Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 10, 2023
Decision Letter - Ercan Özen, Editor

PONE-D-23-10690The geographical pension gap: Understanding the causes of inequality in China's pension fundsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ercan Özen, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "This study was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Project No. 42101172) and the Hunan Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Foundation (Project No. 22YBA133)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

    "This study was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Project No. 42101172) and the Hunan Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Foundation (Project No. 22YBA133)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

    "This study was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Project No. 42101172) and the Hunan Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Foundation (Project No. 22YBA133)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper titled: The geographical pension gap: Understanding the causes of inequality in China's pension funds. This study attempted to explore the the causes of inequality in China's pension funds.

The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cites an appropriate range of literature sources related to the study itself. The paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected Knowledge of the journal's readership.

The article flows well and puts the reader into the context of the subject. The aim and objective are well explained and result from the gaps in the subject. The methodology is well explained and enables replication, while the results and conclusions triangulate with the rest of the paper and are well discussed, highlighting some practical implications.

I believe this paper can be published as is and adds value to literature already published in this field.

Reviewer #2: China has seen a sharp reduction of poverty, but also a substantial increase of inequality. As the result of more than two decades of rapid economic growth in China, millions have been lifted out of poverty, resulting in an

impressive decline in the poverty . I will urge authors to write more about literature and focus on the gap.

Kindly elaborate more about research methodology .

Discussion part is not satisfactory.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Simon Grima

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kiran Sood

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We extend our heartfelt gratitude for your positive feedback on our manuscript. We fully acknowledge that our work may not have been flawless initially, and we greatly appreciate your suggestions. With your guidance, we have enriched the relevant literature and provided further elaboration on the research methodology employed in our manuscript. Your valuable input has contributed significantly to enhancing the quality and depth of our work. We sincerely appreciate your professional insights and guidance.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear reviewer,

We express our heartfelt gratitude to the reviewer for thoroughly examining our manuscript and offering constructive comments that guided our revision process. We have diligently incorporated your valuable suggestions into the manuscript, and we appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. Please find detailed responses to your comments and suggestions below. Once again, we extend our sincere thanks to the reviewer for their invaluable contribution.

(1)China has seen a sharp reduction of poverty, but also a substantial increase of inequality. As the result of more than two decades of rapid economic growth in China, millions have been lifted out of poverty, resulting in an impressive decline in the poverty . I will urge authors to write more about literature and focus on the gap.

Thank you for your suggestion. Following your advice, we have incorporated the following content: "Since implementing economic reforms and opening up, China has experienced rapid economic development and substantially reduced absolute poverty. However, the issue of relative poverty remains severe, and the widening income gap poses a significant obstacle to achieving common prosperity (1). Establishing the old-age insurance system has been a crucial policy tool to narrow this income gap. Nevertheless, China faces the unique challenge of “getting old before getting rich” due to the relatively short period during which the old-age security system has been in place and the accelerated population aging, particularly among certain demographic groups (2).

Initially, China’s pension insurance system was designed to safeguard the well-being of older adults, prevent elderly poverty, and reduce income disparities among older individuals. Currently, the pension insurance system in China has achieved nearly universal coverage among the population, with an increasing participation rate. However, due to inadequate overall planning of the pension insurance fund at the national level, a significant disparity exists in the income and expenditure of pension funds across different provinces. As a result, some provinces face shortfalls in pension fund revenue, resulting in a decline in the growth rate of the fund balance. Consequently, this not only negatively impacts efforts to alleviate poverty among older adults but also exacerbates regional income disparities among this age group, contradicting the original intent of the pension insurance system (3). Furthermore, demographic changes are generating global concerns regarding the long-term financial sustainability of pension schemes (4, 5, 6), a matter of particular urgency for China."

Furthermore, we have included a comprehensive literature review section, which provides detailed insights within the manuscript.

(2)Kindly elaborate more about research methodology .

Thank you for your suggestion. Following your advice, we have incorporated the following content: “In measuring regional disparities, numerous calculation methods have been utilized in previous studies, including the coefficient of variation, Theil index, standard deviation, and Gini coefficient. However, when evaluating changes in the absolute gap between pension regions, comparing the absolute gaps at different time points can be misleading due to variations in the balance growth rate and the overall balance level. To address this issue, the relative gap is employed in this study, which eliminates the direct impact of the total size and enables a more meaningful assessment of changes in regional disparities over time. In addition, the growth rate of fund balances in each region is calculated to reflect these changes.

Furthermore, China has historically exhibited significant disparities in fund balances among its Eastern, Central, Western, and Northeastern regions, primarily due to their differing geographical locations. The advantage of utilizing the Theil index lies in its ability to measure and compute gaps between and within regions, making it a suitable choice for quantifying the discrepancies in fund balances.

Lastly, this study adopts the geographic detector method to identify multiple influencing factors contributing to regional fund balance gaps. Unlike conventional spatial regression analysis, the geographic detector method does not rely on linear assumptions or conditional restrictions. It offers an objective means of determining the degree of interpretation of independent variables on the dependent variable and provides the added advantage of detecting interactions between these factors.”

(3)Discussion part is not satisfactory.

We appreciate your suggestion. Taking your advice into account, we have made adjustments to the theoretical and practical contributions discussed in the manuscript's Discussion section. These revisions have been thoroughly elaborated upon within the manuscript itself.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 2 Comments.docx
Decision Letter - Ercan Özen, Editor

The geographical pension gap: Understanding the causes of inequality in China's pension funds

PONE-D-23-10690R1

Dear Dr. Huilin Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ercan Özen, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ercan Özen, Editor

PONE-D-23-10690R1

The geographical pension gap: Understanding the causes of inequality in China’s pension funds

Dear Dr. Wang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ercan Özen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .