract, while the conclusion does not necessarily have to be stated.
Response 2: We apologize for the unclear explanation of the goals. The main goal of this paper is to clarify the situation of the coupling coordination relationship between the two systems, i.e. university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development in China. As you suggested, we have defined the main goal of the paper in the abstract in line 12-15 and deleted the conclusion in the abstract.
Point 3: The hypotheses are not clearly defined/described.
Response 3: Thanks for pointing out this issue. In our opinion, the main content of this paper is similar to descriptive statistical analysis. This paper constructs the evaluation index system of university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development separately, and evaluates the indicators of the two above-mentioned in 30 provinces in China. On this basis, a coupling coordination degree model is constructed to evaluate the coupling coordination degree of university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development. This paper does not involve inferred statistical analysis. Therefore, the hypotheses are not clearly defined.
Point 4: The last paragraph of the Introduction also lacks a short and clear description of the goal of the paper (This paper aims to enrich the knowledge of the coupling between university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development – How?)
Response 4: We apologize for the unclear explanation of the goal. We realize that the goal of enriching the knowledge is inaccurate. This paper aims to explore the coupling coordination relationship between university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development in China. We added the detailed object of this work at the end of the Introduce part in line 45-52.
Point 5: Titles and subtitles in the paper should be reorganized, e.g. after title 2. Coupling Mechanism Analysis, it is not logical to have again 2. Index System and Research Methods, the same goas for all other titles and subtitles.
Response 5: Thanks for your comment. We revised the title of the Section 3（revised from Section 2） as “theoretical analysis of coupling mechanism”. In section 3, we analyzed the coupling mechanism of the two subsystems -university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development, from a theoretical perspective. In section 4, we introduced the research methods of coupling coordination, include the evaluation indicators and methods of university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development, and the coupling coordination model that measure the coordination degree of interaction coupling between the two subsystems. In section 5, the empirical results are obtained and analyzed according to the methods in section 4.
Point 6: “According to the Cobb-Douglas function, technology is an endogenous variable of economic growth “. It should be specified and/or described what Cobb-Douglas function is, including what is an endogenous variable of economic growth? This lacks references.
Response 6: We apologize for the unclear explanation. As you suggested, we added the description of Cobb-Douglas function and modified the statement description of endogenous variable in line 139-142. And the relevant reference has been added.
Point 7: The entire paper should be proof-read (there are typos and errors, e. g., double spacing, no spacing after full stops, etc.)
Response 7: We apologize for the typos and errors in our manuscript and make corresponding modifications with the use of grammatical tools.
Point 8: Table 1 is unclear – what are the nine indicators in three dimensions? Besides mentioning twice: “nine specific indicators from three dimensions “in the text, Table 1 mentions Level indicators, and the text mention specific indicators, Table 1 also mentions the secondary indicators? It is inconsistent, terminology should be consistent. Are secondary indicators the same as specific indicators? Then the numbers are not consistent (nine or ten?)
Therefore, it is necessary to use terminology consistently, in a uniform manner, in the entire text, as this inconsistent use of terms is confusing and leads to wrong conclusions.
(“…this paper constructs nine specific indicators from three dimensions: innovation inputs, innovation output and innovation environment. The evaluation index system of sustainable economic development includes nine specific indicators from three dimensions: economic scale, economic structure and economic quality”.).
Response 8: We apologize for the inconsistent use of terms in our manuscript. In order to maintain the consistency of terminology, we have revised “Level indicators” and “dimensions” to “primary indicators”, and revised “specific indicators” to “secondary indicators”. The evaluation system of university S&T innovation is constructed by two levels: 3 primary indicators and 9 secondary indicators. The evaluation index system of sustainable economic development is also constructed by two levels: 3 primary indicators and 9 secondary indicators.
Point 9: “This paper takes 30 provincial regions (excluding Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan) from 2011 to 2020 as the research objects.” – why were these four excluded from the research? Is there a reason?
Response 9: We are very sorry we didn't explain the reason clearly. In fact, there are many missing data in these four provincial regions, which are not easy to obtain. We added an explanation of the reason in line 213.
Point 10: Abbreviations should be explained upon their first mention in the paper: e.g., JTH index.
Response 10: We apologize for the unclear word writing. JTH index is not an abbreviation. It refers to the index in the jth position in order. We have revised ”JTH index” to“jth index”in the paper.
Point 11: why will the index gain zero value after normalization – explain.
Response 11: In this paper, the min-max standardization method is used to transform the original data linearly. Let min A and max A be the minimum and maximum values of attribute A respectively, and map an original value x of A to the value x' in the interval [0,1] through min-max standardization. When a data is exactly the minimum value, it will be 0 after standardization.
Point 12: Equations are not properly labelled/numbered according to order of appearance.
Response 12: As you suggested, we added the number of the equations according to order of appearance.
Point 13: No references/sources for the equations.
Response 13: As you suggested, we added the reference for the equation of entropy value which is the main formula of entropy method.
Point 14: There is no visual representation of results obtained by empirical analysis. It should be demonstrated how the coupling coordination degree was obtained (the text only states: “According to the data obtained from empirical analysis and the existing research”)
Response 14: We apologize for the unclear explanation. The meaning of the text is the coupling coordination degree is divided into five grades according to the existing research and the numerical value range of coupling coordination degree. The classification standard of coupling coordination degree is based on existing literature and the numerical value range. To avoid ambiguity, we revised " the data obtained from empirical analysis" to “the numerical value range of coupling coordination degree”.
Point 15: Figure 2 is located in the chapter 3.1.1., but it is mentioned only in 3.3. The figure should be placed closer to the text it refers to.
Response 15: We are very sorry for the wrong Figure number in Section 5.3 (revised from Section 3.3), which should be Figure 4 instead of Figure 2.
Point 16: The average values of Jiangsu, Beijing, and Shanghai ranked in the top three,… based on which data/calculations/equations? This is not described.
Response 16: We apologize for the unclear explanation. According to the entropy method introduced in Section 4.2.1, the evaluation values of university S&T innovation are calculated through Formula 1-6. We have revised in line 288-289. Because the calculation process is complex, we upload the original data and calculation process to the website in the form of attachments.
Point 17: Figure 2. The evaluation value of university S&T innovation in provincial regions. Figure 3. The evaluation value of sustainable economic development in provincial regions – these were obtained based on data from Table 3, but how were the data obtained in Table 3, based on which data/calculations/equations? This was not described.
Response 17: We apologize for the unclear explanation. According to the coupling coordination model which is introduced in Section 4.2.2, the values of coupling coordination degree are calculated through Formula 7-9, based on the evaluation value of university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development. We have revised in line 329-331. We upload the data to the website in the form of attachments.
Point 18: The paper does not contain Table 4 “The coupling coordination degree of the two subsystems of 30 provincial regions in China from 2011-2020 is measured. The results are shown in Table 4.“
Response 18: We are very sorry for the wrong Table number here. The results are shown in Table 3, not Table 4.
Point 19: … of China showed a slow growth trend year by year, especially in the central region, which showed the fastest growth, indicating that China's "innovation-driven development" strategy and sustainable economic development have achieved initial results.
This is contradictory, it should be rephrased in accordance with the facts and write correctly.
Response 19: Thanks for your comment. We revised to “… of China showed a growth trend year by year, indicating that China's ‘innovation-driven development’ strategy and sustainable economic development have achieved initial results. The coupling coordination degree of the central region is growing fastest”.
Point 20: It is recommended that the Discussion be followed by concluding remarks, a conclusion verifying or dismissing the previously mentioned hypotheses.
Response 20: As you suggested, we added the “Conclusion” Section as an independent section. The results of this work are presented in line 461-480.
Reviewer 2 Report
The researchers have done a good job, of adding knowledge to the world of the research field.
The introduction is adequate, and the content is well described and contextualized with respect to previously available data to present theoretical background and empirical research, and a current topic.
The research methods and design are clearly stipulated. Though can be simplified for scholars who are not in the same field of research.
The data collection, analysis, results, and discussions are in alignment with the empirical and clearly presented. However, the conclusions should be tied to the findings and results point to point to answer questions raised at the beginning of the study.
The references are not adequate and can be improved with the latest references in the area of the research topic English can be improved through the use of grammatical tools and proofreading by the supervisors and fellow scholars.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your comments which are very helpful to improve the quality of our manuscript. We provide a point-by-point response (please see below or the attachment) and highlight the changes in revised manuscript.
Point 1: The data collection, analysis, results, and discussions are in alignment with the empirical and clearly presented. However, the conclusions should be tied to the findings and results point to point to answer questions raised at the beginning of the study.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. As you suggested, we added the “Conclusion” Section as an independent section. The results of this work are presented in line 461-480.
Point 2: The references are not adequate and can be improved with the latest references in the area of the research topic.
Response 2: Thanks for pointing out this issue. we added the “Literature reviewed” Section as an independent section, and added more references and an analysis of recent papers in this Section.
Point 3: English can be improved through the use of grammatical tools and proofreading by the supervisors and fellow scholars.
Response 3: We aologize for the poor language of our manuscript and use grammatical tools to improve this manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Review Sustainability (Coupling Coordination between University Scientific & Technological Innovation and Sustainable Economic Development in China)
This is an interesting and informative study, particularly regarding the importance of scientific innovation and its role in sustainable development. However, there are some issues that could be addressed to enhance the paper's quality.
First, in the abstract, you should avoid abbreviations and write everything out in full. First and second sentences from the abstract could be combined and summarized as one. You must be concise and economical with words.
The literature is sparse (just 11 papers); this might be improved by adding insights regarding how S&T ensures sustainable economic development. Specifically, I anticipated a theoretical framework but found a conceptual framework. Since you already have an empirical analysis, a theoretical framework will be more rational. For example, you suggested the Cobb-Douglas model in which technology is endogenous, but you did not elaborate.
In the discussion, I expected to see the cause for regional disparities among China's provinces, which may provide policymakers with a target for boosting the index in low-performing provinces, but this information is absent. This may have implications for the study.
Finally, the conclusion was rather generic as the author mentioned that “The multi-level, multi-subject, cross-regional internal and external linkage development mechanism should be constructed to 344 consolidate the strength for the coordinated development of university S&T innovation 345 and sustainable economic development.” However, these factors were not considered in the study; therefore, please explain how you identified them, and your conclusion should be based on the findings of your work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your comments which are very helpful to improve the quality of our manuscript. We provide a point-by-point response (please see below or the attachment) and highlight the changes in revised manuscript.
Point 1: In the abstract, you should avoid abbreviations and write everything out in full. First and second sentences from the abstract could be combined and summarized as one. You must be concise and economical with words.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. As you suggested, we explained abbreviations upon their first mention in the abstract, and combined first and second sentences in the abstract and summarized as one.
Point 2: The literature is sparse (just 11 papers); this might be improved by adding insights regarding how S&T ensures sustainable economic development. Specifically, I anticipated a theoretical framework but found a conceptual framework. Since you already have an empirical analysis, a theoretical framework will be more rational. For example, you suggested the Cobb-Douglas model in which technology is endogenous, but you did not elaborate.
Response 2: Thanks for pointing out this issue. We added the “Literature reviewed” Section as an independent section, and added more references (from 11 papers to 30 papers) and an analysis of recent papers in this Section. According to the Cobb-Douglas model, we added the description of the function and the relevant reference. We also modified the statement description of endogenous variable in line 139-141.
Point 3: In the discussion, I expected to see the cause for regional disparities among China's provinces, which may provide policymakers with a target for boosting the index in low-performing provinces, but this information is absent. This may have implications for the study.
Response 3: We appreciate it for this good suggestion. This is indeed the inadequacy of this paper. However, because the reasons for regional differences are very complex, and the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development in China , this paper does not further analyze the reasons for regional differences. We added your suggestion into the Conclusion section（line 476-480） as the inadequacy of this paper and we will do the future research around this point.
Point 4:The conclusion was rather generic as the author mentioned that “The multi-level, multi-subject, cross-regional internal and external linkage development mechanism should be constructed to 344 consolidate the strength for the coordinated development of university S&T innovation 345 and sustainable economic development.” However, these factors were not considered in the study; therefore, please explain how you identified them, and your conclusion should be based on the findings of your work.
Response 4: We apologize for the unclear explanation. According to your ideas, we made some modifications to this part (line 430-460) in order to make the description clearer.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors, in my opinion the strengths and opportunities (S&O )points of the article are represented by the very timely topic.
Abstract is a self-contained unit capable of being understood without the benefit of the others chapters.
Introduction, section 1, provides the background information necessary to understand the topic. The arguments brought by citing few bibliographic sources and presenting statistical data regarding the case, introduce the reader to the study area of the article.
Be carrefuly with numerotation: Index System and Research Methods - Section 2 should be section 3 and so on.
· The article respects the rigors a scientific paper must do, but a CONCLUSION, based on calculations and analyzes should be written, containing recommendation and implications .
· The bibliographical list is a little bit too short. Please expand it and be sure to mention the authors in the body of the article.
A chapter ”Literature reviewed” is requested.
· The research method is presented, but additionally, annexes with the data taken into account should be uploaded to the website
· For sure the findings of this work are the result of calculations and analyzes done consciously but, more facts and figures with the indication of bibliographic sources should strengthen and argue once more the statements. See lines 197-302.
Happy New Year!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your comments which are very helpful to improve the quality of our manuscript. We provide a point-by-point response (please see below or the attachment) and highlight the changes in revised manuscript.
Point 1: Abstract is a self-contained unit capable of being understood without the benefit of the others chapters.
Introduction, section 1, provides the background information necessary to understand the topic. The arguments brought by citing few bibliographic sources and presenting statistical data regarding the case, introduce the reader to the study area of the article.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. According to your ideas, we revised Abstract (in line12-16) and Introduction (in line 30-33 and line 45-52) to make the topic and content of the paper easier to understand.
Point 2: Be carrefuly with numerotation: Index System and Research Methods - Section 2 should be section 3 and so on.
Response 2: We apologize for the incorrect numbering of the sections. As you suggested, we revised section 0 (Introduction) to section 1, section 1 (Literature Reviewed) to section 2, section 2 (Index System and Research Methods) to section 3 and so on.
Point 3: The article respects the rigors a scientific paper must do, but a CONCLUSION, based on calculations and analyzes should be written, containing recommendation and implications .
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. As you suggested, we added the “Conclusion” section as an independent section. The results of this work are presented in line 461-480.
Point 4: The bibliographical list is a little bit too short. Please expand it and be sure to mention the authors in the body of the article. A chapter ”Literature reviewed” is requested.
Response 4: Thanks for pointing out this issue. We added the “Literature Reviewed” section as an independent section, and added more references (from 11 papers to 30 papers) and an analysis of recent papers in this section.
Point 5: The research method is presented, but additionally, annexes with the data taken into account should be uploaded to the website.
Response 5: We appreciate it for this good suggestion. As you suggested, we have uploaded the data to the website.
Point 6: For sure the findings of this work are the result of calculations and analyzes done consciously but, more facts and figures with the indication of bibliographic sources should strengthen and argue once more the statements. See lines 197-302.
Response 6: We apologize for the unclear explanation. According to your ideas, we added more description and references to strengthen the findings. For example, we added the description of Cobb-Douglas function and modified the statement description of endogenous variable in line 139-141. We added the reference for the equation of entropy value which is the main formula of entropy method. The description of the calculation processes for the evaluation value and coupling coordination degree are supplemented in line 288-289, line 307-308, and line 329-331. Because the calculation process is complex, we upload the original data and calculation process to the website in the form of attachments.
Reviewer 5 Report
I am writing about the manuscript entitled Coupling Coordination between University Scientific & Technological Innovation and Sustainable Economic Development in China. This paper has some noteworthy outputs and can contribute to the relevant literature. The authors however need to consider the below comments/suggested revisions to improve the paper.
1. Introduction is too short. Highlight the problem statement in the introduction section and clearly relate to the research questions. The contributions of the study should be precisely highlighted.
2. Literature review section is missing. Literature cited is too short, critically review relevant and recent papers and provide research gap. The references listed at the end should be about 30-35.
3. Numbering of sections in the manuscript is incorrect. 1. Introduction. 2. Coupling Mechanism Analysis. 3. Index System and Research Methods. 4. Empirical Results and Analysis. 5. Discussion.
4. Is there any theoretical underpinning of the methodology used?
5. What are the sources of figures and tables? You might depict it below the figures and tables.
6. A detail discussion of results with reference to existing literature is required.
7. The conclusion section is missing in the manuscript. The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. It offers new insight and creative approaches for framing/contextualizing the research problem based on the results of your study. Please conclude your study by adding this important section in the manuscript.
8. Please include practical implications of your study findings after the conclusion.
9. References require some revisions for uniformity in pattern according to the style recommended by the Journal.
Please proofread the manuscript before submitting the revision.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks again for your comments which are very helpful to improve the quality of our manuscript. We provide a point-by-point response (please see below or the attachment) and highlight the changes in revised manuscript.
Point 1: Introduction is too short. Highlight the problem statement in the introduction section and clearly relate to the research questions. The contributions of the study should be precisely highlighted.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. According to your ideas, we revised the Introduction to make the topic and contributions of the paper more explicit.
Point 2: Literature review section is missing. Literature cited is too short, critically review relevant and recent papers and provide research gap. The references listed at the end should be about 30-35.
Response 2: Thanks for pointing out this issue. We added the “Literature Reviewed” section as an independent section, and added more references (from 11 papers to 30 papers) and an analysis of recent papers in this section.
Point 3: Numbering of sections in the manuscript is incorrect. 1. Introduction. 2. Coupling Mechanism Analysis. 3. Index System and Research Methods. 4. Empirical Results and Analysis. 5. Discussion.
Response 3: We apologize for the incorrect numbering of the sections. As you suggested, we revised section 0 (Introduction) to section 1, section 1 (Literature Reviewed) to section 2, section 2 (Index System and Research Methods) to section 3 and so on.
Point 4: Is there any theoretical underpinning of the methodology used?
Response 4: Thanks for pointing out this issue. This paper uses entropy value method to evaluate the index of university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development, and the coupling coordination model to measure the coordination degree of interaction coupling between the both. These methods are general evaluation methods improved from mathematical methods. We believe that these methods have no theoretical underpinning related to the subject of this study.
Point 5: What are the sources of figures and tables? You might depict it below the figures and tables..
Response 5: We apologize for the unclear explanation. The values of figures and tables are derived from the calculation results according to the methods described in Section “3.2 Research Methods” and original data. The description of the calculation processes for the evaluation value and coupling coordination degree are supplemented in line 288-289, line 307-308, and line 329-331. Because the calculation process is complex, we upload the original data and calculation process to the website in the form of attachments.
Point 6: A detail discussion of results with reference to existing literature is required.
Response 6: Thanks for pointing out this issue. With the supplement of references and modifications, we added the content (line 447-456) of the discussion to make it more detailed.
Point 7: The conclusion section is missing in the manuscript. The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. It offers new insight and creative approaches for framing/contextualizing the research problem based on the results of your study. Please conclude your study by adding this important section in the manuscript.
Response 7: Thanks for your comment. As you suggested, we added the “Conclusion” section as an independent section. The results of this work are presented in line 461-480.
Point 8: Please include practical implications of your study findings after the conclusion.
Response 8: We appreciate it for this good suggestion. From the perspective of time evolution and spatial pattern, this paper provides a reference for clarifying the reality of coordination degree of university S&T innovation and sustainable economic development in China. We included this practical implication after the conclusion in line 472-475.
Point 9: References require some revisions for uniformity in pattern according to the style recommended by the Journal.
Response 9: As you suggested, we revised the pattern of references for uniformity according to the style recommended by the Journal.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have accepted the comments and suggestions so the paper can be accepted for publishing.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I appreciate the professional way in which you understood to make improvements to the article, in this way the work becomes one that can substantiate other studies.
You responded in a coherent, documented manner to all the requests I made, and I appreciate and respect your effort.
I have analyzed the changes made, highlighted in the text of the article, and
I agree with the current form of the work.
Reviewer 5 Report
In their replies, the authors have, in my opinion, satisfactorily addressed the issues raised by me. I am happy to recommend the manuscript for publication.
