Microsimulation Analysis of COVID-19 and Inflation Effects on Romanian Household Income Dynamics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article is interesting and probably worth publishing, but it requires significant corrections, especially structural ones.
First of all, the article has a bad structure. The introduction is too long (it constitutes as much as ¼ of the entire article). There is no part on the literature review and some conceptual approach to the topic. Part of the literature review is included in the introduction, but it is worth creating a new section.
In the methodology section, you should add a paragraph (or two) about the specificity of the Romania case study.
In turn, the obtained results are unnecessarily linked to the discussion. The discussion of the results should be included in a separate subchapter (possibly combined with conclusions).
I suggest using the work on resilience (Masik 2022), which can be used as a conceptual background for the article.
https://rcin.org.pl/igipz/Content/237281/WA51_273538_r2022-t95-no4_G-Polonica-Masik.pdf
I also suggest that at the beginning we touch on the problem related to what the pandemic has changed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272720301092?via%3Dihub
(plus comparison of several countries)
Ciołek 2021
https://rcin.org.pl/igipz/Content/232789/WA51_269547_r2021-t94-no4_G-Polonica-Ciolek.pdf
sweden
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3660832
Later in the discussion, you can use these examples and determine whether the Romanian example is different or similar...
I believe that the improved version will be simply better and worth publishing in a good journal like Economies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper focuses on examining the impact of recent shocks on household incomes and income inequalities by using the EUROMOD tax-benefit microsimulation model.
- The title of the paper is not clearly expressed and does not correspond to the content of the text. It is suggested to improve the expression of the title.
- There are too many keywords, which should be reduced, and those closely related to the content of the study should be retained.
- The content part of the introduction lacks coherence between paragraphs. In lines 67-157, the literature review of the relevant studies is only a list of the literature, without effective summary and organization. The authors should improve the readability of the introduction.
- The authors should describe in detail the microsimulation model mentioned in line 182;
- In Figures 1-2, the three different shades of blue represent different incomes. The lower differentiation is not reader-friendly. Also, what the horizontal scale D1-D10 represents in Figures 1, 2, 8, and 9 is not presented. Figures 1 and 2 are graphs of changes in household disposable income over different periods of time, so why not merge them into the same one and provide a comparative analysis or trend analysis of income changes over different periods of time?
- Figures 3-4 are titled Changes in Disposable Income, but the contents of the figures show the income structure of different groups and do not reflect the time change characteristics.
- Figures 5-6 should be engraved with the horizontal coordinate changed to the year;
- The Gini coefficients of three years in Figure 7 are not suitable for trend analysis. Gini coefficients for more years should be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript should follow the standard structure of a paper: the Introduction should be separate from the Literature Review. The introduction contains the general context of the research, a brief presentation of the contribution, the research gap and the research question and the structure of the paper. The Literature review is an in-depth critical presentation of relevant and recent research. It is highly recommended to not make the literature review an inventory of articles like: X said that, Y said that and move on. The literature review should present the connection between the present research and the past research and should serve to develop the research question. The research question is not clearly expressed in this paper.
The introduction and literature review should answer the question: Why Romania? why is this interesting to readers outside Romania? Why is a Romania a case study worth investigating? These are important questions, and the Literature review or the Methodology should explain the current macro-economic, political and social context of Romania, before and during the pandemic, in the larger context of the European Union. These should also be connected to the research gap and the research question. All of these elements justify the contribution of this article.
In my opinion, the graphs are really difficult to read. The combination of multiple colors, relatively small colored areas and 10 deciles makes it very difficult to understand. In this context, tables would be more appropriate to communicate the respective information.
The research does not engage with the literature (regarding other European and non-European countries) with the same topic. This is a major drawback of the paper. The Discussion section highlights the contribution of the paper, in relation to the research question.
The conclusions should follow the typical structure: a summary of the contribution, implications for ... (regulators, agencies, EU, etc.), limitations and future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version. This version is much better than the previous one. I think some elements can be improved.
I would suggest less information in the introduction and moving it to the literature review section.
There is still a part of the discussion missing that would be very useful for this research to make a greater contribution to science.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper has been revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have responded to my recommendations and have included some explanatory paragraphs. However, they have not update the references, because these paragraphs have no citation to any kind of source. I suggest providing adequate references to all factual statements. The authors should use the citation guidelines for webpages, official reports etc.
Secondly, the authors need to add some flow to the paper. There are paragraphs which are over 20 lines long, sometimes over 30 lines. This is not acceptable because it is not readable. More logical flow is necessary.
In the conclusion, there are many paragraphs which are formulated in general terms, but they refer strictly to Romania. This needs to be rectified to offer the geographical context in each paragraph.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
