Human-Centred Design in UK Asylum Social Protection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting article on how social protection in the UK, determined by access to essential services has dis-serviced the poor, including asylum seekers and might be contravening some of the SDGs of the UN Agenda 2030. Policy recommendations are offered, in terms of more preventative policies and the inclusion of stakeholders in policy-making.
Introduction: a bit more clear-cut what the aims of the article are, the goals beyond a mere political criticism of the status quo, why this article is innovative and adds to the social science literature on social protection/welfare and the SDGs, a better delimitation of the subject matter for the reader; cite Canning a bit less, or find another author; ideally, an author combining SDG and poverty reduction and social welfare?; more precise introduction into the UN Agenda 2030, cite the UN Document it sources from, some typos (too much space between "(United Nations 2105)" and "Finally...
Definition of social protection: should read "in the UK" or otherwise introduce some global definitions. I really liked the paragraph: Firstly, social protection is still 189 mainly understood as a public response delivered through state-sponsored, formal agen- 190 cies. Other less formal mechanisms of protection, such as family, peer-based or commu- 191 nity interventions are often overlooked. Yet, literature indicates there is a complex web of 192 semi- and informal social protection supporting those living in poverty to improve their 193 wellbeing and manage daily risks."
Could be moved up front.
The body of the article starting with the theoretical framework, followed by four case studies into access for the poor and asylum seekers to essential services in the UK 1) financial disbursement, 2) dispersal housing 3) healthcare 4) education is great.
The conclusion is not worked out in detail yet and nowhere are the SDGs or the UN Agenda 2030 addressed, as would be expected from the introduction.Hence, the article, while conducting a valuable literature review, citing sources for the UK promises more than it holds at the present stage and a revision is clearly warranted. In addition, the referencing in the bibliography has some glitches: Andersson, R., 2014. Illegality, Inc. : clandestine migration and the business of bordering Europe. Oakland, California: 761 Oakland, California : University of California Press. (Oakland twice), in many journal citations, the page numbers are missing.
Overall, the article seems to promise a sound addition to the literature on social protection and transformation thereof in the UK in the light of the SDGs and closes a gap in the literature (and policy) which is to look at the SDGs compliance and implementation within developed countries--who is left behind and how can transformation happen. The field work offers a nice illustration, but again, is not documented anywhere (bibliography, endnotes).
Even if the introduction promises an engagement with the literature on the SDGs, the body of the article and the conclusion miss out on citing and analysing relevant policy documents on the SDG implementation in the UK (e.g. UK target and indicators for SDG 1, 2 etc) are missing entirely, as is some discussion of the SDG principle "to leave no one behind" and how that has shaped or not social protection reform in the UK. The authors are encouraged to take up some of these issues, to carefully edit the bibliography, and to decide whether or not to keep the SDG angle, as an additional guidance for their work. A promising piece with a lot of work gone into, but some additional framing and orientation is necessary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
I have responded to each of your comments in the attached document.
Thank you for taking the time to read and review our article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The article is a good state of the art /synthesis article on the politics for asylum/refuge in the UK in the last decades. It is important because of the timeline narrative and the explanation that addresses the causes of the current policies.
2. Caveats can be found in the way (I would say a prejudice against liberal or neoliberal policies) are expressed (what would be the alternatives to the liberal democracy system in the UK?).
3. It is not possible to use an article from a newspaper, a blog post and/or a scientific article in the same anchorage level. By reading bibliography one can not differentiate between the importance given to all those different levels of information. Is the anedota evidence coming from a short paragraph in the guardian the equivalent of an activist post In a blog or a well anchored methodological research paper/article? I don't think so... otherwise your own article can be transform in a blog post or a "the guardian" article. I will suggest you to differentiate in distinct levels (at least in the bibliography) the scientific bibliography and all the others...
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
I have responded to each of your points in the attached document.
Thank you for taking the time to read and review our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
