Refuge in the City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article seeks to address an important topic, that covers a great deal of ground, but, does not often sustain its argument throughout. I found the introduction too concise and without any explicit methodological approach for outlining what evidence will be present and analyzed in support of the article's main findings and the conclusions that flow from the evidence and analysis presented. 

The main arguments seem to me to sound and persuasive, but, how the evidence is marshalled in support of them is often presented as an assertion, rather than being based on solid and sustained evidence. Using authoritative citations is one thing, but, presenting more fulsome evidence in support of an argument is another.

The new approach necessary for urban humanitarianism, premised on harnessing innate resilence and greater self-reliance, that is intended to lead to new modalities for supporting refugees in urban settings could be developed further. For instance, how can and should NGOs retool themselves in order to help achieve these new modalities of assistance to refugees? Why are cash transfers more effective than targetted development assistance programs for urban refugees?

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.  First, as was shared with the editors but perhaps not with reviewers, was the fact that this article was not submitted as a research article but as a thought piece. As such some sections listed below such as research design and methods are not applicable. The Journal agreed to accept the article based on that premise. I did clarify that a bit more in the introduction. 

I also added further references to strengthen the arguments made.  The cash transfer question was answered in the original submission but further referenced in this draft. 

The argument for promoting resilience and self-reliance is carried through the article a bit more thoroughly with a better synopsis tying it all together at the conclusion. 

I believe the revision is stronger based on your review although I am unable to respond to your research and methods questions - given the type of article this is.

Thank you.     

Reviewer 2 Report

This article makes a good contribution to debates about new ways of engaging and supporting refugees and forced migrants. Maybe some more recent academic references could be added, but it makes a good contribution as it stands.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Additional, more recent refences have been added in the revision as per your input.