Research on the Generating Mechanism of Urban Talent Competitiveness Based QCA Method: A Configurational Analysis of 24 Chinese Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I have really enjoyed reading the paper and given its quality, I consider that I have little to contribute to it.
Congratulations for this excellent work!
Best regards,
The reviewer
Author Response
Thank the reviewer for the comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is well developed in the theoretical part and the literature analysis part. The authors raise the question of talent management in cities and indicate the elements worth focusing on in order to increase the competitiveness of cities due to talents. The shortcoming of the work is the description of the practical part, namely proving the results.
1. In section 3.2, the authors say "Select cases from cities with certain development scale". However, there are no specific criteria (values) according to which the cities were selected for the research sample.
2. Table 3 has 19 rows and the analysis is based on 24 cities. There is no information on such a discrepancy.
3. For tables 5, 6 and 7, it is worth adding a legend with information about the symbols used.
4. Next to table 6 in the upper row there are symbols N1-N7. It is worth adding a list with their definition or explanation.
5. On line 313, the authors write "Configuration H2a: TS*TI*TD*TE*~TL" . Is this a mathematical formula?
6. Lack of explanation which variable was dual and how many combinations were analyzed during the research (QCA method).
7. The authors talk about analysis based on correlation (line 234 "This study measures condition variables based on the correlation index"), however, no correlation coefficients are given in the text. It would be nice to add a table with preliminary data.
Kind regards
Author Response
Thank the reviewer for the comments.
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
the article is fine, but the "Discussion" part is totally missing! Please compare your results with previous studies and highlight the differences, similarities.
My other comments are attached!
All the best!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank the reviewer for the comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Good morning, Dear Authors
The authors have complied with most of the comments. However, there are still a few things that can be improved in order to improve the transparency of the study and the quality of the results presented.
1.
In response to question 2 "Table 3 has 19 rows and the analysis is based on 24 cities. There is no information on such a discrepancy." you write "Table 3 has added a “number”column, the “number” represents the number of cases per row, and the total is 24."
However, you added table 3 to the article, which means that question 2 concerned the current table 4.
At this point, it would also be important to indicate the level of statistical significance of the correlation coefficients (the table you added).
2.
In response to question 6 "Lack of explanation which variable was dual and how many combinations were analyzed during the research (QCA method)." you write that 3 variables were checked. However, in the article, the number of these variables is greater: TC, TS, TI, TD, TE, TL, and each of these variables can be considered as dual.
With such a number of variables, the number of possible combinations (according to the rules of combinatorics) is much greater than 12:
| 1a | 1b | 2a | 2b | 3a | 3b | 4a | 4b | 5a | 5b | 6a | 6b | |
| K1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| K16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| … |
Why were only 12 examined?
3.
In one part of the article you write:
combination: H1, H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b
and then: N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6, N7.
5+7=12.
Why are the symbols and numbering of the tested combinations inconsistent?
P.S.: Sorry for the long wait for the review.
Author Response
Dear reviewer !
Thank you for your constructive comments for this article, we are so appreciate for this. Your comments has given us the new thinking and understanding on improving the quality of research.
Please see the attachment.
Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for the improved version of your article. I see that you took my advice into account.
Some formail issues in the new parts:
- Chapter 5 name should be "Conclusion and Discussion" and "5.1" is unnecessary.
- Line 512 the First names of authors are unnecessary. Also, use the no. of the reference instead of the (year).
- Line 526 and 534 - same like above
All the best!
Author Response
Dear reviewer !
Thank you for your constructive comments for this article, we are so appreciate for this. Your comments has given us the new thinking and understanding on improving the quality of research.
Please see the attachment.
Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
