The Decision-Making Process in Access Paths to Master’s Degree Studies: The Case of International Students in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your valuable contribution and article.
This article is not original per se, but the context, the field of study and the specific target groups make it original.

Attached are some points that should be addressed.
The introduction is very well written and presents the literature review on international students very well. However, more attention should be paid to the Spanish/Catalan context, as many of the studies cited are from English-speaking countries. It was difficult to understand which studies were conducted in Spain, for example. Furthermore, it is not clear why students from Latin America and the Caribbean prefer Spain and what their career opportunities are once they have completed their Master's degree. The studies presented could be enriched with more information on the local context.
2. materials and methods
Comparing the two groups also offers greater potential for valuable conclusions. In particular, the field of study designated as social sciences is too unspecific. Therefore, the discussion and analysis is too unclear in terms of the scope of the study. For example, what types of 'research degrees' are meant? Are they first year, second, etc.? Why is this study relevant?

Methods
Why, for example, was the item " PhD access" included in L 212? To what extent was this item irrelevant?
I think that Section 2. Materials and Methods might fit better as a section without headings, as there are sometimes only 1-2 paragraphs per heading. But this is up to the aothors. Nevertheless, the information could be better structured and presented. At the beginning, when the number of the Master Degrees are presented, information on the target groups can also be included- type of study (for instance, professional degree like for instance x, research degree as x,y. Age, year of study, etc.
Figure 1 is also not very meaningful, as dimensions 1 and 2 are missing, as well as the comparison to the target groups. So it is only an illustration without much significance that can be eventually taken out.
The results section is more of a description, as it sometimes lacks depth in relating to the data. How relevant is the economic/labour market context for obtaining a Master's degree, especially for Spanish students, for example?

Conclusions: L402-408 are assumptions by the authors, as the data presented do not support their statement. As the authors have already mentioned, the study does not say much about  the motives for taking up a Master's degree at two state universities in Barcelona and a qualitative study is needed. Nevethereless, how are the motives related to the political, social, educational and economic context/policy in Spain? How accessible and absorbing is the labour market? Do they stay in Spain or move on (international students)? What is the employment rate of university students in Spain? What types of professions are there? etc. Relevant information and much more.

thank you so much for your contribution and good luck

Author Response

We appreciate your time and valuable input.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe that this study could be of interest to the journal, but it does require some improvement. First, the introduction section traces a good context around the topic of the study. However, while providing relevant information, I do not see the real contribution of this study to the literature. I can see that before the end of the section authors clarified the aim, but I would like to see further explanation by linking with prior studies gaps and controversies. Also, a structure reminder could be useful to help the reader understand the paper structure.

Furthermore, the methodology is well written, but some more information on the adopted framework could be useful. For instance, how master’s degree classification was done? Did you consider an external classification framework?

Concerning conclusions, what I already suggested in the introduction is applicable. Specifically, study conclusions are very descriptive and do not effectively point out how this article will contribute to the field. Also, implications are briefly described but limitations or indications for future research are not present. Please improve the section.

Author Response

We appreciate your time and valuable input.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The text addresses a theme that, although not innovative, complements and adds new data to a problem that is important for higher education institutions.

The theoretical framework and research support is solid and adequate.

The methodology is sound. The quantitative methods used are consistent and guarantee the reliability of the investigation.

Nevertheless, the research hypotheses (from lines 177 to 184) should be exposed in a more affirmative and assertive way.

Moreover, throughout the text, some ideas and viewpoints are presented without the correct reference to their authors’ names; instead, the number of the bibliographic reference is indicated.

The use of this method is advisable and appropriate when an idea, point of view or approach are referred to and at the end the bibliographic sources used are pointed out. However, starting sentences or replacing the name of the author/authors with a number is not advisable and makes it impossible to read the text sequentially and clearly. This aspect must be corrected. Just a few examples taken only from page 4:

line 157: “to Spain, as [50] found.”

Line 168: “Studies by [25] and [26]…”

Line 173: “…degree. [19,21] identified an even…”

Author Response

We appreciate your time and valuable input.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf