Shadow Education in China and Its Diversified Normative Governance Mechanism: Double Reduction Policy and Internet Public Opinion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper introduces some interesting concepts. 

In the abstract - should the final sentence be higher in the paragraph - this seems to be methods? 

For international readers, who are not familiar with either shadow education or double reduction policy, it is important that you clearly explain these terms in the introduction.

Line 29: Again for international readers, clarify what about the cultural background makes shadow education popular.

Lines 76-78 in the Literature review are a repeat of information from the introduction. There are other examples, such as lines 92 and 93, and again in lines 182-183 and 256-257. Throughout the paper, this needs to be checked.

Also sentence structure - e.g. line 52, "studies have studied"; line 56 comma not required; check the use of past/present tense throughout the paper, for example, lines 147-150 and the conclusion -line 406 should be "have been viewed"? Line 243 - who is "we"? Edit the incomplete sentences in lines 278 and 341-342.

The word cloud analysis would be better in English as the paper is in English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study entitled “Shadow Education in China and its Diversified Normative Governance Mechanism: Double Reduction Policy and Internet Public Opinion” is a potentially interesting contribution to the literature on informal education. However, in my modest opinion, the authors’ writing needs to be better organized into a coherent whole before publication is warranted. Most importantly, to ensure comprehension and interest from a broad readership, the authors need to clarify each of the key terms instead of introducing them abruptly. Readers may be interested in the topic of the authors’ paper, but may not be familiar with the different issues and methodologies that the study explores.  The following are some suggestions for the different parts of the manuscript:

 The abstract needs to be rewritten to provide a coherent and engaging narrative. It may contain brief descriptions of (a) the purpose of the study, (b) the methodology used, (c) the results of the analysis in plain English, and (d) the main implication of the results. I also would advise the authors to define “shadow education” in the abstract as it may not be a common term for all readers.

 In the introduction, the definition of “shadow education” should be moved to the very first sentence(s). The definition of “double reduction policy” should also be clarified.

 In the introduction, I would devote a broader coverage to the widespread use of “shadow education” around the world. Are the reasons for relying on such a form of education the same around the world or do they differ? Are the prevailing forms of “shadow education” the same in different parts of the world?

Immediately after the literature review, the authors are advised to briefly state each of the research questions, hypotheses, and corresponding rationale. It is difficult to understand their data analyses without a clear description of what the authors want to study, and their reasons for studying it. For instance, what was the rationale for conducting “[h]otspots and analysis of the development of double reduction policy from the perspective of network public opinion”?  

 The authors need to clarify the content of the section entitled “Research Design”. An organized and transparent description of their methodology will greatly improve readability. 

 The result section also needs to be clarified. Without additional transparency, the discussion section remains disconnected from the data.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article entitled “Shadow Education in China and its Diversified Normative Governance Mechanism: Double Reduction Policy and Internet Public Opinion” is an interesting and valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable education. The content of the manuscript has considerably improved in clarity and organization.  The authors have shown consideration of the comments made by different reviewers and acted upon each one effectively. One exception, however, is the format. Namely, there are still several issues with the communication of the authors’ intended meaning. Nevertheless, I would recommend publication. Of course, my recommendation is based upon the authors’ additional revisions of the surface form of sentences to ensure clarity and proper communication. Thus, I would advise the authors to review (a) the sentence structure, (b) the punctuation, and (c) the word choices of the entire text thoroughly.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Thank you for your affirmation of our work. At the same time, we invited the editorial department to polish our paper and solve the problems of language, punctuation and sentence structure on the whole. Please refer to the revised version for details. Once again, I would like to express my sincere thanks for your review!If you have any further suggestions, please do not hesitate to let me know in time, and we will do our best to revise them so as to reach the published state.

Pan