R&R from SSQ

[Byung-Deuk-Woo]

Hi all :) This post is to share the comments from the two reviewer of SSQ. Below are the comments from the reviewers and I personally think that the comments can be easliy handled.

Reviewer 1.

Reviewer1-Comment 1: Assignees: Byung-Deuk

• [x] Figure 4 that presents the rankings of support for gay rights, is conceptually difficult to understand. Japan and India, the countries that do not recognize same-sex marriages, rank ahead of the US and Canada, while Taiwan, the only country in Asia that recognizes same-sex marriages, ranks below Japan and India. The author's audience will be greatly appreciative if the author(s) provide meaningful explanations rather than just the statistical formula.

==> Even though the editor says us "lay aside R1", it might be better for us to add little bit more explanation on some asian countries? It might not be hard.

Reviewer 2.

Reviewer2-Comment 1: Assignees: Byung-Deuk

• [x] 1. First of all, I think it is important to define well the purpose of the paper. What does it mean to present the dataset in this context? Perhaps it would be better to say that the dataset is described and characterized or that the process of building it is described.

==> I actually think our manuscript show our main purpose at the very first paragraph. Given that the Reviewer 2 wants us to define well our purpose. Why don't we add one or two sentences after the second sentences of our manuscript?

Reviewer2-Comment 2: Assignees: Hyein

• [x] 2. Why are gays rights used and not another concept? This seems important to me because behind the use of one concept or another there is also a theoretical and disciplinary tradition.

==> It is about our title. Rather than Gay Rights, even though we changed to this title due to the previous comments, why don't we use LGBTQ+ or LGBT in our title? For instance, "Public Support for LGBT across Countries and Over Time.

Reviewer2-Comment 3,4: Assignees: Cassandra and Hu

• [x] 3. Since the dataset is presented, I would have liked to know more about the technical construction mode of this dataset; there are some elements described, but I did not find a methodological subsection describing in detail the construction process of this dataset and the decisions taken for it. The variables included in the indicator are described in the annexes and I believe that the use of some variables or others and the decisions taken to do so are a relevant part of the description process of this dataset.

• [x] 4. It is not entirely clear to me how the indicators used in the Support for Gay Rights Latent Variable Model were selected.

==> For both comment 3 and 4, I think we can emphasize the importance of public opinion measured by surveys to build our indicator. We can add one or two sentences about how our Latent Variable Model can combine answers related to questions about homosexuality. Maybe, we can also think about including such context into the appendix.

Reviewer2-Comment 5: Assignees: Byung-Deuk

• [x] 5. I would have liked the authors to mention the differences between this dataset and, for example, others such as the GAI, and to describe the limitations of this new dataset. Even more so if this dataset is expected to become an important and perhaps the most relevant dataset on the subject in the world.

==> It can be handled together with Comment 6 below. We can reemphaszie our data strength such as long time span and country-coverage while note that our indicator is not perfect for sure at the same time.

Reviewer2-Comment 6: Assignees: Byung-Deuk

• [x] 6. Finally, despite the enormous value, work done and potential of this dataset, what would be its limitations?

==> On my perspective, I simply think we can describe the unbalanced data availability based on the existence of relevant survey questionnaires as in Figure 5.

No Word Limit for now. Revisions by November 14th.

I hope that this summary can rubricate our discussion! Thanks!

[fsolt]

2. @hey-ikon: we should provide additional explanation, towards the front, of why this concept, "support for gay rights" rather than alternatives, LGBT. Do we have a footnote to steal from?

[fsolt]

6. Limitations: yes to unbalanced, also the uncertainty/error

[fsolt]

5. Compare to GAI: it's in footnote 1. So either move footnote to text or point to the footnote in the memo. As @Tyhcass says, we should bring all this footnote text to the memo as well. It's a bit awkward, but we should move it to the text and fight with it until it works.

[fsolt]

@Tyhcass re 3 & 4: we have a codebook that describes our process! @hey-ikon finds it in https://github.com/fsolt/dcpo_gayrights/issues/4 and also points us to https://github.com/fsolt/dcpo_gayrights/blob/master/data-raw/gay_marriage_items.txt

The latter is useful in describing question selection: its headings describe the kinds of questions we have. This would fit easily in Appendix B (if that seems where the R2 wants it), but could also be included in the text (at least in a somewhat abbreviated form ("we incorporate questions on A, B, C, and so on; see Appendix B for the full list of topics and questions").

[Byung-Deuk-Woo]

Revisions for R2-C1 and R2-C6 are done and updated at https://github.com/fsolt/dcpo_gayrights/blob/master/paper/dcpo_gayrights-revised-manuscript.Rmd

[Byung-Deuk-Woo]

Revisions for R1-C1 and R2-C5 are dupated to revised manuscript and memo! For your direct access :),

R&R Memo: https://github.com/fsolt/dcpo_gayrights/blob/master/paper/R%26R%20Memo.Rmd Revised Manuscript: https://github.com/fsolt/dcpo_gayrights/blob/master/paper/dcpo_gayrights-revised-manuscript.Rmd

[Byung-Deuk-Woo]

I think the last part of our revision is to apply R2-C2 & R2-C3,4.

If time does not allow, I can also handle the rest of comments for sure :).

Please let me know about your progress Hyein, Cassandra, and Hu :).

[Tyhcass]

I think the last part of our revision is to apply R2-C2 & R2-C3,4.

If time does not allow, I can also handle the rest of comments for sure :).

Please let me know about your progress Hyein, Cassandra, and Hu :).

Thanks for revising our MS. Sorry for the delay. I am working on it and will go back to you asap.

[hey-ikon]

@Byung-Deuk-Woo Sorry for the delay..! I updated the comments on R2-C2 in the memo. My view is that the primary reason for using gay rights is that more inclusive concepts/terms like LGBTQ+ are developed later, whereas our public opinion data goes back as far as the 1970s. If we want to address this point in the manuscript, I suggest it would be a footnote material (e.g., following the first sentence of the main text) rather than in the main content..!

[Tyhcass]

@Byung-Deuk-Woo I updated MS on Reviewer2-3,4. I explained the four groups of questions used in our raw data and our cross-reference process in question selection. I am not very confident about my response to R2-4 about how questions are used. I think this technical question has been answered in appendix C. I tried to give a summary in text, but I am not sure whether my summary is clear and correct. So, need a final check from @fsolt on it. I did not update the memo given my uncertainty about my response to R2-4. Feel free to add the response to R2-3 in the memo to keep the language consistent.

[Byung-Deuk-Woo]

@Byung-Deuk-Woo Sorry for the delay..! I updated the comments on R2-C2 in the memo. My view is that the primary reason for using gay rights is that more inclusive concepts/terms like LGBTQ+ are developed later, whereas our public opinion data goes back as far as the 1970s. If we want to address this point in the manuscript, I suggest it would be a footnote material (e.g., following the first sentence of the main text) rather than in the main content..!

Thanks Hyein and no worry for the delay :). I personally like your explanation on the memo and I think the explanation on the memo might be sufficient to handle the reviewer's comment! Thanks!!

[Byung-Deuk-Woo]

@Byung-Deuk-Woo I updated MS on Reviewer2-3,4. I explained the four groups of questions used in our raw data and our cross-reference process in question selection. I am not very confident about my response to R2-4 about how questions are used. I think this technical question has been answered in appendix C. I tried to give a summary in text, but I am not sure whether my summary is clear and correct. So, need a final check from @fsolt on it. I did not update the memo given my uncertainty about my response to R2-4. Feel free to add the response to R2-3 in the memo to keep the language consistent.

Thanks Cassandra! I updated the memo based on your revision :)

[Byung-Deuk-Woo]

Dear All, I think both of our memo and revised manuscript are ready to be re-submitted. It will be awesome if Fred can take a look for the memo and revised manuscript. I'm happy to resubmit our manuscript and thanks for all of your works! Thanks :).

R&R Memo: https://github.com/fsolt/dcpo_gayrights/blob/master/paper/R%26R%20Memo.Rmd Revised Manuscript: https://github.com/fsolt/dcpo_gayrights/blob/master/paper/dcpo_gayrights-revised-manuscript.Rmd