Dynamic Coordination of Internal Displacement: Return and Integration Cases in Ukraine and Georgia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While there is a great need for analysis of internal displacement and human migration patterns and factors, I am uncertain whether this journal is the proper venue for such a paper. If it was focused on displacement and migrations caused from resource depletions or climate change I could see a greater connection; however, the cases discussed in this paper are specific to military and political conflict and there is no analysis of resource-path dependence or other larger environmental and social well-being factors. If this sort of analysis could be incorporated into the paper somehow it would be a much better fit for Sustainability. In addition, because of the poor writing and improper use of English language, or the fact that some ideas may just be lost in translation, I had a very hard time reading the paper and even assessing the scientific soundness of the content. I would recommend having someone who can translate more accurately rewrite the paper and resubmit to a more appropriate journal. 

Author Response

Пункт 1: Если бы он был сосредоточен на перемещениях и миграциях, вызванных истощением ресурсов или изменением климата, я мог бы видеть большую связь; тем не менее, случаи, обсуждаемые в этом документе, относятся к военным и политическим конфликтам, и нет анализа зависимости от ресурсов или других более значительных факторов экологического и социального благополучия. Если бы этот вид анализа можно было как-то включить в статью, это было бы намного лучше для устойчивости.

Ответ 1: 

(1) Был проведен краткий анализ предыдущего внутреннего перемещения в Украине, вызванного аварией на Чернобыльской АЭС , чтобы сравнить переселение в контексте техногенной катастрофы и вооруженного конфликта: 178-195 (2) В Заключении кратко изложена связь между проблемой, описанной в статье, и Целями в области устойчивого развития для Украины (G16, T 16.8, 16.9): 539-542.

Добавленные ссылки: 33-37 (Чернобыль), 86 (Цели в области устойчивого развития)

Пункт 2:  Кроме того, из-за плохого письма и неправильного использования английского языка или того факта, что некоторые идеи могут быть просто потеряны при переводе, мне было очень трудно читать газету и даже оценивать научную обоснованность содержания. 

Ответ 2:  последняя версия статьи с возможностью отслеживать изменения языка / стиля.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

There is a lot of good content here, and the article is very well documented in previous research. The English is “good” but needs some fine tuning throughout the article. I will not be able to comment here on specific errors, but they pertain not so much to grammar (though there are a small handful of grammatical errors), but to higher-level English usage such as use of specific prepositions with phrases and use of article (always confusing in English!).

Beyond this, I have two major recommendations for the manuscript:

• The first, an easier task, deals not with grammar of writing but of style. Three things work against the style and overall comprehensibility of the article. In terms of importance, the most important is to define many more of the terms as they appear. I will give some examples in page-by-page notes.
• The second is to clear up some constructions that are grammatically correct in English, but unclear.
  • Some of these relate to use of noun phrases that are grammatically correct but more difficult to process in English. Just one example appears lines 418ff, where “payments cessation, status registration change, post-conflict reconciliation and reintegration actualized” would read more clearly as “cessation of payments, change in registration, and reconciliation of conflict, and actualization of reintegration” (I will include a couple more examples in my notes).
  • Other unclear phrases pertain to actions that are done where the “agent” or doer of the action is unclear (see some examples in notes).
• The third aspect pertains to a tendency toward very long sentences. In sum, these three things work against the clarity of the article.

The second, more serious issue is that, by the end of the article, I’m still not quite sure what the article intended to do. For example, it is unclear if the final “suggested internal displacement patterns” refers to a framework, based on the past literature, that the authors are suggesting for future researchers, or if these are policy suggestions that the authors are making for dealing with IDPs. I think, based on the writing/style issues above, the purpose was unclear to me.

So, my main recommendation is a more straightforward writing style that lays out clearly definitions of terms, frameworks to frame ideas (e.g., “metastability,” a term used several times, is never defined), and so on, with a clearer statement of goal of article.

All that being said, it seems that the idea of considering how countries deal with internal migrants is a very vital topic for today. For that reason, I do hope this manuscript sees publication somewhere.

LINE-BY-LINE COMMENTS

Here I will give some line-by-line comments, but I will not note all of the comments I had or wrote on the MS as I was reading.

• 28: . . have: match to singular noun
• 28, 32: lasting from X to Y (delete “and then” on 29 and “”and” on 32). Generally, “from X to Y” includes only two noun clauses—X and Y
• 35: “up to”à “according to”
• 36: “still keep” à “have remained”
• 40: International Organization Migration (IOM) reports—capitalize all words; make verb singular
• 41: delete “internally displaced persons” as you identify it in paragraph above as IDP
• 41-2: “the exact pool of the displaced individuals remains not distinguished properly”: unusual wording.
• Okay—this was to provide an idea of the sorts of littler changes that I found to make throughout the manuscript. I will now try to focus on larger issues.
• 44: GCA: What is this? (I don’t think I saw it defined above). Same with NCGA (line 48)
• 54: hybrid war: What’s a “hybrid war”?
• 64: geophilosophical perspective: What is this perspective?
• 64: “have been studied by Bazaluk”—what did Bazaluk have to say about it?
• 73: “super-diversity”: What is super-diversity? Hybrid internal displacement? Communities apprehension? Social anchoring and unanchrogin? Discoursive (or “discursive”) impact? Narratives-centered character (do you mean “narrative-centered,” and how is it “narrative-centered”?)
• 93: “equilibrium system”: What is an “equilibrium system”? Will you be using a systems perspective (since later you also mention—but do not define—schismogenesis). General systems theory, cybernetics, or some other approach? I recommend introducing the systems approach directly. At the same time, what are “coordination dynamics” (91), system recovery (94), and restructured community (93)? My key recommendation here is to outline the theory in a clear, but brief manner, as if writing to nonspecialists. As I read the manuscript now, as a social scientist in communication (who does a lot of reading about cross-cultural adjustment), I really did not know much of the jargon. If Sustainability is a journal primarily about this sort of topic, then you may not need to define terms as you go, because the average reader will know what the terms mean—but if you want the article to have more accessibility (especially to scholars who might be reading in a second or third language), I recommend outlining and explaining any conceptual framework more clearly.
• 95: “neurophysiology”? There are notes here and there (e.g., a reference to decision-making at the “neural level,” line 197) regarding biology but their connection to IDPs and their adjustment/status, etc. are not outlined. If there is a biological connection here, explain it clearly (with evidence).
• 3: “integration,” “two-way mutual accommodation” “multistability,” “metastability,” “super-diversity.” I am not sure multi- and metastability or “super diversity” are defined anywhere in the manuscript. Consider introducing directly the framework of ways that societies might deal with IDPs, including clear defs of terms you will use below in the manuscript.
• 3: “weighing benefits and strains”—who is doing this weighing—scholars who study internal displacement, societal leaders where the IDPs reside, or the IDPs themselves? “the claim for migrants’ contribution”—who is making this claim?
• 115: “intercultural” to “intracultural”: Since many intercultural scholars have ceased to think of nations as cultures, it is possible that “intercultural” displacement could occur within a nation. Perhaps use “cross-national” to “intra-nation”?
• 135: “embedding” and “anchoring”: what are these? (Also, what is “belonging gradation”?). While it might seem to simplify ideas *too* much, I would even introduce and define the notions of reintegration and reterritorialization.
• 162: NIMBY: Move definition of acronym from later in paper to here
• 164: “the positive-negative shift in the Russian communities: What is this? What also are “coordination dynamics” and “dynamic phases” (190) and “hybrid IDPs” (209). Ah--*here* you do define metastability.
• 5: Also note here a tendency to very long sentences. Lines 174-180 contain a sentence that is 82 words long (unless I actually to the final sentence period, which occurs on line 189, after 172 words). A 172-word sentence is difficult to decipher clearly, even for the best of English readers. As far as I can tell, the next sentence begisn on line 190 and ends on line 219. I did not count the words…
• 225: Here and in some other places, semi-colons are used when commas are needed. As I understand it, a rule for comma usage within lists is to use commas between list items unless any single item has a comma; then use a semi-colon. Also, in lists, items in the list should have the same grammatical structure (see lines 321-327: the hybrid impact (noun phrase), acknowledgment (noun phrase), and vetoing discussions (gerund clause: Fix by adding “of”—vetoing of discussions. Also, lines 336-339.
• 225: However, this paragraph (220-227) and much of this page is much clearer in outlining key ideas and findings.
• 272: “by the exclusionary claims”: which exclusionary claims? This could be simply a question of deleting definite article “the,” though what is meant by “exclusionary claims” is still not clear (what are they. And who is making them?). 276: “The situation changed on adoption of the national strategy”—who adopted it? 277: “was considered the solution compatible”—who considered the decision to be compatible”? 288: “refusal to register”—who is refusing to register, and what are they refusing to register for? 301: “In demands of the session participants to stop [conducting] illegitimate polls.” So, the participants are demanding that someone stop conducting illegitimate polls? This set of issues highlights my point that often grammar is clear, but the meaning of who does what is not.
• 342: “on the axiological level”—I usually associate axiology with the study or philosophy of values; I was not sure what “metastability” at the “axiological level” meant.
• 377-378: “showed reverse dynamics in attitude towards the IDPs”—I wasn’t sure what you meant.
• 398-401: A nice final point.
• 437ff: Clarify what you mean by “suggested”—is this a framework that you feel best represents what Russia is doing in the Georgia case, so you are “suggesting” it as a framework to describe the case, or are you “suggesting” it as an approach for people who work in development IDPs? Or… is someone else suggesting it?

Please note that most of the issues I found pertain to clarity. I cannot speak well to the literature review, as this is not my area, though within communication research, Young Yun Kim has introduced a model of individual-level adjustment that uses a systems perspective. Perhaps more importantly for your paper, Sam and Berry (following the work of John Berry) introduce a model of sojourner/ethnic cultural relationship to the dominant culture that you might find helpful (citation below). Speaking not just for a person , but for a group, a group can work towards biculturality, assimilation to the dominant culture, reinforcement of culture of origin, or, failing to maintain original culture OR assimilate to the dominant culture, may find themselves becoming “marginal.” Sam and Berry extend this model to discuss that how the sojourner/traveler/ethnic minority (or, in this case, IDP) responds may relate in part to how the dominant culture treats the culture: Do they encourage cultural pluralism or assimilation (useful ideas for the paper, even if you don’t cite Berry)—or do they simply reject the sojourners, denying their existence or wishing not to have them as a part of the culture.

With all that said, I *liked* the main content of the MS as a specific case study and think it could, with greater clarity of writing, make a great contribution to the discipline.

Sam and Berry: This link will give you a citation: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240286013_Acculturation_When_Individuals_and_Groups_of_Different_Cultural_Backgrounds_Meet

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Much improved. Adding the definitions of terms and tying the cases and conclusions into other cases such as Chernobyl and the SDGs really made a difference. There is still room for improvement with the English language usage. It is improved as well, but there is some awkward phrasing/wording that the editors should work with the authors to clarify.