Migrant Organizations and Their Networks in the Co-Production of Social Protection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Some of the references are in German therefore could not be read by me as a non German speaker.
Concepts are very accurately described. Methodologies are well presented and seem accurate. Details on the analysis are also provided.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving our article "Organizational Networks of Migrant Organizations in the Co-production of Social Protection."
We addressed your feedback as follows:
Some of the references are in German therefore could not be read by me as a non German speaker.
Since all articles mentioned are central to our research, we cannot leave the references stated in German out.
Concepts are very accurately described. Methodologies are well presented and seem accurate. Details on the analysis are also provided.
Thank you for your kind feedback!
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the opportunity to review this interesting study regarding organizational networks of migrant organizations. The manuscript is well written and presents affluent results from both qualitative and quantitative analysis. A few suggestions for improvement:
1. It’s difficult to differentiate between “very” important/unimportant and “rather” important/unimportant. It’s better to remove “rather”.
2. The conclusion section needs to be expanded. Please take it as a great opportunity to highlight your research goals and major findings. Please also add some strategy and/or action advice based on your findings to promote the practical usefulness of your study. Add some discussion of research limitations and possible future improvements.
3. Please fix the three “THIS ISSUE” in the Reference section.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving our article "Organizational Networks of Migrant Organizations in the Co-production of Social Protection."
We have made an effort to implement them as follows:
- It’s difficult to differentiate between “very” important/unimportant and “rather” important/unimportant. It’s better to remove “rather”.
As the research is already conducted, we cannot change it, as our interviewees worked with these labels. Nevertheless, we thank you for your advice and will keep it in mind for future research.
- The conclusion section needs to be expanded. Please take it as a great opportunity to highlight your research goals and major findings. Please also add some strategy and/or action advice based on your findings to promote the practical usefulness of your study. Add some discussion of research limitations and possible future improvements.
We expanded the conclusion according to our research findings, added a section of action advice, discussed research limitations, and added some ideas for future research.
- Please fix the three “THIS ISSUE” in the Reference section.
As two articles are not yet finished we cannot provide the final title in the reference yet.
We added the reference that is already published by now.
Thank you very much!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very interesting and is, as it claims, addressing a gap in the literature. The methodology is interesting and seems to be applied well. However, the paper is lacking sufficient clarity in relation to explaining the overall approach taken. An earlier explanation (before p. 3) of the networking theory and the overall approach. Some key literature should be included here to support the discussion. Following this, there is a need to explain the approach taken. Specifically, in p. 3, clarify expectations about structural patterns more clearly- introduce the core concepts and relevant supporting references. There is a need to be more clear about meanings throughout. e.g. p. 3 explain meaning: 'Shares of alters at spatial levels' (elaborated later but needs to be clear here)
Likewise, expectations about relational patterns would benefit from brief introduction. There is too much assumed that the reader will have this understanding.
p. 4 - explain 'egocentric network perspective'
p. 5 - as above, needs an introduction and explanatory note, with references to key authors, to appreciate the commentary provided on eco-centric networks.
p. 6-8, very interesting findings. This section would benefit from being presented in tables for clarity to appreciate the key features of the MO's discussed and comparisons made.
p. 8 - case studies- these are very interesting but mostly descriptive. without the theoretical, conceptual and methodolgical clarity needed earlier on, the analysis of the case studies is insufficiently clear. Addressing the revisions suggested earlier will make the purpose and core findings of the case studies more clear.
The organisations are named. Usually these would be annonoymised - can they be renamed Org 1 and 2?
In the conclusion further commentary on the contribution to 2 main areas of focus is needed-ie social protection and network embeddedness. More clarity on contribution of research findings will improve this conclusion.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions for improving our article "Organizational Networks of Migrant Organizations in the Co-production of Social Protection."
We have made an effort to implement them as follows:
The paper is very interesting and is, as it claims, addressing a gap in the literature. The methodology is interesting and seems to be applied well.
However, the paper is lacking sufficient clarity in relation to explaining the overall approach taken. An earlier explanation (before p. 3) of the networking theory and the overall approach. Some key literature should be included here to support the discussion. Following this, there is a need to explain the approach taken. Specifically, in p. 3, clarify expectations about structural patterns more clearly- introduce the core concepts and relevant supporting references. There is a need to be more clear about meanings throughout. e.g. p. 3 explain meaning: 'Shares of alters at spatial levels' (elaborated later but needs to be clear here)
We made an effort to make our research design more clear and added various explanations where needed.
Likewise, expectations about relational patterns would benefit from brief introduction. There is too much assumed that the reader will have this understanding.
p. 4: We added a brief introduction to relational patterns.
p. 4 - explain 'egocentric network perspective'
p. 5: We added an explanation on “egocentric network perspective” in a footnote.
p. 5 - as above, needs an introduction and explanatory note, with references to key authors, to appreciate the commentary provided on eco-centric networks.
p. 5: We added an introduction and explanation based on key literature.
pp. 6-8, very interesting findings. This section would benefit from being presented in tables for clarity to appreciate the key features of the MO's discussed and comparisons made.
p. 8: We added a table that visualizes the key features of the MOs.
p. 8 - case studies- these are very interesting but mostly descriptive. without the theoretical, conceptual and methodolgical clarity needed earlier on, the analysis of the case studies is insufficiently clear. Addressing the revisions suggested earlier will make the purpose and core findings of the case studies more clear.
To better link this part to the methodology and theory we have included some linking sentences and made its purpose clearer by adding a brief introduction to that part. We have also rearranged the result chapters in a new order with further explanations to make our research purpose and choice of analysis methods clearer.
The organisations are named. Usually these would be annonoymised - can they be renamed Org 1 and 2?
p.1: The organizations were given a pseudonym in order to anonymize them while still having an idea of their target group/working area. We added a footnote.
In the conclusion further commentary on the contribution to 2 main areas of focus is needed-ie social protection and network embeddedness. More clarity on contribution of research findings will improve this conclusion.
We expanded the conclusion according to our research findings, added a section of action advice, discussed research limitations, and added some ideas for future research.
Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
