The Capability Approach to Adolescent Poverty in China: Application of a Latent Class Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read your work and seems interesting to readers. But there are major and minor issues that need to be considered. I have listed them below:
MAJOR issues:
Abstract
1) The abstract needs does not provide any recommendations or policy insights. Readers must see from the first glance the importance of this research to policy.
Introduction
1)Line 77: authors claim the few studies that exist focus on theoretical analysis. Please list those studies and explain what they do. Otherwise, this is not sufficient.
2)Lines 96 to 99: We need to see the contributions of this paper and why these are important. Right now, they are missing. Please bring them up.
Data and Methods:
1) Lines 130 to 132: This section does not deserve to be here. What is this doing?
2) Equation 4: The model needs to be fully explained and all parameters and variables defined. The equation is defined like for a binary logit. Authors have to define what the base category is, this is a multinomial logit model and everything needs to be defined.
Results and Discussion
1) I suggest including a specific section titled "Discussion of findings". I would like to read a discussion of the findings more critical and under the theoretical background lens. What theory or theories are supporting this study? That means authors should have Results section and Discussion section.
2) Tables should be presented as tables in a Journal article. The number of stars in the table for empirical results should be defined underneath the table.
MINOR Comments
1) Line 47: Indicate the year when this drop was observed.
2)Line 150: replace studies in our analysis with "analysis in our study".
3)Replace "fanily size" in your tables with "family size".
Author Response
The authors are grateful for the opportunity to improve the manuscript and greatly appreciate the reviewers’ valuable comments. Please find a summary of our responses to each comment below, and the corresponding changes in the revised manuscript have been duplicated and are underlined to make it easy to identify them.
Abstract
Point 1: The abstract needs does not provide any recommendations or policy insights. Readers must see from the first glance the importance of this research to policy.
Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer, we have added the importance of this research for policy. Please refer to the section in red text added in there vised manuscript. (Line 24-27)
Introduction
Point 1: Line 77: authors claim the few studies that exist focus on theoretical analysis. Please list those studies and explain what they do. Otherwise, this is not sufficient.
Response:
Thank you bringing this to our attention. We have revised the manuscript. (Line 78-91)
Point 2: Lines 96 to 99: We need to see the contributions of this paper and why these are important. Right now, they are missing. Please bring them up.
Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer, we have revised the manuscript. (Line 105-123)
Data and Methods:
Point 1: Lines 130 to 132: This section does not deserve to be here. What is this doing?
Response:
Thank you bringing this to our attention. We have revised the manuscript. (Line238-249)
Point 2: I suggest including a specific section titled "Discussion of findings". I would like to read a discussion of the findings more critical and under the theoretical background lens. What theory or theories are supporting this study? That means authors should have Results section and Discussion section.
Response :
The authors agree with the reviewers, we have added the “Discussion of findings” section. Please refer to the red text section added in the revised manuscript. (Line332-411)
Results and Discussion
Point 2: Tables should be presented as tables in a Journal article. The number of stars in the table for empirical results should be defined underneath the table.
Response:
The authors agree with the reviewers, we have added the number of stars in the table. (Table 2 and Table 4)
MINOR Comments
Point:
1) Line 47: Indicate the year when this drop was observed.
2)Line 150: replace studies in our analysis with "analysis in our study".
3)Replace "fanily size" in your tables with "family size".
Response:
Thanks for your comment, we have changed these errors in the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is suitable and the topic about poverty is relevant for the local economy and creates multiply effects for the global adolescent capability poverty. Concepts, citations and bibliography sources are adequately mentioned. For example "living a long fife, among other aspects"(18)mentioned by the authors are relevant in the actual global context. The research methodology is simply presented by the author based concrete CFPS data survey cover 25 representative units for research. Moreover the indicators and methods are clearly presented in the paper. The results are suitable and present the model based on fitting statistics, but we suggest the authors to present the personal contribution on the scientific bibliography of this topic. In conclusions the authors present the concept of multidimensional poverty of children and adolescent in China, the limitation of the study and the future research, but as we mentioned in the results we suggest to the author to present the scientific research fields. We congratulated the authors for this research.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for the opportunity to improve the manuscript and greatly appreciate the reviewers’ valuable comments. Please find a summary of our responses to each comment below, and the corresponding changes in the revised manuscript have been duplicated and are underlined to make it easy to identify them.
Point 1: The paper is suitable and the topic about poverty is relevant for the local economy and creates multiply effects for the global adolescent capability poverty. Concepts, citations and bibliography sources are adequately mentioned. For example, "living a long fife, among other aspects"(18) mentioned by the authors are relevant in the actual global context. The research methodology is simply presented by the author based concrete CFPS data survey cover 25 representative units for research. Moreover, the indicators and methods are clearly presented in the paper. The results are suitable and present the model based on fitting statistics, but we suggest the authors to present the personal contribution on the scientific bibliography of this topic. In conclusions the authors present the concept of multidimensional poverty of children and adolescent in China, the limitation of the study and the future research, but as we mentioned in the results we suggest to the author to present the scientific research fields. We congratulated the authors for this research.
Response 1:
The authors agree with the reviewers, we have added the “Discussion of finding” section. Please refer to the red text section added in the revised manuscript. (Line332-411)
Response 2:
The authors agree with the reviewers, we have added an individual contribution. (Line447-456)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors:
The work's quality has now improved. However, there is one issue you should correct. Line 243, you called the error term a random residue. This is incorrect, call it a random error term and define its distribution. Theoretically, a residue is not the same as a random error term.
Thank you.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
