Is China’s Urbanization Inclusive?—Comparative Research Based on Machine Learning Algorithms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are my observations:
Citations and references do not respect the MDPI style.
A table and detailing of the information regarding the data used is needed.
On row 207, a dot is missing.
There is a lack of professionalism and attention to important details (for example: the title of the table is written in capital letters, the equations are not edited in word equation editor, the notion of hukou is not explained, the title of FIGURE 1 is written wrong, etc.)
No research hypotheses are formulated.
The purpose of the work is not well defined.
All the information in the Unsupervised Clustering subsection is not supported by any evidence, has no foundation.
The calculation mechanism of formula 10 must be found in the Methods Section.
The economic phenomenon of the entire analysis was neither presented nor discussed. The presentation of statistical data without economic substantiation has no value.
A rigorous revision of the English language is necessary.
You did not mention the limiting elements of the research.
The conclusions section provides a summary of the paper, without emphasizing the importance of the analyzed theme, nor does it mention possible policy measures.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you very much for your efforts on our manuscript. According to your comments, we have revised our manuscript. Your comments and our reply are as follows.
Point 1. Citations and references do not respect the MDPI style.
Response 1: We apologize for the problems with the Citations and references in the original manuscript. According to the MDPI style, the Citations and references had been revised.
Point 2. A table and detailing of the information regarding the data used is needed.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We added a table related to the data which is named Table 1 in the revised manuscript.
The revised content was shown from lines 216 to 217 in the revised manuscript and marked red.
Point 3. On row 207, a dot is missing.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your reminder. We corrected this mistake caused by our carelessness during writing, and we also checked other similar problems.
Point 4. There is a lack of professionalism and attention to important details (for example: the title of the table is written in capital letters, the equations are not edited in word equation editor, the notion of hukou is not explained, the title of FIGURE 1 is written wrong, etc.)
Response 4： We sincerely apologize for our unprofessional. We checked the details including the format of all Tables and Figures based on the criteria of Sustainability. The revised content is organized as follows: (1) We rewrote the title of the tables according to the MDPI style; (2) The notion of hukou is replaced with household registration in the revised manuscript. We also explained the meaning of household registration in Table 1; (3) The title of Figure 1 was modified as follows: Figure 1. Optimal number of clusters according to the Elbow Method. (4) As you said, the equations are not edited in the word equation editor, but in the mathtype editor. We are sorry that we haven't changed the formula editor yet in the revised manuscript, but we have re-edited some of the formulas, and we will revise them if must be.
Point 5. No research hypotheses are formulated.
Response 5: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. According to the theoretical analysis, we formulated three research hypotheses.
According to equation (6), we put forward hypothesis 1 that the development of economic agglomeration can increase the wages of workers; According to equation (7), we put forward hypothesis 2 that the characteristics of structural transformation will affect the distribution of wages, and hypothesis 3 that Different classification methods will affect the results that the effect of economic agglomeration on wages.
The revised content was shown from lines 163 to 164, 182 to 183, and 198 to 199 in the revised manuscript and was marked in red color.
Point 6. The purpose of the work is not well defined.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestion, which points out the direction for the revision of our manuscript. Our purpose is to explore whether the gains are consistent across workers and whether different classification methods will lead to different results, but it is not well defined in the original manuscript. In the revised manuscript, we developed an independent paragraph to discuss the purpose of the work.
The revised content was shown from lines 83 to 92 in the revised manuscript and marked red.
Point 7. All the information in the Unsupervised Clustering subsection is not supported by any evidence, has no foundation.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we introduced the clustering methods and the advantage of PAM (Partitioning Around Medoids) in processing mixed data, both quantitative and qualitative. After that, we added a new equation (9) to illustrate the principle of PAM.
The revised content was shown from lines 226 to 241 in the revised manuscript and marked red.
Point 8. The calculation mechanism of formula 10 must be found in the Methods Section.
Response 8: We added the calculation mechanism of formula 10 in Section 4.1 which is renamed formula 12. We also added the literature which explains the calculation mechanism.
The revised content was shown from lines 303 to 313 in the revised manuscript and marked red.
Point 9. The economic phenomenon of the entire analysis was neither presented nor discussed. The presentation of statistical data without economic substantiation has no value.
Response 9: We developed an independent discussion section to discuss the results in depth, such as economic reasons for regression results and comparisons to other literature. The revised content includes four aspects: (1) the economic implications of clustering results based on the machine learning algorithm, (2) Why the estimated value of clustering based on the machine learning algorithm is smaller, (3) From the perspective of the structural transformation, we explain the impact mechanism from two aspects: the specialization externalities effect and the advanced externalities effect, and (4) added the content of potential limitations and some guidelines for future studies.
The added content was from lines 463 to 520 in the revised manuscript and marked red.
Point 10. A rigorous revision of the English language is necessary.
Response 10: We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. The language presentation was improved and the revised manuscript also has been edited by the MDPI English Editing Services.
Point 11. You did not mention the limiting elements of the research.
Response 11: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We added the content about the limiting of our study and some guidelines for future studies in the last part of the Discussion. The revised content consisted of two parts, one is about the limitation of the machine learning algorithm, and another limitation is the data that the paper used.
The revised content was from lines 513 to 520 in the revised manuscript and was marked in red color in red color.
Point 12. The conclusions section provides a summary of the paper, without emphasizing the importance of the analyzed theme, nor does it mention possible policy measures.
Response 12: We agree with the comment and added the part about the importance of the analyzed theme and rewrote the content of findings and policy suggestions. The revised content is organized as follows: (1) The first paragraph illustrates the importance of using machine learning algorithms for the analyzed theme; (2) The second paragraph concludes the content of our findings; (3) The last paragraph proposes the policy suggestions.
The revised content was from lines 522 to 554 in the revised manuscript and was marked in red color.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In abstract line 9: modify as .......labor into low-, middle- and high-socioeconomic groups, .....
2. Abstract must be supported with some data
3. The last part of the introduction needs to be rephrased to improve the quality of the article.
4. Tables 2-6 are the output of statistical analysis need not display, better explain in the form of text.
5. Sections 5.1 and 5.2.2 need revision, better explain the findings in text form and remove the output tables of statistical analysis.
6. Results section needs justification of findings in terms of discussion. Discussion is severely lacking throughout the manuscript.
7. Before the conclusions, please add one para including the caveat of your study.
8. The last part of the conclusion also needs rephrasing
9. I will suggest adding some more references including some latest ones to justify your study as 16 references are not sufficient enough in a research paper to justify your findings.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you very much for your efforts on our manuscript. According to your comments, we have revised our manuscript. Your comments and our reply are as follows.
Point 1. In abstract line 9: modify as .......labor into low-, middle- and high-socioeconomic groups, ......
Response 1: Thank you very much for your reminder. We rewrote the content in the revised manuscript.
Point 2. Abstract must be supported with some data
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion, which points out the direction for the revision of our abstract. We added some data about the results of the impact of economic agglomeration on wage disparities. In addition, we added the first sentence to point out the significance of our study and revised the rest of the abstract to make it more organized.
The revised content was from lines 9 to 20 in the revised manuscript and was marked in red color.
Point 3. The last part of the introduction needs to be rephrased to improve the quality of the article.
Response 3: According to your suggestion, we rephrased the last part of the introduction, and the revised content is organized as follows: (1) Added a paragraph which about the purpose of the work, (2) Rewrote the contributions of this paper, and (3) The language of the revised manuscript has been edited by the MDPI English Editing Services.
The revised content was shown from lines 83 to 105 in the revised manuscript and marked red.
Point 4. Tables 2-6 are the output of statistical analysis need not display, better explain in the form of text.
Response 4: We are grateful for your suggestion. According to your advice, we rewrote the regression results related to Tables 2-6 in the form of text, the revised content is organized as follows: (1) Added the economic significance of the basic regression results of Table 2; (2) Explained why the Dependent Variable is replaced by hourly wage in the form of text; (3) Further rephrased the economic significance which reflected by Table 4 in the form of text; (4) Rewrote the text corresponding to Tables 5-6, and to better explain Table 6 in the form of text, we moved formula (10) to section 4.1. (5) To make it easier for readers to find the quantitative relationship between variables when reading the text, we retained Tables 2-6 and rewrote the content corresponding to each table.
Tables 2-6 are renamed Tables 3-7 in the revised manuscript. The revised content was shown from lines 358 to 363, 373 to 377, and 390 to 394 in the revised manuscript and was marked in red color.
Point 5. Sections 5.1 and 5.2.2 need revision, better explain the findings in text form and remove the output tables of statistical analysis.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion. To better explain the findings in text form, we rewrote the findings of Table 2 and added the economic significance of the basic regression results. We further rephrased the economic significance which was reflected in Table 4. To display the results from another perspective, we retain the tables, but we will respect your comments if you insist on deleting the tables.
The revised content was shown from lines 358 to 363, and 390 to 394 in the revised manuscript and was marked in red color.
Point 6. Results section needs justification of findings in terms of discussion. Discussion is severely lacking throughout the manuscript.
Response 6: We developed an independent discussion section to discuss the results in depth, such as economic reasons for regression results and comparisons to other literature. It includes four aspects: (1) the economic implications of clustering results based on the machine learning algorithm, (2) Why the estimated value of clustering based on the machine learning algorithm is smaller, (3) From the perspective of the structural transformation, we explain the impact mechanism from two aspects: the specialization externalities effect and the advanced externalities effect, and (4) added the content of potential limitations and some guidelines for future studies.
The added content was from lines 463 to 520 in the revised manuscript and marked red.
Point 7. Before the conclusions, please add one para including the caveat of your study.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We added the content about the caveat of our study and some guidelines for future studies in the last part of the Discussion. The revised content consisted of two parts, one is about the limitation of the machine learning algorithm, and another limitation is the data that the paper used.
The revised content was from lines 513 to 520 in the revised manuscript and was marked in red color in red color.
Point 8. The last part of the conclusion also needs rephrasing
Response 8: We rewrote the content of findings and policy suggestions and added the part about the importance of the analyzed theme. (1) The first paragraph illustrates the importance of using machine learning algorithms for the analyzed theme; (2) The second paragraph concludes the content of our findings; (3) The last paragraph proposes the policy suggestions.
The revised content was from lines 522 to 554 in the revised manuscript and was marked in red color.
Point 9. I will suggest adding some more references including some latest ones to justify your study as 16 references are not sufficient enough in a research paper to justify your findings.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We added some recent references and update the references list.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Table 1.(Figure 2)Hukou should replace with a more professional term.
2. To increase the content of the discussion section appropriately to give readers more information and inspiration.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you very much for your efforts on our manuscript. According to your comments, we have revised our manuscript. Your comments and our reply are as follows.
Point 1. Table 1. (Figure 2) Hukou should replace with a more professional term.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We replaced Hukou with household registration, we also explained the meaning of household registration in Table 1 in the revised manuscript.
Wang, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Xu, Q.; Zhou, C. Household Registration, Land Property Rights, and Differences in Migrants’ Settlement Intentions—A Regression Analysis in the Pearl River Delta. Land, 2021, 11, 31. [CrossRef]
Point 2. To increase the content of the discussion section appropriately to give readers more information and inspiration.
Response 2: We developed an independent discussion section to discuss the results in depth, such as economic reasons for regression results and comparisons to other literature. It includes four aspects: (1) the economic implications of clustering results based on the machine learning algorithm, (2) Why the estimated value of clustering based on the machine learning algorithm is smaller, (3) From the perspective of the structural transformation, we explain the impact mechanism from two aspects: the specialization externalities effect and the advanced externalities effect, and (4) added the content of potential limitations and some guidelines for future studies.
The added content was from lines 463 to 520 in the revised manuscript and marked red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
you responded to all my observations.
Congratulations for your work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We wanted to take a moment to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Your insights and suggestions were incredibly valuable. Thank you for your expertise and for helping us to improve our writing. Your contribution to the review process is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
All authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Although authors extensively revised the manuscript to improve the quality, I still find that in the majority of places citations are missing throughout the manuscript
Author Response
We wanted to take a moment to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Your insights and suggestions were incredibly valuable. Thank you for your expertise and for helping us to improve our writing. Your contribution to the review process is greatly appreciated.
According to your comments, we have revised our manuscript. Your comment and our reply are as follows.
Point 1. Although authors extensively revised the manuscript to improve the quality, I still find that in the majority of places citations are missing throughout the manuscript.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the minor revised manuscript, we have added 6 citations, [8,33] about the PAM algorithm, [34] about the selection of the empirical model, [36,37,34,38] respectively related to the dependent variable, independent variable, control variable, and instrumental variable. The added citations are on lines 39, 240, 299, 319, 323, 334, and 337 in the minor revised manuscript.
In addition, we checked the English language and style for improving clarity in the minor revised manuscript.
The revised content was from lines 45 to 47, 55 to 56, 74 to 76, and 84 to 86 in the minor revised manuscript and marked blue.
