Contributing Factors to Cohesion Within Women’s Refugee Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this very well researched article. I particularly liked the graphic presentation of the four findings. I also appreciated the first author disclosing her own reflexivity which obviously impacted how the research was conducted. The ethics of the research were clear and articulated well. 

I wonder whether the other authors could also very briefly mention their own positionality and connection to the research - just for full disclosure. 

Just a few formatting issues:

Could the participant quotes be separated from the main text, highlighted in bold and indented to ensure their voices are fully recognised. 

Also, I noticed that Leadership Dynamic (one of the thematic findings) (line 381) was not demarked like the other themes. I think it should have been 4.3 and Goal setting -4.4.

A table which records the different organisations eg N1, N2, N3, N4 would be really helpful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment where we respond to the Reviewers' comments. We thank the reviewer for their positive comments, guidance and for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have addressed all comments in detail in the attached response letter and revised manuscript. Please let us know if any further clarification is needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

thank you for this inspiring text.

However, I want to point to a few issues that could profit from a thorough review:

The first sentence  starting with “Between 2015 and 2016…” invites to ask if you really mean “between” or is it rather “from – to” and when the reader wants to check the reference the url leads to an internal file of – I guess – your computer. As far as I know ,in both years, 2015 and 2016, more than 1.3 ,million people applied for asylum in Europe each year. And furthermore, it would be interesting to learn how many persons applied for asylum in ROI and NI.

Furthermore, please clarify if the €750.000.- funding of the National Integration Funds is yearly or was it a one-time support. Also some more explanation of what is meant with the different forms of integration would be useful.

The text misses a more detailed theoretical foundation: the connection of feeling of belonging to an ethnic group on the one hand and of integration (with a description see above) should be more accentuated.

I am sure the reader would like to learn even more about the network organisations – like: are they all in big cities? Who is the organizer (from the same ethnicity?, being longer in ROI? And so on)?

You mentioned in the description of the method semi-structured interviews, I think a reference to fig1 would be helpful, identifying the guidance questions once more.

Table 1 was missing in my version

For the presentation of the results: it would be helpful to indicate in more detail who was the informer, even though you plan to compare the networks, individual issues might be interesting for the reader, so identifying the interviewee not only with the number of the network, but also with an individual index would help.

In line 490 [in my version], a quate from an interview you use community and Community. What is the difference for using small or capital letters?

I found it very interesting that you refer to participants mentioning “barriers preventing engagement with these services…. And lack of trust towards state bodies” [572-574] but I could not really find that reflected in the presentation of the interviews.

Lastly, some small remarks regarding the reference list: please check all your links one more time. And in line 511 seems to be a typo “were” instead of “where”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment where we respond to the Reviewers' comments. We thank the reviewer for their comments on the inspirational nature of the paper and for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have addressed all comments in detail in the attached response letter and revised manuscript. Please let us know if any further clarification is needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading your article and can offer several observations that I hope will assist you as you continue to work to refine your effort. First, my copy contained a note indicating that Table 1 was missing and like whoever inserted that comment, I believe conveying the information you indicate that it contains will be essential. This is so because it will help readers track who you interviewed (in the Republic and Northern Ireland) in each group and also understand the location and character of each of those groups. My impression, for example, is that you had more interviewees from Northern Ireland than the Republic but I would like as a reader to be able to confirm or disconfirm that sense at a glance.  Second, I also think you can identify at least your interlocutor's languages without violating confidentiality. Third, I think it would be helpful to explain why networks existing to spur enterprise can appropriately be considered alongside those aimed more explicitly and principally at community building and socialization. This question deserves careful explanation. Fourth, can you share how many interviewees needed translators and how you managed that process including transcription across multiple (I presume) languages? Fifth, About how long on average did each interview take and where did they occur? Likewise, from the brief discussion in 3.3 I presume you led the interviews and coded them? How did you as authors manage the coding process to  ensure all agreed on the themes identified and their descriptions? That is, can you provide more detail on your coding process and how it was guided by your framework and how you ensured author agreement on findings? Sixth, Can you single space and indent quotations or otherwise demarcate them to ensure it is clear when you are citing your interviewees' comments? Seventh, can you revisit your theoretical frame in your conclusions and indicate whether and how it proved helpful(or not) to your effort to move the literature you have identified forward?  Eighth, I suggest you refer to interviewee perceptions rather than feelings in line 591 as it is difficult for you to know their feelings but they surely shared their perceptions of the potential and usefulness of the networks in which they were ensconced.  Ninth, on line 551 you suggest that more interviewees should share their insights via translators in the future than did in your study, but you do not indicate why? Finally, are the entities in lines 571 and 572 state entities or state funded NGOs? The difference seems material to your analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think this piece would benefit from a very careful line and copy editing to eliminate passive voice, clarify a number of instances of awkward phrasing including, for example, "hold ambition" or "networks held ambition," and to address some missing phrases and incorrect syntax and word choice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment where we respond to the Reviewers' comments. We thank the reviewer for their detailed feedback, guidance and for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have addressed all comments in detail in the attached response letter and revised manuscript. Please let us know if any further clarification is needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for respecting all remarks and feedback.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you very much for your careful review and for acknowledging our revisions. We sincerely appreciate the time and attention given to our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your attention to referee suggestions. I believe that you have addressed the comments I shared in good faith. I would ask that you consider replacing your use of "over" with "more than" in multiple places, and also consider what you take "empowering" others to mean since by definition these women, and all refugees for that matter, innately posses agency? Perhaps making clear these programs sought to encourage these individuals to exercise it? Last, please check lines 132, (possessive), 141-142 (parameters is actually a technical mathematics term and I think you can eliminate "and" just prior), 151 (substitute "that" for "who," check spelling of dependent(s) in line 215-216, check use of "impact or impacted throughout and consider using another word such as shaped or influenced, line 314 should be such rather than this support, line 352 should be feel and not feeling, line 363 should be "among" in lieu of "between" if you intended more than two entities, line 372 should be "their" in lieu of "its." I could not follow line 421? Check line 591 for an extra punctuation mark. You do not need "a" in line 615. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see above. The piece also still contains quite a bit of passive voice. See for example, lines 155, 157, 225, 251, 253.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We thank the reviewer for their careful attention to language, precision, and clarity throughout the manuscript. In response, we have conducted a thorough line-by-line edit of the entire paper. We believe the edits have strengthened the manuscript and hope the revised version meets the standards of the Social Sciences.

Please find specific edits in the document attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf