Should I Stay or Should I Go? Mapping the Key Drivers of Skilled Migration Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Methodology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of manuscript entitled “ Should I Stay or Should I Go? Mapping the Key Drivers of Skilled Migration using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Methodology.”

 

This manuscript addresses the driving factors behind skilled migration. It presents research that is of valuable interest to the Journal’s readership and could compellingly contribute to the fields of sociology, economics, and intercultural studies for how it can inform policy. Nevertheless, there are substantial flaws that need to be addressed to make this work suitable for publication. I summarise the primary concerns below and have also added in-text comments to help the author(s) revise their work.

 

The most critical issue lies in the lack of statistical power. The sample of participants is exceptionally small and the overall understanding is that data was uniquely gathered via quantitative methods (this should be clarified, too). The small sample size considerably limits the generalizability of the findings and undermines the overall validity of the conclusions. Controlling for some sociodemographic and socioeconomic variables is essential to provide a solid empirical base for informing policies aimed at mitigating brain drain. This is particularly important given that the relevance of the evaluated criteria may vary across different migration contexts. For example, long-term immigrants – those who have spent 30 or 40 years abroad, may not prioritize the same factors as recent migrants. Along the same line, visa-related issues were not considered. EU vs USA are very different types of immigration flows that encounter very different challenges.

 

Another major concern is complete absence of a proper description of the study design and participant sampling. How were the data collected, and what was the rationale for the chosen methods? Were there any inclusion or exclusion criteria? Why was such a heterogeneous sample used, and how is it justified given that it is not representative of the Turkish population? Were participants interviewed, involved in a focus group, or simply asked to complete a survey?

 

I highlight more points of concern and lack of clarity regarding method and analysis in the text.

 

The author(s) should also take into consideration literature that explored other factors such as the role of language and politics of immigration. I suggested a few sources.

 

Lastly, it was surprising to see that the study did not include any supplementary materials and was not pre-registered.

 

In its current form, this manuscript lacks the level of scientific rigor expected for publication. I was expecting a stronger focus on participants’ own interpretation of these criteria instead of generalized conclusion on a sample of 16 individuals. If the design involves qualitative data, I invite the author(s) to incorporate them more directly into the analysis. If, instead, this study was uniquely based on survey data, I recommend gathering a substantially larger and more representative sample before resubmitting.

 

Thank you for the opportunity of revising this insightful research.

 

Abstract

The abstract is clear but is missing crucial information about the participant sample.

 

Introduction

The introduction is very well-written and makes use of good resources to provide the reader a clear understanding of the phenomenon studied here and the methodologies.

 

I noted a few major flaws: the lack of information about participant sampling, the lack of critical definition of the “push and pull framework”, and the lack of specificity within the scope of RQ1.

 

Sampling techniques should have been mentioned with the research questions.

 

Other minor comments are included in the text to facilitate the review process.

 

Push and Pull factors

This section is overall informative and the links with literature and theories are well argued. Yet, there are a few flaws. I suggest briefly introducing the “push and pull” factors dynamics earlier in the text, so to equip the reader with the right tools to navigate this section.

 

Regarding the “Education sub-section” – I suggest including information about the so-to-say prestige of certain institutions in certain countries (EU, UK, US). Having a degree from a prestigious institution often opens doors to employment security, high salary, and more – at least in the eyes of potential emigrants. This is often the case of Asian countries, for example, that provide substantial scholarships to their citizens to pursue a degree in Europe, UK, or US in exchange for post-degree work in the home country, often measured based on the number of years they spent training abroad. 

 

I have also noticed the lack of attention to language. Moving to a country that is linguistically diverse or where the local language is considered "a prestigious language" or a known language is a great pull factor when it comes to deciding a destination, for example. I suggested some relevant literature in the text.

 

The review of previous studies is rich, but not so well-developed. Often, information about participant sampling and techniques used is missing.

 

Preliminaries

The description of the method used is clear, but the description of the study design and participant sampling is completely missing. The reader does not know whether the data was collected via interviews – and what type of interviews, or a focus groups, or if it was a mix of qualitative (narratives) and quantitative (survey) analyses. Also, it’s unclear what the inclusion and exclusion criteria were and how participants were selected.

 

Table 2 contains indefinite information, and a full participant profile section is missing. Some factors can be crucial to understand the data. For example, did these participants uniquely immigrated to one country abroad or moved elsewhere? Did they know the language before-hand? Did they move before completing education? At what age? What was their general SES? Was there any refugee?

 

Results

I struggle to find information about the statistical significance of the analysis conducted. The sample is so small that seems to have no statistical power to conduct any analysis, so some explanations are needed.  

 

If the data was collected in a quantitative way, i.e., by asking participants to order these criteria from significant to less significant - why collecting data only from 16 participants? Where these criteria explained to them or did participants have the chance to discuss them or motivate their decision?

 

Discussion

The discussion section offers some valuable reflections on the potential implications of the findings and associated policy considerations; however, it lacks sufficient depth. The author(s) do(es) not provide a detailed analysis of the results, nor do they adequately relate their findings to the literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript. For instance, the discussion would benefit from examining the criteria that received lower ratings, in addition to those that were highly rated, as this could offer further insight into the decision-making processes of skilled migrants.

Furthermore, the sample size is too limited to support any meaningful in-depth analysis, especially without controlling for key variables such as age, socioeconomic status, and professional field. Including these would have enhanced the interpretability of the data, particularly given that the salience of different criteria is likely to vary depending on broader contextual factors. For example, individuals who have lived abroad for several decades may not evaluate these criteria in the same way as recent migrants. In addition, the author(s) do(es) not address visa-related considerations, which are essential for understanding differences across migration. Immigration pathways in the European Union, European Economic Area/United Kingdom (especially in the context of pre- vs. post-Brexit), and the United States involve different challenges that shape migrants’ experiences and decision-making processes in different ways. These contextual differences must be acknowledged to accurately understand the findings.

If the data was collected via a survey, i.e., by asking participants to order these criteria from significant to less significant - why collecting data from 16 participants only? Why not using Census data?

 

Where the criteria explained to them or did they have the chance to discuss them or motivate their decision?

 

I was also expecting the criteria to be ordered by weight vs their general category. For example, there is a difference between E1 and E3 – perhaps this can inform policy to counter brain drain?

 

Conclusions, limitations and further research directions 442

It is hard for the reader to evaluate these findings because the criteria are not clearly stated in the text, nor in the Supplements.

 

Overall, the sense is that this analysis is not valuable because lacks statistical power and more in-depth analysis (i.e., SES, migration trajectory, age of immigration, etc). More homogeneous samples of different types of immigrants should have been used to target specific push/pull factors (i.e., difficulty getting a visa/sponsor, for example).

 

Another limitation is the uncertainty of how participants interpreted these criteria. Did they motivate their decision? Future studies should consider employ a mixed method design.

Note: the in-text comments are attached to this review

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 We sincerely appreciate your careful and thorough review of this paper, as well as your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which greatly help improve the quality of this work. All revisions are outlined below, and the changes made to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

 

Abstract

Comment 1: The abstract is clear but is missing crucial information about the participant sample.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. So, we added a brief information as shown below. (Lines 10-12)

Drawing on opinions from sixteen Turkish emigrants currently residing abroad, the study captures firsthand perspectives on the structural factors influencing their migration decisions.

 

Introduction

The introduction is very well-written and makes use of good resources to provide the reader a clear understanding of the phenomenon studied here and the methodologies.

Comment 2: I noted a few major flaws: the lack of information about participant sampling, the lack of critical definition of the “push and pull framework”, and the lack of specificity within the scope of RQ1.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. So, we added a brief information as shown below (Lines 38-40; 43-47; 135)

 

A widely used framework to explain the dynamics of brain drain is the push–pull model, which distinguishes between structural factors that drive individuals away from their home countries and those that attract them to specific destinations.

Push factors include unfavorable domestic conditions such as unemployment, wage stagnation, or political instability, while pull factors refer to opportunities abroad, including higher standards of living, career-related opportunities and language skills [12]. These dynamics, amplified by persistent socio-economic challenges at home and the growing accessibility of global labor markets driven by globalization, have encouraged skilled workers to relocate to destinations offering better employment opportunities and career advancement prospects [13].

RQ1: What are the factors affecting Turkish brain drain phenomena?

Comment 3: Sampling techniques should have been mentioned with the research questions.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Sampling technique has been mentioned in Problem Statement section. (Lines 375-378)

 Given the challenges of reaching dispersed, highly skilled immigrants and the of-ten-sensitive nature of this topic, a snowball sampling strategy was employed. While this introduces limitations in terms of representation, the study offers valuable explor-atory findings that can guide future research with more diverse samples.

 

Push and Pull factors

This section is overall informative and the links with literature and theories are well argued. Yet, there are a few flaws.

Comment 4: I suggest briefly introducing the “push and pull” factors dynamics earlier in the text, so to equip the reader with the right tools to navigate this section.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. we added brief information as shown below. (Lines 38-40; 43-49)

A widely used framework to explain the dynamics of brain drain is the push–pull model, which distinguishes between structural factors that drive individuals away from their home countries and those that attract them to specific destinations.

 Push factors include unfavorable domestic conditions such as unemployment, wage stagnation, or political instability, while pull factors refer to opportunities abroad, including higher standards of living, career-related opportunities and language skills [12]. These dynamics, amplified by persistent socio-economic challenges at home and the growing accessibility of global labor markets driven by globalization, have encouraged skilled workers to relocate to destinations offering better employment opportunities and career advancement prospects [13].

 

Comment 5: Regarding the “Education sub-section” – I suggest including information about the so-to-say prestige of certain institutions in certain countries (EU, UK, US). Having a degree from a prestigious institution often opens doors to employment security, high salary, and more – at least in the eyes of potential emigrants. This is often the case of Asian countries, for example, that provide substantial scholarships to their citizens to pursue a degree in Europe, UK, or US in exchange for post-degree work in the home country, often measured based on the number of years they spent training abroad. 

Response 5: We agree with this comment. we added brief information as shown below. (Lines 208-215)

However, the allure of educational excellence internationally —reflected in advanced research ecosystems, global recognition and language skill advancement (E4) also motivates individuals to pursue academic mobility as the reputational advantages of holding a degree from prestigious institutions often enhance employment security and in-come potential in both host and home countries [48]. In this regard, language-related skills is equally crucial for successful adaptation, since the ability to manage emotional experiences in a foreign language is a significant accomplishment [49,50].

Comment 6: I have also noticed the lack of attention to language. Moving to a country that is linguistically diverse or where the local language is considered "a prestigious language" or a known language is a great pull factor when it comes to deciding a destination, for example. I suggested some relevant literature in the text.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added brief information as shown below. (Lines 210-215)

Language skill advancement (E4) also motivates individuals to pursue academic mobility as the reputational advantages of holding a degree from prestigious institutions often enhance employment security and income potential in both host and home countries [48]. In this regard, language-related skills is equally crucial for successful adaptation, since the ability to manage emotional experiences in a foreign language is a significant accomplishment [49,50].  (Lines 210-214)

 Comment 7: The review of previous studies is rich, but not so well-developed. Often, information about participant sampling techniques used is missing.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. An effort has been undertaken to rectify the shortcomings. Several examples are highlighted in yellow within the document (Lines 272, 282, 293,301).

Preliminaries

Comment 8: The description of the method used is clear, but the description of the study design and participant sampling is completely missing. The reader does not know whether the data was collected via interviews – and what type of interviews, or a focus groups, or if it was a mix of qualitative (narratives) and quantitative (survey) analyses. Also, it’s unclear what the inclusion and exclusion criteria were and how participants were selected.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added detailed information in “Problem Statement” section as shown below. (Lines 354-378)

Following the establishment of the criteria, sixteen highly skilled Turkish immigrants (who completed their education in their country), participated in the study be-tween June and December 2024 and assessed their motivations for brain drain based on the aforementioned criteria (Detailed in Appendix A). Although the number of participants is relatively low and respondents are not formal experts, they have direct experience with high-skilled emigration from Turkey. Their perspectives offer valuable insights into the motivational decision-making framework. The main aim of this study is not to generate statistically generalizable findings but rather to demonstrate the relevance of the IF-SWARA method in prioritizing the key factors contributing to brain drain from the perspective of individuals who have experienced it firsthand. Since the participants resided outside the country, individual online interviews were conducted with each participant. They were subsequently able to assess the criteria in accordance with the fuzzy MCDM methodology employed in the study

It is widely acknowledged that fuzzy MCDM methods offer dependable results when resolving issues involving qualitative criteria. Participants articulate their opinions on these criteria using fuzzy linguistic scales, which are subsequently converted into fuzzy numbers to derive solutions. Consequently, it is crucial to highlight that this methodology diverges from studies that collect data via surveys with extensive sample sizes. Comparable to qualitative research, the methodology selected in this study emphasizes the appropriateness of participants for the research rather than concentrating on expanding the participant count.

Given the challenges of reaching dispersed, highly skilled immigrants and the of-ten-sensitive nature of this topic, a snowball sampling strategy was employed. While this introduces limitations in terms of representation, the study offers valuable exploratory findings that can guide future research with more diverse samples.

Comment 9: Table 2 contains indefinite information, and a full participant profile section is missing. Some factors can be crucial to understand the data. For example, did these participants uniquely immigrated to one country abroad or moved elsewhere? Did they know the language before-hand? Did they move before completing education? At what age? What was their general SES? Was there any refugee?

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added brief information as shown below. (Lines 380-383)

These immigrants, who are Turkish citizens, possess at least a bachelor's degree from their home country and are proficient in at least one foreign language, typically English. The study aims to investigate the motivations behind the brain drain experienced by these highly skilled immigrants.

 Results

Comment 10: I struggle to find information about the statistical significance of the analysis conducted. The sample is so small that seems to have no statistical power to conduct any analysis, so some explanations are needed. If the data was collected in a quantitative way, i.e., by asking participants to order these criteria from significant to less significant - why collecting data only from 16 participants? Where these criteria explained to them or did participants have the chance to discuss them or motivate their decision?

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added detailed information in “Problem Statement” section as shown Response 8. (Lines 354-378)

Discussion

Comment 11: The discussion section offers some valuable reflections on the potential implications of the findings and associated policy considerations; however, it lacks sufficient depth. The author(s) do(es) not provide a detailed analysis of the results, nor do they adequately relate their findings to the literature reviewed earlier in the manuscript. For instance, the discussion would benefit from examining the criteria that received lower ratings, in addition to those that were highly rated, as this could offer further insight into the decision-making processes of skilled migrants.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added brief information as shown below (Lines 433-438). Additionally, some results are compared with other papers in related literature.

The twenty-two criteria influencing brain drain phenomena are classified into four primary categories: career, education, governance and politics, and personal motives. Workplace conditions (C2, 0.073), living conditions (P3, 0.067), and academic standards (E1, 0.06) were identified as the top-ranked migration drivers. These results support prior research highlighting economic dissatisfaction, job insecurity, and wage disparities as critical elements in the migration decisions of skilled professionals [4,6,7]. While the emphasis has been placed on top-ranked drivers, the remaining criteria such as social policies (G5, 0.031), scholarships and grants (E3, 0.029) or disaster reliance (G6, 0.029) also offer important insight. However, they were ranked lower by participants. This may reflect the specific profile of our sample, which largely consists of recent emigrants with highly educated and predominantly employed backgrounds.

Comment 12: Furthermore, the sample size is too limited to support any meaningful in-depth analysis, especially without controlling for key variables such as age, socioeconomic status, and professional field. Including these would have enhanced the interpretability of the data, particularly given that the salience of different criteria is likely to vary depending on broader contextual factors. For example, individuals who have lived abroad for several decades may not evaluate these criteria in the same way as recent migrants. In addition, the author(s) do(es) not address visa-related considerations, which are essential for understanding differences across migration. Immigration pathways in the European Union, European Economic Area/United Kingdom (especially in the context of pre- vs. post-Brexit), and the United States involve different challenges that shape migrants’ experiences and decision-making processes in different ways. These contextual differences must be acknowledged to accurately understand the findings.

Response 12: Thank you for your insightful observation. While we concur with your comment, we believe that many of the issues raised cannot be adequately addressed using the current methodology of the study. Our primary objective was to investigate the motivations behind talented individuals leaving their home country and experiencing a brain drain abroad for various reasons. This focus informed our methodological approach, which is appropriate for exploring this particular aspect. The participants in the study settled abroad and continued their lives there; thus, factors such as visa requirements or migration route difficulties were beyond the scope of this research. Certainly, these topics could be explored in future studies to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

Comment 13: If the data was collected via a survey, i.e., by asking participants to order these criteria from significant to less significant - why collecting data from 16 participants only? Why not using Census data?

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We believe that the participant numbers have been sufficiently explained in our prior responses.

Comment 14: Where the criteria explained to them or did they have the chance to discuss them or motivate their decision?

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. The criteria were established following an extensive review of relevant literature. These criteria are elaborated with references under the section titled "Push and Pull Factors." Participants were provided with a list of criteria and instructed to assess them utilizing the fuzzy scale delineated in the methodology during online interviews.

 

Comment 15: I was also expecting the criteria to be ordered by weight vs their general category. For example, there is a difference between E1 and E3 – perhaps this can inform policy to counter brain drain?

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. The final importance weights and rankings of the criteria are delineated in Table 5. Given that the study encompassed four main and twenty-two sub-criteria, comments pertaining to the criteria of highest importance were prioritized within the results and discussion sections.

 Conclusions, limitations and further research directions

 Comment 17: It is hard for the reader to evaluate these findings because the criteria are not clearly stated in the text, nor in the Supplements.

Response 17: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The criteria list has been added to the appendix section (Line 631)

Comment 18: Overall, the sense is that this analysis is not valuable because lacks statistical power and more in-depth analysis (i.e., SES, migration trajectory, age of immigration, etc). More homogeneous samples of different types of immigrants should have been used to target specific push/pull factors (i.e., difficulty getting a visa/sponsor, for example).

Response 18: Thank you for pointing this out. We have previously endeavored to elucidate the fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methodology in our prior discussions. This methodology allows for a nuanced analysis of complex decision-making scenarios, capturing the ambiguity inherent in various factors.

It is indeed feasible to conduct a more comprehensive examination of the brain drain phenomenon, particularly in the context of global migration patterns. In this research, our focus was exclusively on highly skilled immigrants who have experienced brain drain from their home countries. We employed a fuzzy MCDM methodology designed to assess and quantify their motivations for migration, exploring factors such as economic opportunities, political stability, educational prospects, and quality of life. By investigating these diverse motivations, we aim to provide a clearer understanding of the implications of brain drain on both the countries of origin and the destination countries.

Comment 19: Another limitation is the uncertainty of how participants interpreted these criteria. Did they motivate their decision? Future studies should consider employ a mixed method design.

Response 19: Participants assessed the criteria utilizing the provided fuzzy scale (Table 1). The methodology, characteristics of the decision-makers, and proposed revisions to the implementation process were elucidated, as referenced in prior comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting work, or rather a pilot study, that points to the multidimensionality of a specific type of migration, or brain drain.
You have laid an excellent foundation for further research on the motivation for migration - brain drain, both for Turkey and for other countries facing the same problem.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your review of this paper and your valuable comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 226-230: little relevance, I recommend the example to be removed

The methodology is not clearly enough explained: number of participants, type of tool used to collect data, time, place etc. How was the sample selected? why are the participants` opinions qualified as expert? how is this sample so small considered relevant?

some acronyms need to be explained:  TOPSIS,  IF-SWARA, others

Figure 2- the data cannot be read

Lines 373-384 - you cannot draw these kind of conclusions out of a sample of 16 respondents. Also, percentages are irrelevant for such a small sample. It would be better to consider them examples.

Lines 418-424 - where is the data from? is that for total Turkish population or does it refer to this study alone?If it is for the study, it is a repetition of the same info above, see the previous commet. 

I see the mention of expatriates - are the authors using it in the meaning of migrants? why?Also, to draw such conclusions, it is worth taking into account if their education was completed in the country of origin or abroad

Lines 476-480 again, you cannot draw such conclusions from 16 opinions. 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We sincerely appreciate your careful and thorough review of this paper, as well as your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which greatly help improve the quality of this work. All revisions are outlined below, and the changes made to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow.

Comment 1: Lines 226-230: little relevance, I recommend the example to be removed

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. So, we removed this reference that showed below.

A clear example is the acute political crisis in Syria, which compelled many people to leave their homes and seek refuge in other countries [8]

Comment 2: The methodology is not clearly enough explained: number of participants, type of tool used to collect data, time, place etc. How was the sample selected? why are the participants` opinions qualified as expert? how is this sample so small considered relevant?

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. So, we added a brief information in “Problem Statement” section as shown below.

Following the establishment of the criteria, sixteen highly skilled Turkish immigrants (who completed their education in their country), participated in the study be-tween June and December 2024 and assessed their motivations for brain drain based on the aforementioned criteria (Detailed in Appendix A). Although the number of participants is relatively low and respondents are not formal experts, they have direct experience with high-skilled emigration from Turkey. Their perspectives offer valuable insights into the motivational decision-making framework. The main aim of this study is not to generate statistically generalizable findings but rather to demonstrate the relevance of the IF-SWARA method in prioritizing the key factors contributing to brain-to-brain drain from the perspective of individuals who have experienced it firsthand. Since the participants resided outside the country, individual online interviews were conducted with each participant. They were subsequently able to assess the criteria in accordance with the fuzzy MCDM methodology employed in the study.

 It is widely acknowledged that fuzzy MCDM methods offer dependable results when resolving issues involving qualitative criteria. Participants articulate their opinions on these criteria using fuzzy linguistic scales, which are subsequently converted into fuzzy numbers to derive solutions. Consequently, it is crucial to highlight that this methodology diverges from studies that collect data via surveys with extensive sample sizes. Comparable to qualitative research, the methodology selected in this study emphasizes the appropriateness of participants for the research rather than concentrating on expanding the participant count.

 Given the challenges of reaching dispersed, highly skilled immigrants and the of-ten-sensitive nature of this topic, a snowball sampling strategy was employed. While this introduces limitations in terms of representation, the study offers valuable exploratory findings that can guide future research with more diverse samples.

 Table 2 presents certain demographic details of these highly skilled immigrants (designated as DM, or decision makers). These immigrants, who are Turkish citizens, possess at least a bachelor's degree from their home country and are proficient in at least one foreign language, typically English. The study aims to investigate the motivations behind the brain drain experienced by these highly skilled immigrants.

 Comment 3: some acronyms need to be explained:  TOPSIS,  IF-SWARA, others

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We explained acronyms that are shown below.

Lines 12-13- Improved Fuzzy Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (IF-SWARA)

Lines 256-257- Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS) 

Comment 4: Figure 2- the data cannot be read

Response 4: We agree with this comment. Figure 2 has been revised to appear in higher resolution.

Comment 5: Lines 373-384 - you cannot draw these kind of conclusions out of a sample of 16 respondents. Also, percentages are irrelevant for such a small sample. It would be better to consider them examples.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. This paragraph presents the findings from evaluating the criteria outlined in the application using the fuzzy MCDM methodology with 16 highly skilled immigrants. It is important to emphasize that these results are not intended to be generalized to all immigrants. They are solely an interpretation of the current application's outcomes.

Comment 6: Lines 418-424 - where is the data from? is that for total Turkish population or does it refer to this study alone? If it is for the study, it is a repetition of the same info above, see the previous comment. 

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We don’t agree with this comment.

The remarks contained in the specified lines were articulated in response to the study's findings. The research focused on the determinants contributing to the brain drain of highly educated individuals within Türkiye. It is both logical and appropriate to incorporate a managerial discussion of the results within the Discussion section. We do not consider it necessary to reiterate in each paragraph that the results of the study do not encompass the entire population of Turkey.

Comment 7: I see the mention of expatriates - are the authors using it in the meaning of migrants? why? Also, to draw such conclusions, it is worth taking into account if their education was completed in the country of origin or abroad

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We change “expatriates” to “immigrants”. The primary motivation for the study concerns immigrants who have experienced a brain drain from Türkiye to other nations. It can be stated that all participants completed their education in Türkiye and subsequently relocated abroad. This has been included as an added explanation within the "Problem Statement" section.

Following the establishment of the criteria, sixteen highly skilled Turkish immigrants (who completed their education in their country), participated in the study be-tween June and December 2024 and assessed their motivations for brain drain based on the aforementioned criteria (Detailed in Appendix A).

Comment 8: Lines 476-480 again, you cannot draw such conclusions from 16 opinions. 

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. So, we removed this as shown below.

Based on these insights, several key recommendations emerge. First, national strategies must move beyond reactive retention policies to proactive talent management. This includes fostering career ecosystems that reward innovation, investing in competitive research and education sectors, and strengthening democratic governance. Second, diaspora engagement should be institutionalized through formal channels that encourage knowledge transfer, investment, and even eventual return. Third, international collaborations—particularly in education and digital services—can be leveraged to convert virtual brain drain into mutual gain.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Language editing would improve the quality of the arguments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language editing would improve the quality of the arguments.

Author Response

The entire document was re-examined for linguistic accuracy, and the corrections have been highlighted in yellow within the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf