Ageing Perception as a Key Predictor of Self-Rated Health by Rural Older People—A Study with Gender and Inclusive Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper aims to determine how Spanish older people perceive health though gender perspective.  The topic is interesting. But this article does not seem to be related to the subject of land.

Title: "Rural older people positive perception of ageing as key predictor of self-perceived health: A land analysis with a gender perspective". What is a "land analysis"?

Abstract:Please rewrite the abstract in accordance with the journal's submission instructions or papers that have been published in Land.

The introduction should further highlight the scientific problems, motivations, and possible innovations of the paper. 

It is suggested to update the data of the paper, so that the results may be more meaningful. 

Discussion:Most of the discourse is the result of empirical research. I suggest the results should be better discussed and justified, such as whether they are consistent with previous studies or analyzing the reasons for the empirical results.

This article needs to provide an ethics statement.

Proofreading is needed.

some references to consult:

Social Stability Risk Assessment of Land Expropriation: Lessons from the Chinese Case. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3952. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16203952

Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management (2021),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008.

Towards the next generation of green building for urban heat island mitigation: Zero UHI impact building. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101647.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your indications. Find enclosed the document with the answers.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The analyzed topic is very interesting and up to date in many contexts, e.g.: social, demographic, economic, administrative, spatial.

 The correct terminology was used. The language of the article is correct, adequate. The title is adequate to the research problem being undertaken. The article has been correctly divided into relevant sections, and their content coincides with their titles.   In my opinion, the abstract should contain something more than a brief description of the research carried out. There is no justification for writing about this topic.

 

The Introduction part must be extended. The analysis of the topic and papers dealing with this topic presented in it is insufficient.

There is almost no literature base here. The issues of aging, the perception of aging, the definitions of the elderly, the notions of quality of life and health, etc. have been very briefly presented. The authors focused very much on the research part, but there was no sufficiently extensive introduction to the topic. After completing this section, the article will gain the appropriate perspective and quality.

The research part was based on publicly available data collected in the "Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement" survey. The collection of materials in the survey was therefore not carried out by the authors of the paper. The authors of this paper analyzed the available public data. Therefore, the more they should also concentrate on the theoretical part: the literature foundation.

 

I do not see the clearly defined purpose of the paper and research and research hypotheses. Please complete these items. Please define it clearly. The hypothesis should be also discussed in the end of the article whether it has been proven or not.

 

Most of the literature items presented in the reference list are current. They are all related to the topic presented. Even though 43 references may seem like a sufficient number, in my opinion this is not the case. The conducted literature review is not satisfactory in this regard. It seems to be rudimentary. The number of references should increase.

 

Footnotes and bibliography are in my opinion correctly formulated.

 

The conducted research provides grounds for interesting conclusions

 

The technical part of the article does not raise any objections. The work is aesthetic

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your indications. Find enclosed the document with the answers.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is important, and the findings are relevant.
The paper is interesting and should be published.

Just a few minor remarks:
Please consider proofreading of the paper - by the Authors themselves or by a Colleague or Native Speaker to eliminate minor language issues

Please consider revising the entire Introduction section - some parts are difficult to understand

Examples:

Lines 51-54 meaning unclear; please consider revising. What does it mean" greater programs offer dedicated to their needs"? What kinds of programs?

Line 99 -please consider revising the sentence: "Furthermore, 43.81% ever smoked daily. " - meaning is unclear

Line 218 - "professional women" - please consider revising, maybe - professional nurses?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your indications. Find enclosed the document with the answers.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the author has done a lot of revision work, there are still many problems and I cannot recommend it for publication at the present version

The format of this paper should be improved.

There is unnecessary to add line number.

Ethical Statement is still missing.

The format of references list should be improved.

 

Author Response

Please, find enclosed the word with our anwers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The analyzed topic is very interesting and up to date in many contexts, e.g.: social, demographic, economic, administrative, spatial.

The correct terminology was used. The language of the article is correct, adequate. 

The title is adequate to the research problem being undertaken. The article has been correctly divided into relevant sections, and their content coincides with their titles.  

Abstract has been slightly changed. I don't understand why the entire abstract is marked in red as if it was all fixed. This is not true, because most of the abstract is the same as in the first version. This is not a bug in this article of course, but it is misleading as it suggests changes that were not made that widely.  

The introduction part has been extended as suggested, and it is much better in drawing the picture of the situation the authors of the paper are examining. This part has been well improved.

The authors increased the number of articles in the references from 43 to 75, which is a satisfactory result

I still do not see the clearly defined purpose of the paper and research and research hypotheses. Please complete these items. Please define it clearly. The hypothesis should be also discussed in the end of the article whether it has been proven or not.

Footnotes and bibliography are in my opinion correctly formulated.

The technical part of the article does not raise any objections. The work is aesthetic. 

Author Response

Please, find enclosed the Word with our answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx