Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I modified the final version of the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions received. Thank you for the very helpful recommendations for improving the quality of my article.

                                                                                   Viorica Cristina Cormoș

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors present a clear mastery of how to work on the subject. However, we believe that important aspects should be reviewed

1) Objectives are presented in diferent ways in “Abstract” and in “Research Method”. First it seems that authors have work about three notions:  mentality ( self-image and self-esteem), life style and identity. Nevertheless, the objectives are around 5 aspects.

2) the theoretical framework should be expanded.

- It would be convenient to develop with greater precision the concepts addressed in the field work and to update the bibliography. It is not easy, taking into account that text talk about several concepts and all of them are important in the study. For example, when authors talk about integration from the perspective of the host society -a very studied topic-, it is hardly developed only with one reference. And, in addition, this reference does not appear clearly either 1986/1988? “(16). Lisievici-Brezeanu, Ana-Rodica. 1986. L'interaction des facteurs demografiques, economiques et sociaux dans les effets et consequences des migrations internationals. Paris. apud Chelcea, Septimiu (coord.). 1998. Social Memory and National Identity, I.N.I. Bucharest Publishing House, p: 11” 

- Some aspectes tracted on “Discussions” are theoretical frame that has not been explained before. 

- It would be useful to explain when they are general ideas and when they are aspects related to Romania.

3) Methodology: Authors explain: “This study was applied on a sample of 30 people who emigrated abroad, 6 male and 24 female” and “We made a selection from the interviews conducted, highlighting the most relevant information about individual changes in identity”. It would be necessary some explanations about the high number of female in the sample and about what criteria have been aplicated to consider information as “the most relevant”.

4) Presentation of the results.

-In some way, the problems related to theoretical framework affect to results, which are more descriptive and do not establish any relation with theory.

-It would be useful to use demographic variables (such as gender, job, studies,….) to explain perceptions and opinions of the sample. In the way authors have worked does not help to understand the social factors involved. 

5) the structure of the text should be improved and, in this sense, we make the following proposals.

- “2.1. Conceptual delimitations: individual identity changes as a result of migration” could be “2.”. (including: 2.1. Migrant and identity change; 2. 2. Integration process in the destination area; 2.3. Adaptation and assimilation to integration).

- “2.2. “Research method” could be “3.”

- “2.3. Results”  could be “4.”

6) In general, the bibliography used does not include recent works. It is recommended to update it. This problem is seen in several points. For example, in “Introduction” (1998, 1978, 1981, 2005 y 1986) and in “Conceptual delimitations” (1984, 1997. 2003. 2006)

Author Response

I modified the final version of the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions received. Thank you for the very helpful recommendations for improving the quality of my article.

                                                                                     Viorica-Cristina Cormoș

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review this interesting manuscript. Overall, this manuscript is really well-written and easy to comprehend. I have a few minor suggestions for the authors' consideration.

1. The conclusion section does not seem like a conclusion. This deserves better organization. 

2. The figure is great, but short of good resolution.

 

Author Response

I modified the final version of the manuscript according to the suggestion received. Thank you to the very helpful recommendations for improving the quality of my article. 

                                                                           Viorica Cristina Cormoș

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations. The text is very interesting and it has been improved. Nevertheless, as consequence of the changes, it is necessary a new revision. 

Please review "Manuscript Preparation" (given by MDPI): For example, the abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.

It is necessary to review the text. For example, in page 17: "All these changes are reflected and reflected"

And some times it sounds repetitive. Text is very clear, but some times it is more didactic than it is needed. For example, it is not necessary repeat objectives in "discussion".

About "3.2. Results" (probably it is the section that needs more attention):It is divided in three parts: (1) Interview survey: "Individual identity changes due to migration", (2) Table (3) Explanatory dimensions of identity change through identity-migration theory. Firstable, we have to take into account that "identity-migration theory" is also tractet in (1), not only in (3). This section seems desestructurated. I think It would be better to give it more connexion. First, (1) i (2) can be interconnected, for example when author talks about T1 she can introduce here all related to T1 (and the same with T2, T3,...). Second, (3) gives a global vision of the changes, it can be the first point inside these section.

But "discussions" and "conclusions" need to be reviewd too. Conclusions are now very extensive and tracted in details, when here it is better to give global idees.  I think author should think better wich idees wants to explain in each point in order to tracted both in diferent ways and given only global idees. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions to improve the article. They are very useful to me now, but also in the future when writing other articles in your volume. I mention the revised ones: 

• The summary was reorganized and brought to 244 words;
• The text has been revised and the necessary changes have been made where spelling/ wording mistakes have been identified;
• I have reorganized the ”Results” Section;
• I simplified the content of the ”Discussions” Section and reformulated the ”Conclusions” Section with conclusive and more general ideas.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf