Exploring Returnee Migrant Women, COVID-19 and Sustainability in Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of this article is interesting and quite relevant. It is trying to address the situation of returnees after a self-initiated expatriation. This is a group that may face an issue of shallow networks and community bindings, either in their former country of expatriation or in their returning country. And additionally, they may suffer from the obsolescence of their skillset, making reintegration a real challenge. This may be compounded for women and especially single-mother households.
But the article suffers from fundamental flaws that should be addressed in order to gain impact. The style should be much more concise and to the point. You embark on digressions that blur personal opinions and scientific facts and evidence. The treatment of immigration should not be generic and address the point of returnees more clearly and directly.
The second concern is about the methodology. You have interviewed 10 persons, but we cannot get from your methodology what you could extract from these interviews, beyond the fact that some statements from the interviewees could support your personal opinions.
Finally, it is not clear from your conclusions what could/should be recommended so that the situation of returnees can be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your comments, they helped me to improve my paper in the best way.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Structure ana methodology
- The methodology is not clear, “multidimensional perspective” or “qualitative method” are not clarified?
- The structure of the piece is repeated twice
- The methodology was mentioned in the 6th section while it should have been explained in the introuction
Theme and content
- The introduction does not provide a clear argument of what the piece is going to investigate, is it the “narrative” of women migrants? Does that mean the piece will examine literary production? Or personal experiences?
- The lines / sentences from 26 to 34 do not provide the right background for the statement “In this context, migratory trajectories and mobilities of women with highly educational level are undertheorized”
- Lines 65-73 do not provide a well-developed information about how migrated women were negatively influenced by COVID-19
- What are the backgrounds of these migrant women in Spain? Why did they migrate? Which areas of Spain? The only information is that they have high qualifications
Language and cohesion
- The hook should be more clarified with no grammatical mistakes, these sentences should be rewritten: “transforming people on the move patterns, including the return in their trajectories and worsening the reintegration processes in returnees. Therefore, today is urgent to find sustainable strategies 8 in human mobility, involving different actors at multilevel landscape.”
- What are the “separate discourse” referred to in line 30?
- The lines / sentences from 26 to 34 do not provide the right background for the statement “In this context, migratory trajectories and mobilities of women with highly educational level are undertheorized”
- Lines 100-102 are not clear. There are other occasions where the langugae does not correctly communicate
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your comments, they helped me to improve so much my paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some clear improvements of the text. But the revision is difficult to complete, the revisions of the original text are not apparent.
As the data basis is rather shallow, the conclusions would have a better impact if they would highlight a gap in research and propose some directions for further research, but articulating assertive conclusions based on the interview of 10 persons, without indications on representativity, is probably a scientific stretch.
My recommendation would be to:
- polish the conclusions,
- revisit the style of the text, as there are still some errors in it,
In a time of expanding migrations, such an article can be a contribution to better understanding the pitfalls and investigating mitigation solutions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, sorry but I made an error in uploading the previous version with English native changes.
Moreover, I tried to report and reflect these arguments in the conclusions in yellow to show better the modifications provided. Thank you very much for your feedback, because it was very timely, meaningful and suitable to a better manifestation and visibility of the issues raised in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
