Lobbyists in Spain: Professional and Academic Profiles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I enjoyed leading this article. Overall, you have strongly and clearly written the article. My only suggestion is to expand on the discussion and cite a bit more throughout the paper
Author Response
|
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS |
CHANGES |
NO. PAGE - PARAGRAPH |
|
More citations |
More authors have been added for a better understanding of the field of lobbyists, such as: Arceneaux, 2018; Davidson & Rowe, 2016; Labarca, Arceneaux & Golan, 2020; McGrath, Moss & Harris, 2010; Sadi, Gabriel & Meneghetti, 2019. |
Introduction pages 1-6
|
|
Connecting and giving coherence to theoretical framework and citations |
Added explanatory sentence on existing studies on age. "However, there are very few studies on the age of lobbyists and one has to go back to studies from the 1960s and 1970s". All citations and references have been cross-checked, checking that all citations are in references and vice versa. |
Page 2. Line 86-87.
Corrected enumeration from line 50 to 81, page 2. Also 152 to 167, p. 4. |
|
Expand methodology
|
The methodology has been expanded by explaining the type of research carried out. How the content analysis was carried out has been explained more clearly and in more depth. |
P. 7 Paragraphs: In order to achieve these proposed objectives… In order to respond to the objectives… To this end… |
|
Clarity of results and criteria for use of graphs or tables |
The graph showing the distribution of lobbyists by gender has been removed. The data describing the table of distribution of lobbyists according to their age in general has been modified and the age table remains. It has been decided that the graph on the distribution of lobbyists' degrees should remain because it is considered necessary for a full understanding of the situation. The figure on the distribution of years of experience of lobbyists has been removed. The figure on the general use of tools is considered necessary for understanding. |
Page 7
Pages 7-8
Page 8
Page 10
Pages 11-12 |
|
Expand discussion with authors |
More authors have been included.
|
Pages 12-13 |
|
Argumentation of conclusions |
The discussion and conclusions have been practically rewritten. |
P. 12 and 13, from line 424 to 465. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is relevant and innovative. In any case, to be published would need a thorough review and be submitted to evaluation as a new article. Numerous comments have been included in the file attached. Regarding the theoretical foundation, the references cited are relevant but are presented as a mere list, without elaborating or establishing relations between them. The methodology could be extended. The data should be presented more clearly. There is no criterion for using tables, figures, and comments in the text. The use of resources in relation to data visualization could be improved. The discussion is a summary of the data, but it would be necessary to introduce a real discussion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
|
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS |
CHANGES |
NO. PAGE - PARAGRAPH |
|
More citations |
More authors have been added for a better understanding of the field of lobbyists, such as: Arceneaux, 2018; Davidson & Rowe, 2016; Labarca, Arceneaux & Golan, 2020; McGrath, Moss & Harris, 2010; Sadi, Gabriel & Meneghetti, 2019. |
Introduction pages 1-6
|
|
Connecting and giving coherence to theoretical framework and citations |
Added explanatory sentence on existing studies on age. "However, there are very few studies on the age of lobbyists and one has to go back to studies from the 1960s and 1970s". All citations and references have been cross-checked, checking that all citations are in references and vice versa. |
Page 2. Line 86-87.
Corrected enumeration from line 50 to 81, page 2. Also 152 to 167, p. 4. |
|
Expand methodology
|
The methodology has been expanded by explaining the type of research carried out. How the content analysis was carried out has been explained more clearly and in more depth. |
P. 7 Paragraphs: In order to achieve these proposed objectives… In order to respond to the objectives… To this end… |
|
Clarity of results and criteria for use of graphs or tables |
The graph showing the distribution of lobbyists by gender has been removed. The data describing the table of distribution of lobbyists according to their age in general has been modified and the age table remains. It has been decided that the graph on the distribution of lobbyists' degrees should remain because it is considered necessary for a full understanding of the situation. The figure on the distribution of years of experience of lobbyists has been removed. The figure on the general use of tools is considered necessary for understanding. |
Page 7
Pages 7-8
Page 8
Page 10
Pages 11-12 |
|
Expand discussion with authors |
More authors have been included.
|
Pages 12-13 |
|
Argumentation of conclusions |
The discussion and conclusions have been practically rewritten. |
P. 12 and 13, from line 424 to 465. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Article very well resolved, with theoretical, methodological and results in accordance with the stated objectives.
The article shows an original theme and approach to the object of study, such as describing the basic characteristics and professional profile of lobbyists in Spain, something about which there is not much literature review, given the opacity and scant existing regulation in Spain. A basic and limited exploratory method is used, searching for profiles, but which in any case responds to the initial objectives and research questions raised, with conclusions consistent with the results obtained. From the formal point of view, the article is clear brief and precise, both in its approach, structure and writing. For all these reasons, its publication in its current state is recommended.
Author Response
|
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS |
CHANGES |
NO. PAGE - PARAGRAPH |
|
More citations |
More authors have been added for a better understanding of the field of lobbyists, such as: Arceneaux, 2018; Davidson & Rowe, 2016; Labarca, Arceneaux & Golan, 2020; McGrath, Moss & Harris, 2010; Sadi, Gabriel & Meneghetti, 2019. |
Introduction pages 1-6
|
|
Connecting and giving coherence to theoretical framework and citations |
Added explanatory sentence on existing studies on age. "However, there are very few studies on the age of lobbyists and one has to go back to studies from the 1960s and 1970s". All citations and references have been cross-checked, checking that all citations are in references and vice versa. |
Page 2. Line 86-87.
Corrected enumeration from line 50 to 81, page 2. Also 152 to 167, p. 4. |
|
Expand methodology
|
The methodology has been expanded by explaining the type of research carried out. How the content analysis was carried out has been explained more clearly and in more depth. |
P. 7 Paragraphs: In order to achieve these proposed objectives… In order to respond to the objectives… To this end… |
|
Clarity of results and criteria for use of graphs or tables |
The graph showing the distribution of lobbyists by gender has been removed. The data describing the table of distribution of lobbyists according to their age in general has been modified and the age table remains. It has been decided that the graph on the distribution of lobbyists' degrees should remain because it is considered necessary for a full understanding of the situation. The figure on the distribution of years of experience of lobbyists has been removed. The figure on the general use of tools is considered necessary for understanding. |
Page 7
Pages 7-8
Page 8
Page 10
Pages 11-12 |
|
Expand discussion with authors |
More authors have been included.
|
Pages 12-13 |
|
Argumentation of conclusions |
The discussion and conclusions have been practically rewritten. |
P. 12 and 13, from line 424 to 465. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I’m sorry, but the authors did not include the changes uploaded in the previous review. I include my previous review and all comments suggested. I am including once more the first review (comments are included in the paper
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are sorry for not responding specifically to your comments earlier. We are sending you the table with your comments and the changes that have been made.
|
REVIEWER’S COMMENTS |
CHANGES |
NO. LINE OF COMMENT |
|
This list could be more elaborate, giving greater coherence to the text; that is, not just a list, but a text |
The list option has been chosen in order to keep the text shorter and to allow different data to be entered in a simple way. |
33, 37 and 40 |
|
The relationship of this paragraph with the previous one is not clear |
A linking word has been introduced to make the relationship between paragraphs clearer. |
77 |
|
Studies are presented unconnected as mere lists |
In order not to make the theoretical framework too broad, data from different studies on lobbying have been presented, moving from one aspect to another as simply as possible. |
98 |
|
Underlined part?? |
We do not quite understand what the question marks refer to. In any case, what is explained in the text are the main professions of lobbyists. |
108 |
|
The series of lists shows that the paper is underwritten to give coherence to the personal contributions and elaborations of the autors. |
Coherence between the theoretical framework and the research carried out has been sought at all times. For this reason, the authors who had previously studied the items investigated were used. |
175 |
|
The theorical foundation must be reworked. The relationship between these studies, the research objectives and the data mentioned at the beginning is not clearly expressed. |
Changes have been made to the theoretical framework: some parts have been reworded, more authors have been introduced and explanations have been included. In the table of changes above you can see: More authors have been added for a better understanding of the field of lobbyists, such as: Arceneaux, 2018; Davidson & Rowe, 2016; Labarca, Arceneaux & Golan, 2020; McGrath, Moss & Harris, 2010; Sadi, Gabriel & Meneghetti, 2019. Added explanatory sentence on existing studies on age. "However, there are very few studies on the age of lobbyists and one has to go back to studies from the 1960s and 1970s". |
268 |
|
How was the analysis carried out? |
The methodology has been expanded by explaining the type of research carried out. How the content analysis was carried out has been explained more clearly and in more depth. |
290 |
|
Data collection and relationships with study objectives unclear |
The objectives to be achieved have been related to the data investigated in the sample. |
294 |
|
The figure is very poor, as presented would not be necessary |
The graph showing the distribution of lobbyists by gender has been removed. |
317 |
|
This data could appear in a table, it would be easier to understand and read |
The data describing the table of distribution of lobbyists according to their age in general has been modified and the age table remains. |
323 |
|
I see it listed below, please unify the data and include it in the table |
The data describing the table of distribution of lobbyists according to their age in general has been modified and the age table remains. |
329 |
|
Too much information, not clear |
It has been decided that the graph on the distribution of lobbyists' degrees should remain because it is considered necessary for a full understanding of the situation. |
340 |
|
Please, look the comments on the similar figure |
The figure on the distribution of years of experience of lobbyists has been removed. |
378 |
|
Data need not be presented in a more organised way, introducing more information on the measures used and improving the visualization presentations |
The visualisation of the graphs on the most frequently used tools has been modified (both graphs) |
405 |
|
Only a summary of the results is presented, but no discussion is included |
The discussion and conclusions have been redone. |
408 |
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I don't have more comments than in the previous reviews. Kind regards
