Financial Anxiety among International Students in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis between International Students in the United States of America and China
, Nicoleta Bărbuță-Mișu 4 and Görkem Deniz 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of this paper is interesting, but there are some shortcomings that need to be improved as follows:
- The hypotheses should be put forward based on the discussions of related theoretical frameworks or substantial prior studies. It is not an academic style to list them one by one without adequate literature surveys.
- The section of the literature review should focus on the survey of previous studies, and related data analysis may be put in the section of methodology or the like.
- The expressions of equations are not appropriate, the subscripts should be different from the letters of related variables.
- The selection of control variables is lack full support of literature. This paper just simply listed series control variables and discussed nothing about them.
- As for the data description, the minimum, maximum, and standard deviation values should be reported to be consistent with the general academic norm.
- The regression results should be carefully checked, since there may be some mistakes. For instance, the significant level of “home investment from studentship package” is incorrect, since the p-value is 0.02 but its significant level is 1%.
- With regard to empirical analysis, the authors are strongly recommended to conduct heterogeneity discussions, which is positive to produce robust and accurate estimation results.
- This paper needs serious proofreading because it has many surface errors and grammar errors. Just taking abstract for example:
(1) “…in USA and Mainland China” should be revised as “… in the USA and Mainland China”.
(2) “…a negative life satisfaction toward financial behaviour exist in…” should be revised as “…a negative life satisfaction toward financial behaviour exists in…”.
(3) The word “exist” is an intransitive verb, so it cannot be directly followed by a noun word.
Author Response
|
Reviewer 1 |
No. |
Query |
Responses |
|
|
1 |
The hypotheses should be put forward based on the discussions of related theoretical frameworks or substantial prior studies. It is not an academic style to list them one by one without adequate literature surveys |
Corrected |
|
|
2 |
The expressions of equations are not appropriate, the subscripts should be different from the letters of related variables. |
Corrected |
|
|
3 |
The selection of control variables is lack full support of literature. This paper just simply listed series control variables and discussed nothing about them. |
The control variables presented have direct link with the RAM model and/or conceptual framework (as per attached literature). Significantly, the composition of the control variables based on the model are clearly explained under “page 5” in relation to the four key composition of the model. |
|
|
4 |
As for the data description, the minimum, maximum, and standard deviation values should be reported to be consistent with the general academic norm. |
Corrected (see Appendices) |
|
|
5 |
The regression results should be carefully checked, since there may be some mistakes. For instance, the significant level of “home investment from studentship package” is incorrect, since the p-value is 0.02 but its significant level is 1%. |
Typo Error (Corrected: Value under 5% (≤ 0.5/**) Level of Significance.
Per the present study, the Level of Significance varies from 1% (≤ 0.01/***), 5% (≤ 0.5/**) and 10% (≤ /0.1*) respectively. So: For instance, the significant level of “home investment from studentship package” is correct, since the p-value is 0.02 and its significant level falls below 5% (≤ 0.5/**). |
|
|
6 |
With regard to empirical analysis, the authors are strongly recommended to conduct heterogeneity discussions, which is positive to produce robust and accurate estimation results. |
Done (for instance: using ANOVA to test variance among the mean values and also, perform some hypothetical test to help make inferences about the properties of an entire population. (see Appendices)
|
|
|
7 |
This paper needs serious proofreading because it has many surface errors and grammar errors. Just taking abstract for example: (1) “…in USA and Mainland China” should be revised as “… in the USA and Mainland China”. (2) “…a negative life satisfaction toward financial behaviour exist in…” should be revised as “…a negative life satisfaction toward financial behaviour exists in…”. (3) The word “exist” is an intransitive verb, so it cannot be directly followed by a noun word.
|
The paper has been proofread and edited to correct all the grammatical errors. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
A clearer justification of the purpose and objectives of the study is needed.
The sample of respondents is not justified. Their number.
Recommendations are not recommendations. These are all known facts
There is no justification why the USA and China are chosen. Two countries in which the education system is initially different.
The findings do not make it possible to understand why the study was conducted at all. Not an evidence based.
The conclusion does not make it possible to determine the value and path of other research in this direction
Author Response
|
Reviewer 2 |
1 |
The critical finding is reasonable to me. But where does this paper stand in the literature? I noticed that authors made thorough literature review. I still would like to see more details about how and why this research is significant or important. |
Added |
|
|
2 |
Is equation (1) defined by authors? I did not see any citation regarding this model. In line 245, why γat is a latent variable? To me, it is the product of three variables. And what is γ? Please clearly define the variable. In line 248, \beta1 is not the vector of estimated parameters. It is the parameter. \beta1 hat is the estimated one. In same line, what is \mu? |
Corrected |
|
|
3 |
Since you introduced your models, why not be explicit about the probit model? In other words, please put the probit model in the paper. |
Included (see Equation 1) |
|
|
4 |
In table 1, are these independent variables all continuous? How did you quantify them? It is vague to readers what does the value of the independent variable stand for. |
Explained (page 10) The independent variables were quantified using SPSS. Each variable was coded numerically and then, input into the software. And then, regression output generated. |
|
|
5 |
Please fix all the figures, e.g. Figure 4, please remove these wave lines and correct typo. |
Corrected |
|
|
6 |
Please align up the materials/items in tables and figures, which looks unprofessional. |
Corrected |
|
|
7 |
Please fix all subscripts in the model. |
Corrected |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study is to investigate the financial anxiety on international students in USA and China. The survey data are collected electronically through wechat platform. Students who answered the surveys are mostly bachelor and master students in their second year. The data are analyzed by a so-called random effect ordered probit model. The conclusion is more international students in China are under financial anxiety than their peers in USA.
I admit the paper is interesting to readers. But I do have several concerns may need the authors to clarify or revise in the manuscript to improve the quality.
- The critical finding is reasonable to me. But where does this paper stand in the literature? I noticed that authors made thorough literature review. I still would like to see more details about how and why this research is significant or important.
- Is equation (1) defined by authors? I did not see any citation regarding this model. In line 245, why γat is a latent variable? To me, it is the product of three variables. And what is γ? Please clearly define the variable. In line 248, \beta1 is not the vector of estimated parameters. It is the parameter. \beta1 hat is the estimated one. In same line, what is \mu?
- Since you introduced your models, why not be explicit about the probit model? In other words, please put the probit model in the paper.
- In table 1, are these independent variables all continuous? How did you quantify them? It is vague to readers what does the value of the independent variable stand for.
- Please fix all the figures, e.g. Figure 4, please remove these wave lines and correct typo.
- Please align up the materials/items in tables and figures, which looks unprofessional.
- Please fix all subscripts in the model.
Author Response
|
Reviewer3 |
1 |
The critical finding is reasonable to me. But where does this paper stand in the literature? I noticed that authors made thorough literature review. I still would like to see more details about how and why this research is significant or important. |
Added |
|
|
2 |
Is equation (1) defined by authors? I did not see any citation regarding this model. In line 245, why γat is a latent variable? To me, it is the product of three variables. And what is γ? Please clearly define the variable. In line 248, \beta1 is not the vector of estimated parameters. It is the parameter. \beta1 hat is the estimated one. In same line, what is \mu? |
Corrected |
|
|
3 |
Since you introduced your models, why not be explicit about the probit model? In other words, please put the probit model in the paper. |
Included (see Equation 1) |
|
|
4 |
In table 1, are these independent variables all continuous? How did you quantify them? It is vague to readers what does the value of the independent variable stand for. |
Explained (page 10) The independent variables were quantified using SPSS. Each variable was coded numerically and then, input into the software. And then, regression output generated. |
|
|
5 |
Please fix all the figures, e.g. Figure 4, please remove these wave lines and correct typo. |
Corrected |
|
|
6 |
Please align up the materials/items in tables and figures, which looks unprofessional. |
Corrected |
|
|
7 |
Please fix all subscripts in the model. |
Corrected |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the authors reported that most of the mentioned places in the review comments had been revised, there was no significant improvement after careful reading of the revised manuscript. First, the serious concern about hypotheses has not been covered. Second, the adequacy of control variables needs to be discussed. Third, there are still some mistakes in Table 2. Finally, the heterogeneity is needed to be taken into account.
Reviewer 2 Report
the authors accept the recommendations. the article can be published
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no further comment.
