Effect evaluation, prediction and response strategy analysis of China’s birth policy adjustment

Wei Wang; Yalan Mo; Yanxi Kuang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0330308

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 8, 2024
20 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Yanbo Wu, Editor PONE-D-24-44118Effect evaluation, prediction and response strategy analysis of China’s birth policy adjustmentPLOS 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 04 2025 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, Yanbo Wu 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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “The study was supported by grant National Social Science Foundation of China (Project Number: 22XMZ016) from the Foundation of Basic Research. This work was carried out under research program of Guilin University of Electronic Technology. Author Wang Wei was supported by grant from the Guilin University of Electronic Technology.” Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. Additional Editor Comments: Introduction * The introduction lacks a clear articulation of the research gap. While the aging population and policy adjustments are mentioned, the specific unresolved debates or limitations in existing studies are not explicitly stated. Strengthen the research rationale by explicitly contrasting contradictory findings in prior studies (e.g., conflicting results on the efficacy of the two-child policy). * The policy timeline (2011–2021) is described but lacks critical context (e.g., regional disparities in policy implementation, socioeconomic factors influencing fertility decisions). Add a paragraph contextualizing China’s demographic challenges (e.g., declining working-age population, gender imbalances) to justify the urgency of policy evaluation. Literature Review * The categorization into "macro" and "micro" studies is oversimplified. Key theoretical frameworks (e.g., Becker’s fertility model, Easterlin’s hypothesis) are not discussed. Reorganize the literature review thematically (e.g., policy effects, socioeconomic determinants, regional disparities) rather than macro/micro divisions. * Sources are out of date. More recent studies (2020-2024) should be included. Also, it should lead up to the research questions in a logical manner. * Please discuss learning theories and tie them to both, the research gap addressed by the paper as well as to the factors in the research model. * Discuss understudied angles: Highlight gaps such as the interaction between urbanization and policy efficacy, or the role of childcare infrastructure. * There are many garbled characters in the manuscript, and Chinese characters appear in the images. I suggest the author to revise them carefully. * The parallel trends assumption is validated graphically but lacks formal statistical tests (e.g., placebo tests). * Recommendations are overly generic (e.g., "establish a supportive policy system") and lack actionable specifics. For example, proposed subsidies or parental leave reforms are not quantified or benchmarked against international examples. * The link between findings and recommendations is weak. The gray prediction model forecasts declining births but does not inform targeted strategies * Label all axes and legends in figures (e.g., Figure 1’s y-axis units for fertility rate are missing). [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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 ****** 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. Its subject is both interesting and highly relevant, particularly given China’s current context as one of the countries with the lowest fertility rates globally. With government efforts underway to raise fertility rates through various population policies, this research addresses an important issue. However, some revisions are needed to prepare the paper for publication. You can find the comments in the attached file. ****** 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: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330308.r001
Revision 1
21 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each point raised by the reviewers and the editor, and the revisions have significantly improved the quality of our paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the comments, detailing the changes made in the revised manuscript. Reviewer #1 Comments: Comment 1: "Figure Titles: None of the figures have titles, and the quality of the images is low." Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now added clear, descriptive titles to all figures (Figures 1-7) and improved the image resolution to ensure better readability. The titles now explicitly describe the content of each figure. Comment 2: "Explanation of Figures: The explanation above Figure 3 (age pyramid) is unclear and confusing." Response: We appreciate this observation. We have completely rewritten the explanation for Figure 3 to provide a clearer description of the age pyramid and its implications for China's demographic structure. The revised text now better explains the visualization and its significance to our study. Comment 3: "Figures 4, 5, and 6 lack accompanying explanations in the text." Response: Thank you for noting this omission. We have added detailed explanations for Figures 4, 5, and 6 in their respective sections. Each figure is now properly introduced and discussed in the text to ensure readers understand their purpose and findings. Comment 4: "Figures 4 and 5 contain axis in Chinese, which needs translation for consistency." Response: We sincerely apologize for this oversight. All Chinese text in Figures 4 and 5 has been translated to English to maintain consistency throughout the manuscript. The axis labels and legends are now fully in English. Comment 5: "The last figure should be labeled as Figure 7 (currently labeled as Figure 6 in the text). It is also unclear which scenario each color represents within this figure." Response: Thank you for catching this error. We have corrected the figure numbering to make the last figure Figure 7. We have also added a clear legend to the figure that explicitly explains what each color represents in terms of different fertility scenarios. Comment 6: "In Table 2, 'fertility rate' is mentioned in both of the first two rows, but one of them is incorrect." Response: We appreciate your careful reading. We have corrected Table 2 by removing the duplicate "fertility rate" entry and ensuring all variable names are accurate and distinct. Comment 7: "In Table 1: In the last two rows of control Variables, the terms are unclear. The variable name appears as 'support ratio,' but the definition provided aligns with the 'dependency ratio.'" Response: Thank you for this important clarification. We have standardized the terminology in Table 1, replacing "support ratio" with "dependency ratio" throughout the table to maintain consistency with standard demographic terminology. Reviewer #2 Comments: Comment 1: "Content currently in section 3.1 would be better placed in the introduction, particularly to help readers unfamiliar with China's demographic profile. Additionally, there is overlap in some of the material, which could be streamlined." Response: We greatly appreciate this suggestion. We have moved the demographic context from Section 3.1 to the introduction and carefully streamlined the content to eliminate redundancy while maintaining all essential information. Comment 2: "IMPORTANT: The terms used are inconsistent or imprecise, for example: 'Birth population' should be replaced with 'Birth number.' The term 'birth rate' is inaccurately applied; if it refers to CDR, this rate should be defined as the number of births per thousand people, not as a percentage." Response: Thank you for highlighting these terminology issues. We have: 1. Replaced all instances of "birth population" with "birth number" 2. Consistently defined "birth rate" as "number of births per thousand people" where applicable 3. Ensured all demographic terms are used precisely throughout the manuscript Comment 3: "The methodology used for predictions is unclear, and each scenario's assumptions are not explained. The only detail provided is that none of the forecasts suggest a future increase in births, but further clarification is needed." Response: We appreciate this valuable feedback. In Section 7, we have now: 1. Added a detailed explanation of the GM(1,1) grey prediction model 2. Explicitly stated the assumptions behind each scenario 3. Included more discussion about the implications of the prediction results Comment 4: "In the conclusion, the findings should be contextualized alongside relevant theoretical concepts (such as Becker's theory)." Response: Thank you for this excellent suggestion. We have significantly expanded the conclusion to: 1. Explicitly relate our findings to Becker's fertility cost-benefit model 2. Discuss how our results align with or diverge from theoretical predictions 3. Provide a more robust theoretical framework for interpreting the results Comment 5: "The language used to present suggestions should be revised for clarity and tone." Response: We appreciate this comment. We have carefully revised all policy recommendations to: 1. Use more precise and actionable language 2. Improve clarity and readability 3. Maintain a professional, academic tone throughout Reviewer #3 Comments: Comment 1: “The study was supported by grant National Social Science Foundation of China (Project Number: 22XMZ016) from the Foundation of Basic Research. This work was carried out under research program of Guilin University of Electronic Technology. Author Wang Wei was supported by grant from the Guilin University of Electronic Technology.” Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The revised funding statement has been modified to read: "This study was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of the Basic Research Foundation (Project No.: 22XMZ016). The first author (Wei Wang) received specific funding for this work from the School of Business, Guilin University of Electronic Technology. This research did not receive any additional external funds.The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, publication decision or manuscript preparation." Comment 2: “Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.” Response: Thank you for noticing this omission. We have now added corresponding descriptions to all figures. Comment 3� “You note that your data are available within the Supporting Information files, but no such files have been included with your submission. ” Response: We sincerely apologize for this oversight. We have uploaded the minimum dataset to Figshare, and the corresponding URL information is as follows. https://figshare.com/s/8c1f93c274b7599e84f1 Comment 4: “We note that your author list was updated during the revision process. In order to add or remove authors or update the order of the author byline after initial submission, we ask that authors complete an Authorship Change Request form. ” Response: We are very grateful for this suggestion. After confirmation by all authors, we completed two forms, and the final confirmed list will be submitted as "Wei Wang, Yalan Mo, Yanxi Kuang". The main adjustments we have made are two: one is to change the corresponding author from Wei Wang to Yalan Mo, and add the third author Yanxi Kuang. The specific content is submitted in two authorship change forms. Additional Revisions: 1. Added formal placebo tests (Section 5.3) as suggested by the editor 2. Incorporated recent literature (2020-2024) in the updated literature review 3. Provided more specific policy recommendations with quantifiable targets 4. Ensured all data is properly archived and accessible 5. Corrected all grammatical and typographical errors We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript and addressed all concerns raised by the reviewers. We are grateful for the opportunity to strengthen our work and hope the revised version meets the journal's standards. Please don't hesitate to contact us if any additional modifications would be helpful. Sincerely, Wei Wang On behalf of all authors June 20, 2025 Attachments: 1. Revised Manuscript (with Track Changes) 2. Clean Manuscript Version 3. Response to Reviewers (this document) 4. Supporting Information (including datasets) 5.Revised Funding Statement 6. Two Authorship Change Forms Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330308.r002
30 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Yanbo Wu, Editor Effect evaluation, prediction and response strategy analysis of China’s birth policy adjustment PONE-D-24-44118R1 Dear Dr. 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support. 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, Yanbo Wu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comment: Given its rigorous methodology, policy relevance, and novel insights into the ineffectiveness of current fertility policies and pathways for improvement, this manuscript merits acceptance. It advances understanding of demographic dynamics under policy intervention and offers evidence-based guidance for policymakers. 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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 #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 #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330308.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yanbo Wu, Editor PONE-D-24-44118R1 PLOS ONE 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 being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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. Yanbo Wu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330308.r004

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 .