PONE-D-22-33710The Impact of Childcare Availability on Maternal Employment: Evidence from Czech MunicipalitiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kalíšková,

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.

The reviewers have provided very useful comments and suggestions for you to revise the article. Please revise following their comments. One of the reviewers also comments about the data being out of date. Could you please explain in the article why more up to date have not been used: are these not available? If they are available but you have not used them, you will have to justify your choice using some persuasive arguments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 29 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,

Daphne Nicolitsas

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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. We note that Figures 4 and 5 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 4 and 5 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/

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Dear authors,

I am glad I have this opportunity to review your manuscript. My comments are as follows (let me divide my comments according to the structure of your manuscript):

Abstract

- I personally expect that the aim of the study will be exactly defined, but it is missing in the current version

- identify "various sources" you are using for your research

- data used are more than 10 years old, do you consider it as still actual?

- add more information about the methodology (you are presenting partial results without information about the way of their processing/achieving)

- be more specific (...is lower than...; is closer to...)

Introduction

- the topic is introduced at a good level by using actual literature

Institutional background

- additional information about the situation in the Czech Republic is presented at an expected level

Methodology

- selection of indicators should be explained (you are working with local kindergarten availability and

neighboring kindergarten availability, but why? what kind of indicators are used to capture the availability of kindergartens? show other research/indicators used for a similar purpose to declare what is new in your research

- add some numeric information about both indicators used (at least describe them by some moment characteristics)

- the same problem with the regression model, any explanation for choosing this method is missing (I agree with your choice, but I also expect much more information)

Results

- all tables/figures in section 4.1 are described very well, but there is no idea throughout the whole text

- each paragraph starts "XXX presents something...", after this paragraph you are not working with achieved information

- section 2.1 is much better prepared, the description of the results is divided and interpreted in detail

- an indicator of change in the employment rate and other parameters/indicators should be described in the methodology, not in the results (section 4.3)

Discussion and conclusion

- add information about the limitations of your research

Formal notes

- add the name of the axis Y (Figure 1, Figure 2)

I wish you all the best with this manuscript and other ones in the future

Reviewer #2: The paper provides estimates of the impact of local public kindergarten availability on the employment rate of Czech mothers of pre-school children. The authors use unique datasets from the Census carried out by the Czech Statistical Office in 2001 and 2011 matched with the data on the capacity of kindergartens in Czech municipalities from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. The estimates are lower than those published previously for the Czech Republic, although the evidence is limited and the methodology is different, while they are comparable to previous estimates for other Southern and Western European countries. In the final part the authors calculate the aggregate effects and fiscal impacts.

The paper is definitely technically sound. I appreciate the part explaining identification assumptions and the discussion in the concluding section on why the estimates are different from results for other countries in the region. I see the discussion on why the estimates are different as the main challenge. I discuss below some related points.

First, the measurement errors described on p. 12 distort the coefficient estimates towards zero. Are the measurement errors responsible for at least part of the difference between their results and those in Lovász and Szabó-Morvai (2017)? I understand the main difference is in methodology as Lovász and Szabó-Morvai (2017) rely on childcare eligibility cutoffs comparing children that reach the age of 3 around the eligibility cuttoff.

Second, the generous parental leave in the Czech Republic (pp. 4-5) allows mothers to stay with their children at home beyond 3 years of age, while the state support is less generous in other countries. Could this explain why the estimates are lower?

Third, the Czech Republic has very large number of self-governed municipalities which are the main providers of kindergarten places. I suspect the typical commuting distance to potential work could be longer than within municipalities and mothers take advantage of kindergartens available near their workplaces. Is it relevant? Considering different level of aggregation could be left for future research.

Finally, are the aggregate effects large or small? The calculation relies on parameters and other estimates from Kalíšková et al. (2016). I would appreciate some discussion of robustness of the calculation. I suggest to elaborate on it and mention the aggregate effects in the abstract or remove this part.

Overall, I enjoyed reading the paper. My comments are meant to improve the discussion related to the comparison with previous literature as well as the robustness of their calculation of aggregate impacts.

**********

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: Roman Vavrek

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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.

The Impact of Childcare Availability on Maternal Employment: Evidence from Czech Municipalities

PONE-D-22-33710R1

Dear Dr. Kalíšková,

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,

Daphne Nicolitsas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

**********

5. 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: Yes

**********

6. 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: Dear authors,

thank you for taking the time to incorporate my previous comments/notes, much appreciated. Let me process this review in the structure of the first one:

Abstract

- I personally expect that the aim of the study will be exactly defined, but it is missing in the current version

validation: partially incorporated

- identify "various sources" you are using for your research

validation: done (the term is erased)

- data used are more than 10 years old, do you consider it as still actual?

validation: explained

- add more information about the methodology (you are presenting partial results without information about the way of their processing/achieving)

validation: incorporated

- be more specific (...is lower than...; is closer to...)

validation: incorporated

Introduction

- the topic is introduced at a good level by using actual literature

validation: without the required modifications

Institutional background

- additional information about the situation in the Czech Republic is presented at an expected level

validation: without the required modifications

Methodology

- selection of indicators should be explained (you are working with local kindergarten availability and

neighboring kindergarten availability, but why? what kind of indicators are used to capture the availability of kindergartens? show other research/indicators used for a similar purpose to declare what is new in your research

- add some numeric information about both indicators used (at least describe them by some moment characteristics)

- the same problem with the regression model, any explanation for choosing this method is missing (I agree with your choice, but I also expect much more information)

validation: incorporated

Results

- all tables/figures in section 4.1 are described very well, but there is no idea throughout the whole text

- each paragraph starts "XXX presents something...", after this paragraph you are not working with achieved information

- section 2.1 is much better prepared, the description of the results is divided and interpreted in detail

- an indicator of change in the employment rate and other parameters/indicators should be described in the methodology, not in the results (section 4.3)

validation: incorporated

Discussion and conclusion

- add information about the limitations of your research

validation: incorporated

Formal notes

- add the name of the axis Y (Figure 1, Figure 2)

validation: incorporated

I wish you many citations of this manuscript around the world.

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed all my comments and questions. In particular, I appreciate the improved comparison with the previous literature and the robustness of their calculation of aggregate effects.

**********

7. 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: Roman Vavrek

Reviewer #2: No

**********