Understanding Technological Unemployment: A Review of Causes, Consequences, and Solutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the article has been achieved. The research method does not raise any objection. 

The article deals with important issue related to social aspect on technological unemployment. Nowadays this issue  is very important , among others, due to the fourth insustrial revolution. In their deliberations the authors focused on aspectson technological unemployment, as causes, consequences and solution proposed by researchers  to deal with with social consequences of technological unemployment. In order to achieve the aim of the article, adopted in the introduction, the authors reviewed the litearature in areas of Economy, Sociology and Philosophy.  27 articles were analyzed with  authors situated in developed economie such as USA, Europe and New Zealand.  The results of the reseach the authors formulated many interesting conlusions, emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of reserch on social aspect of technological unemployment. In particulary important aspect of consideration concerns the consequences and directions of solutions propsed by the literature to this challenge.

 Summing up, I emphasize that the article has a high cognitive value. 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your prompt review of our work. Overall, we understood that the paper received a positive review and comments were made to further improve the presented manuscript.

As requested by the editor, all changes were tracked and are marked in the new version of the manuscript. We highlight below the main changes to the manuscript.

1. Review of English language and style throughout the text. (as requested by Reviewer 1)
2. Inclusion of a legend in the map in figure 3. (as requested by Reviewer 2)
3. Change in the text around line 305 where it used to read “particularly between developing and developing countries”, now it is “particularly between developed and developing countries”. (as requested by Reviewer 2)
4. Review of the abstract structure. (as requested by Reviewer 3)
5. Review of the “Discussion” to better relate the results to the literature review. (as requested by Reviewer 3)
6. Review of the “Conclusions”, as a result of the review of the “Discussion”.
7. Review of the citations as some of them were duplicated in the “References”.

Reviewer 2 Report

The text is very well structured, clearly written and it systematizes the theoretical and empirical knowledge of Technological Unemployment, in the second decade of the XXI century. The authors make a comprehensive review of the literature presenting the main theories and developments on the topic. The article constitutes a working basis for future investigations and it is an extremely useful tool for researchers, who have at their disposal a comprehensive summary of the theoretical corpus on technological unemployment, its main trends, projections and perspectives.

The methodology followed is sound and adequate to the proposed objectives.

For the authors:

The map on page 5 should have a legend, pointing out the meaning of the different colors,

Line 305: (...) particularly between developing and developing countries [28]. It should be: developed and developing.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your prompt review of our work. Overall, we understood that the paper received a positive review and comments were made to further improve the presented manuscript.

As requested by the editor, all changes were tracked and are marked in the new version of the manuscript. We highlight below the main changes to the manuscript.

1. Review of English language and style throughout the text. (as requested by Reviewer 1)
2. Inclusion of a legend in the map in figure 3. (as requested by Reviewer 2)
3. Change in the text around line 305 where it used to read “particularly between developing and developing countries”, now it is “particularly between developed and developing countries”. (as requested by Reviewer 2)
4. Review of the abstract structure. (as requested by Reviewer 3)
5. Review of the “Discussion” to better relate the results to the literature review. (as requested by Reviewer 3)
6. Review of the “Conclusions”, as a result of the review of the “Discussion”.
7. Review of the citations as some of them were duplicated in the “References”.

Reviewer 3 Report

The methodology used ensures the quality of the paper. Both the literature review and the conclusions are clear. However, it is advisable to follow the structure introduction, methodology, results and conclusions in the abstract. Furthermore, the discussions should relate the literature review to the results obtained.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your prompt review of our work. Overall, we understood that the paper received a positive review and comments were made to further improve the presented manuscript.

As requested by the editor, all changes were tracked and are marked in the new version of the manuscript. We highlight below the main changes to the manuscript.

1. Review of English language and style throughout the text. (as requested by Reviewer 1)
2. Inclusion of a legend in the map in figure 3. (as requested by Reviewer 2)
3. Change in the text around line 305 where it used to read “particularly between developing and developing countries”, now it is “particularly between developed and developing countries”. (as requested by Reviewer 2)
4. Review of the abstract structure. (as requested by Reviewer 3)
5. Review of the “Discussion” to better relate the results to the literature review. (as requested by Reviewer 3)
6. Review of the “Conclusions”, as a result of the review of the “Discussion”.
7. Review of the citations as some of them were duplicated in the “References”.

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper presents an academic and social interest topic, such us technological unemployment. The manuscript, which continues the adequate form of all academic work, contains a descriptive research structured around two strong points. On the one hand, the authors offer an exhaustive bibliographic review based on the most outstanding and updated specialized literature. In addition to the qualitative aspects, the authors also carry out a statistical analysis from these data. On the other hand, in addition to the aforementioned bibliographic study, the second strong point has to do with the interest of future proposals after having analysed the technological unemployment causes, consequences and possible solutions. 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you for your prompt review of our work. Overall, we understood that the paper received a positive review and comments were made to further improve the presented manuscript.

As requested by the editor, all changes were tracked and are marked in the new version of the manuscript. We highlight below the main changes to the manuscript.

1. Review of English language and style throughout the text. (as requested by Reviewer 1)
2. Inclusion of a legend in the map in figure 3. (as requested by Reviewer 2)
3. Change in the text around line 305 where it used to read “particularly between developing and developing countries”, now it is “particularly between developed and developing countries”. (as requested by Reviewer 2)
4. Review of the abstract structure. (as requested by Reviewer 3)
5. Review of the “Discussion” to better relate the results to the literature review. (as requested by Reviewer 3)
6. Review of the “Conclusions”, as a result of the review of the “Discussion”.
7. Review of the citations as some of them were duplicated in the “References”.