Social Inclusion of Gen Z Ukrainian Refugees in Lithuania: The Role of Online Social Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is much of interest in this paper and it is rich in detail however it reads like a preliminary tabulation of results rather than a fully theorized original contribution to knowledge. Firstly, while the focus of the paper reports to be on social inclusion, much of the most interesting content is about material that doesn't seem to fit into this category as it is defined by the authors. The relationship between belonging to communities in Ukraine and Lithuania needs more theorizing and pulling out. This could be an interesting original contribution. Secondly, the language around social networks is deeply confusing since the authors use this term to refer specifically to social media networks without discussing more general social network analysis and the rich body of literature in this area. More theorization is required between the relationship between social networks in the traditional sense and social media networks. Finally, the results are somewhat repetitive and presented often with several quotes one after another which reads as somewhat unsophisticated. It is also important to stress the limits of the sample and participants' specific position as university students more, including what social inclusion means in this context in relation to virtual and in person social networks. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an important research question: to what extent can the inclusion of refugees from Ukraine be improved with the help of digital media, and what do Ukrainian refugees use digital media for? Relevant parts and original aspects are primarily new data or empirical findings on the subject. The paper advances the current state of research by presenting new insights and findings. It stands out from previously published material and offers added value.

Methodology and Improvements: The authors clearly describe the methodology, but possible improvements at the end of the contribution are somewhat lacking. As it concerns qualitative research, the added value of this approach should be elaborated further. The sample is discussed in detail, and possible sources of error are indicated. Additionally, the sample is critically assessed and explained (predominantly women and students). It should be emphasized that refugees with lower educational levels should also be included in the research. The presentation of the material is very detailed; a different form of presentation should be chosen, possibly using bullet points in a table or figure.

Conclusions: The conclusions are based on the presented results. The main questions are answered in the course of the research/paper.

References: The references are current, relevant, and appropriate.

 

Tables, Figures, and Data Quality: The tables are precise and easy to understand. The data quality is good; however, it should be critically noted that the interviews lasted only 25 minutes. Additionally, it should be mentioned in which language the interviews were conducted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf