Social (Im)Mobility and Social Work with Families with Children. Case Study of a Disadvantaged Microregion in Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper Social (in)mobility and social work with families with children. Case study of a disadvantaged microregion in Hungary.

 

This is a vitally important topic as it goes to the wellbeing of future generations and breaking the cycle of intergenerational disadvantage and child protection issues.

I have made comments directly on your paper for your consideration and response. In particular the core areas for improvement to your paper to assist with publication would be the following

 

1. is there a reason to not mention a requirement for ethics approval for your study given researching vulnerable families and children
2. It is really important to write in the third person for an academic paper and I do acknowledge the difficulty in writing in a different language - a full English edit is required on this paper.
3. Further detail regarding the methods used for the research and separately- there need to be further information regarding why you chose those methods and perhaps some reference to why they were the most appropriate. More information is required on the sample selection for each method and fuller discussion on data analysis method/s.
4. Linkage of narrative to the various data tables is required to assist the readers flow throughout the article.
5. Formatting of the sections of the article.
6. Please see other comment in the attachment.

This issue is very important and I encourage you in your journey to publication on this issue as child welfare/protection and social work is important around the world and breaking the cycle of disadvantage to enable social mobility is critical.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

On behalf of Andrea and me, we are gratefull for all the comments and review about our study

In the revised study:

1. etchical approval is listed 
2. English editing is completed
3. Methods details are evolved
4.  Sections are formated
5. All the comments from the attachment are accomplished

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Social (in)mobility and social work with families with children. Case Study of a Disadvantaged Microregion in Hungary” is devoted to the actual scientific problem, namely to the analysis of perception on the available health, educational, child welfare and social services and supports. The reviewed article is interesting for scholars and theme of the article meets the scope of the journal. Work is performed at sufficient scientific level and has good quality. The manuscript may be considered for publication after minor revision in Social Sciences. Prior publication of this manuscript following points needs to be addressed:

 

• It would be good to broaden the conclusions in the context of a more detailed presentation of ways to resolve the problem. To this end, I propose to divide Conclusions add separate section "Limitations and prospects for further improvement of social work with families with children".
• Moderate English changes required. There are grammar/typing and orthographical errors in the manuscrip

 

My decision is minor revision

Author Response

We are gratefull for all the comments and review about our study

In the revised study:

1. Conclusions are broaden
2. English editing is completed

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The work is interesting, but some aspects should be taken into account before publication.

Comments and suggestions for Authors

General comments:

• Keywords: It needs to be sorted in alphabetical order;
• Please add sections numbering according to the guidelines for authors (mistakes for example in line 191 and 194 – wrong numbering);
• Language needs to be clarified throughout to include person first language;
• Please correct the tables according to the guidelines for authors. Also, please correct the references;
• Line 290 - please remove the blank line;

1. Introduction:

The introduction should be edited to clearly provide rationale for the study (with research questions and hypotheses) and clearly identify what this study adds to the current literature on this topic. Authors should improve the introduction including the latest articles published for example in the MDPI platform or others, about other research in this field.

2. The result section is too long. It describes too many irrelevant results.
3. It would be much clearer to present the results and discussions separately.
4. Discussion:

-Authors should improve the discussion including the latest articles about this topic.

-Additional limitations of this study should be noted. Strengths of this study should be noted.

Author Response

Thank you for your review

 

In the revised study:

1. English editing is completed
2. Methods details are evolved
3. Sections are formated
4. blank line is removed
5. Tables and references are formated
6. keywords are sorted in alphabetical order

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to re-review your article Social (im)mobility and social work with Families and Children: Case Study of a Disadvantaged Microregion in Hungary.

 

You have taken on board my previously comments and have made changes to your manuscript which assist the reader in understanding the context, methodology, results and formatting etc.

 

Your manuscript still is in need for a full English spelling and grammar check  eg line 49 should read family 'support' service, line 79 to instead of 'tu', line 124 'of' instead of 'if' etc and there are still numbering errors that I'm sure the editorial board will assist with.

Best Regards

Author Response

English grammar and spelling check is completed, all mistakes mentioned are corrected.

Thank you for the re-review too!

Kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

The response to my comments does not meet my expectations. The authors responded very poorly and generally to the comments.

The authors did not meet some of my requirements. Tables are still inconsistently formatted. There are no limitations and strenght of the study.

Scientific Soundness of this study is still low/average.

Author Response

in the second round of revision:

all the tables are transformed to the proper form

English revision/editing was established

Research desing and methods are evolved according to the  first and second revision. 

Hopefully this second version meet your expectations!

Many thanks for your revision (both rounds!)