Understanding the Experiences of Fulbright Visiting Scholars—A Qualitative Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author, this is my feedback. I hope it helps to improve it. 1) The organization and structure is good, but it needs another subsection of context/background to explain in more detail what the Fulbright program is, why it exists, which countries can participate and which ones can't and why.   -  What is the purpose of the Fulbright program? which are the 160 countries selected and why some countries are not included?  The 16 articles that you selected, from which countries were the faculty/participants from?    2) In reference to your research questions:  The first question indicates 1. What experiences do Fulbright visiting scholars to the United States share regardless of national origin?  This research question indicates that you do not focus on the country of origin of the Fulbright scholars, however, in your study it becomes relevant,  particularly in the third theme of the results/findings. The third theme  (3.3. Geopolitics in the US and abroad) actually relates to the national origin of the scholars.  In fact there is a statement in which you state how  Portuguese Fulbright scholars were allowed to the US but not Brazilians and that  impacted the experiences of Portuguese scholars.  Question 2.  2. What experiences are unique to Fulbright visiting scholars that are different from visiting scholars in general? This question is not really addressed in the paper. The selection criteria used for the system review did not allow for non-Fulbright scholars.  How can you compare Fulbright scholars with non-Fulbright scholars if you just focused on papers that address the experiences of Fulbright scholars? I think this question needs to be eliminated.   And in fact, there is just on paragraph addressing this question in the discussion section. Also, the paragraph does not provide evidence on how the author arrives to the conclusion: "Participants in the studies represented in this review often expressed difficulty with the process of applying to and enrolling in the Fulbright visiting scholar program, citing bureaucratic problems from both the U.S. government and their home government."  How do we know how  the experience for other visiting scholars is? or how it differs?    There is no much information on the findings or discussion section.  After reading the manuscript, I felt unsure about what this study aims to discover.  Is the purpose of this system review to examine the literature or to understand the experiences of Fulbright participants? The paper did not include much information on the experience of Fulbright participants. The findings are mostly three themes that are not  explained in detail.  For instance, in theme 1-contested attitudes. what does this finding imply? what kind of issues they had with the government? it is not explained. Perhaps it is addressed in theme 3.    The discussion section should clarify the meaning of the findings/themes and provide implications. But it is a bit vague. The main statement is unclearly connected to the findings and needs clarification and explanation: The author states "...This finding reinforces the argument that, although higher education systems around the world are gaining legitimacy on the global stage, the U.S. has maintained a hegemonic position in global higher education [3] and further reinforces this hegemony through government resource allocation like the Fulbright Program."  ?? I am not sure how you arrive to this conclusion and how it relates to the findings. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Dear author, this is my feedback. I hope it helps to improve it.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I believe that incorporating your suggestions have improved the quality of the study. 

Point 2: 1) The organization and structure is good, but it needs another subsection of context/background to explain in more detail what the Fulbright program is, why it exists, which countries can participate and which ones can't and why.   -  What is the purpose of the Fulbright program? which are the 160 countries selected and why some countries are not included?  The 16 articles that you selected, from which countries were the faculty/participants from?   

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. I have added a paragraph in the introduction that addresses these questions (p. 1, lines 28-36). I updated Table S2 in the supplementary materials to include a column that lists the home countries of the participants.

Point 3: 2) In reference to your research questions:  The first question indicates 1. What experiences do Fulbright visiting scholars to the United States share regardless of national origin?  This research question indicates that you do not focus on the country of origin of the Fulbright scholars, however, in your study it becomes relevant,  particularly in the third theme of the results/findings. The third theme (3.3. Geopolitics in the US and abroad) actually relates to the national origin of the scholars. In fact there is a statement in which you state how  Portuguese Fulbright scholars were allowed to the US but not Brazilians and that impacted the experiences of Portuguese scholars. 

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback about research question #1. I have decided to reframe the question to reflect that the aim of the study is to examine how Fulbright visiting scholars to the United States’ experiences are represented in qualitative research, specifically examining which experiences scholars share regardless of their nations of origin (p. 1, lines 70-72). I also reframed the third theme to focus on the shared experience of administrative burden and reflected upon the unique geopolitical relationships in the discussion section. 

Point 4: Question 2.  2. What experiences are unique to Fulbright visiting scholars that are different from visiting scholars in general? This question is not really addressed in the paper. The selection criteria used for the systematic review did not allow for non-Fulbright scholars.  How can you compare Fulbright scholars with non-Fulbright scholars if you just focused on papers that address the experiences of Fulbright scholars? I think this question needs to be eliminated.   And in fact, there is just one paragraph addressing this question in the discussion section. 

Response 4: Thank you for your feedback on question #2. I have decided to omit this question as a result of feedback from reviewers and peer debrief conversations. 

Point 5: Also, the paragraph does not provide evidence on how the author arrives to the conclusion: "Participants in the studies represented in this review often expressed difficulty with the process of applying to and enrolling in the Fulbright visiting scholar program, citing bureaucratic problems from both the U.S. government and their home government."  How do we know how the experience for other visiting scholars is? or how it differs? There is not much information on the findings or discussion section. 

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. I have decided to omit the second question so that I do not make the claim that the administrative burden is different from visiting scholars in general. 

Point 6: After reading the manuscript, I felt unsure about what this study aims to discover.  Is the purpose of this systematic review to examine the literature or to understand the experiences of Fulbright participants? The paper did not include much information on the experience of Fulbright participants. 

Response 6: Thank you for this feedback. I reframed the research question and the results to clarify that I am looking at what empirical research says about Fulbright scholars’ experiences (rather than Fulbright scholars’ perspectives from a first person perspective)

Point 7: The findings are mostly three themes that are not explained in detail.  For instance, in theme 1-contested attitudes. what does this finding imply? what kind of issues they had with the government? it is not explained. Perhaps it is addressed in theme 3.  

Response 7: Thank you for this feedback. I have added more examples from a greater variety of the articles to the three themes, retitled the themes to be more specific, and reframed the third theme to be about the shared administrative burden rather than the differences in geopolitics in each country. I reflect on those differences in the discussion and conclusion section.

  Point 8: The discussion section should clarify the meaning of the findings/themes and provide implications. But it is a bit vague. The main statement is unclearly connected to the findings and needs clarification and explanation: The author states "...This finding reinforces the argument that, although higher education systems around the world are gaining legitimacy on the global stage, the U.S. has maintained a hegemonic position in global higher education [3] and further reinforces this hegemony through government resource allocation like the Fulbright Program."  ?? I am not sure how you arrive to this conclusion and how it relates to the findings.

Response 8: Thank you for this feedback. Based on your feedback, I have chosen to omit this sentence. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Understanding the Experiences of Fulbright Visiting Scholars -

A Qualitative Systematic Review

 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this paper. The author reviews an interesting topic that has received little attention in the academic literature. Below, I provide feedback on various themes and sections of the manuscript. I hope that the author finds this feedback helpful and constructive in revising the document. 

1. Introduction. In this section I miss an introduction that highlights more specific information about the Fulbright Program, such as, which countries of origin are the most represented in this type of programs? Which academic areas have the most visiting scholars? And also, I wonder if more description about positive and negative experiences about the program might be more effective for contextualizing it (a bit of theorical framework).

In addition, I find it difficult to understand the second question that is considered to examine the aims of this systematic review. Along the paper there is no information about visiting scholars’ experiences from other post-doctoral programs, so it is difficult to find differences between them. If some of data were given on other experiences, this question could be clearly answered. For instance, in any postdoctoral scholarship or grant, a strict administrative burden is experienced because they must properly account the money received (see e.g. Kehagia et al., 2012; Simmonds & Bitzer, 2018).

 

2. Methods. The author chooses three databases to obtain articles of sufficient quality in the field of education, but in the case of the descriptors used, why were these chosen instead of others? (e.g. “Fulbright” -without “program”-, “US”, “fellowship”…). A brief justification of the process would help to clarify the final search terms.

The author has identified 405 records, but according to the supplementary material (Google Scholar (n=362), Education Source (n=0) and ProQuest Education Journals (n=26)), the total number of records should be 388 (362+26). It is important to check these minor but important mistakes.

p.2 l.58-59. The author “focus on this population because I specifically wanted to gain insight into visiting scholars’ experience in the United States was similar or different based on participation in the Fulbright Program”, but in order to know the similarities / differences it would be consistent to have information on "other experiences outside of the Fulbright program” and then, make a comparation between them.

p.3 l.87. Delete “whic” before Thematic analysis.

Regarding analysis, the author uses a thematic analysis of qualitative research in systematic reviews (according to Thomas and Harden’s (2008)). 2 of the 16 publications examined for the review are quantitative research, how have you carried out the thematic analysis of these quantitative data?

I appreciate your sincerity in the limitations of the methodological section, but to conduct the analysis alone could generate a major problem in the validity and consistency of findings. The author, for example, should apply some triangulation strategy, whichever is most feasible and appropriate, to establish validity in the 3 extracted themes. This will help your evaluation be more credible and provide you with information that you can confidently support.

 

3. Results. In this section, the author justifies three themes yielded that emerge from the data. I consider that different quotes from reviewed publications are necessary to illustrate each of these themes. In addition, among the 16 studies reviewed, only 7 have been included to exemplify the themes. Adding more information from the rest of the publications would help to complete and improve this section.

p.4 l.132. Add a space between they and also.

p.4 l.134. Add a space between living and in.

p.4 l.134. Add y to the (These participants argued that theY could participate…)

 

p.5 l.154-157. This sentence is a discussion/conclusion, so it should not appear in this section. It makes more sense in the next section.

p.5 l.179-180. Idem

 

4. Discussion. In the section title, it would be appropriate to add conclusions (4. Discussion and Conclusions). If the focus of the paper is on the unique experiences of Fulbright visiting scholars as compared to visiting scholars in general, the author should discuss the findings with other findings about visiting scholars in general.

p.6 l.154-157. Add some examples to clarify the affirmation.

 

5. References. Within this section I noticed a few typos which could be easily corrected.

p.7 l.243. The year 2021 should be in bold.

p.7 l.253. Delete “(2015)”.

p.7 l.256. Delete 2014, it is repeated.

p.7 l.268. The second part of title is in Portuguese. It should be in English.

p.7 l.279. The title of the publication should be in italics.

p.7 l.294. Delete 2020, it is repeated.

p.7 l.295. Delete “(2013)”.

 

Once again, many thanks for the opportunity to review your work.

 

Kehagia, A.A., Tairyan, K., Federico, C., Glover, G.H.  & Illes, J. More Education, Less Administration: Reflections of Neuroimagers’ Attitudes to Ethics Through the Qualitative Looking Glass. Science and Engineering Ethics 2012, 18, 775–788.

Simmonds, S., & Bitzer, E. The career trajectories of postdocs in their journeys of becoming researchers. A Scholarship of Doctoral Education: On becoming a researcher. African Sun Media, South Africa, 2018.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this paper. The author reviews an interesting topic that has received little attention in the academic literature. Below, I provide feedback on various themes and sections of the manuscript. I hope that the author finds this feedback helpful and constructive in revising the document. 

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I have incorporated your comments into the manuscript and I believe they have greatly improved the quality of the study.

Point 2: Introduction. In this section I miss an introduction that highlights more specific information about the Fulbright Program, such as, which countries of origin are the most represented in this type of programs? Which academic areas have the most visiting scholars? 

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion.  I have added Table 1 which demonstrates the most recent data for the number of Fulbright visiting scholars by region. I have also added several sentences to the introduction (p. 2, lines 53-58).

 Point 3: And also, I wonder if more description about positive and negative experiences about the program might be more effective for contextualizing it (a bit of theorical framework).

Response 3: Thank you for this recommendation. I added some research about visiting scholars’ experiences in general to the introduction section on page 2 (lines 59-66). 

Point 4: In addition, I find it difficult to understand the second question that is considered to examine the aims of this systematic review. Along the paper there is no information about visiting scholars’ experiences from other post-doctoral programs, so it is difficult to find differences between them. If some of data were given on other experiences, this question could be clearly answered. For instance, in any postdoctoral scholarship or grant, a strict administrative burden is experienced because they must properly account the money received (see e.g. Kehagia et al., 2012; Simmonds & Bitzer, 2018).

Response 4: Thank you for this feedback. I have decided to omit the second research question based on reviewer feedback and peer debriefing.

Point 5: The author has identified 405 records, but according to the supplementary material (Google Scholar (n=362), Education Source (n=0) and ProQuest Education Journals (n=26)), the total number of records should be 388 (362+26). It is important to check these minor but important mistakes.

Response 5: Thank you for highlighting this error. I recreated the searches and revisited the spreadsheet that I used for the selection process to identify the correct numbers. The numbers are corrected in Figure 1 and in the supplementary materials. 

Point 6: p.2 l.58-59. The author “focus on this population because I specifically wanted to gain insight into visiting scholars’ experience in the United States was similar or different based on participation in the Fulbright Program”, but in order to know the similarities / differences it would be consistent to have information on "other experiences outside of the Fulbright program” and then, make a comparation between them.

Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. I have decided to omit research question 2 based on reviewer feedback. 

Point 7: Methods. The author chooses three databases to obtain articles of sufficient quality in the field of education, but in the case of the descriptors used, why were these chosen instead of others? (e.g. “Fulbright” -without “program”-, “US”, “fellowship”…). A brief justification of the process would help to clarify the final search terms.

Response 7: Thank you for this suggestion. I have added information about how I came to choose my search terms, which is based on the system recommended by Bramer et al. I have described this process and the reasoning behind my choice to include these particular search terms on p. 2, lines 80-84.

Point 8:p.3 l.87. Delete “whic” before Thematic analysis.

 Response 8: Thank you. I have deleted this typo. 

Point 9: Regarding analysis, the author uses a thematic analysis of qualitative research in systematic reviews (according to Thomas and Harden’s (2008)). 2 of the 16 publications examined for the review are quantitative research, how have you carried out the thematic analysis of these quantitative data?

Response 9: Thank you for this observation. I have decided to omit those two articles and focus the study on qualitative studies so that the thematic analysis was appropriately completed. I have updated all tables to reflect this change. 

Point 10: I appreciate your sincerity in the limitations of the methodological section, but to conduct the analysis alone could generate a major problem in the validity and consistency of findings. The author, for example, should apply some triangulation strategy, whichever is most feasible and appropriate, to establish validity in the 3 extracted themes. This will help your evaluation be more credible and provide you with information that you can confidently support.

Response 10: Thank you for this thoughtful feedback. I was able to debrief my results with three critical readers and I reframed the results of the study according to their feedback and the feedback of the peer reviewers of this journal. I included an explanation of my peer debriefing process on page 4.

 Point 11:  3. Results. In this section, the author justifies three themes yielded that emerge from the data. I consider that different quotes from reviewed publications are necessary to illustrate each of these themes. In addition, among the 16 studies reviewed, only 7 have been included to exemplify the themes. Adding more information from the rest of the publications would help to complete and improve this section.

Response 11: Thank you for this recommendation. I have described the themes in greater detail in the results section and used examples from a greater variety of articles to support these claims. I have also received feedback from peer debriefers who helped me to reframe the sections to be more accurate. 

Point 12: p.4 l.132. Add a space between they and also.

Response 12: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have added the space.

Point 13: p.4 l.134. Add a space between living and in.

Response 13: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have added the space.

Point 14: p.4 l.134. Add y to the (These participants argued that theY could participate…)

Response 14: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have added the Y.

Point 15: p.5 l.154-157. This sentence is a discussion/conclusion, so it should not appear in this section. It makes more sense in the next section.

Response 15: Thank you for this suggestion. I have decided to omit this reflection as I reframed the themes in the finding section and I wanted the discussion and conclusions section to reflect those changes.

Point 16: p.5 l.179-180. Idem

Response 16: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have added the page number to follow the quote.

Point 17: Discussion. In the section title, it would be appropriate to add conclusions (4. Discussion and Conclusions). If the focus of the paper is on the unique experiences of Fulbright visiting scholars as compared to visiting scholars in general, the author should discuss the findings with other findings about visiting scholars in general.

Response 17: Thank you for these suggestions. I updated section 4 and titled it “Discussions and Conclusions.”  I have chosen to omit the second research question and therefore will not be comparing the experiences of visiting Fulbright scholars with visiting scholars in general.

Point 18: p.6 l.154-157. Add some examples to clarify the affirmation.

Response 18: Thank you for this recommendation. I have moved the sentence to the discussion and conclusions section and provided context and additional examples in order to support this conclusion.

Point 19: 5. References. Within this section I noticed a few typos which could be easily corrected.

Response 19: Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript and highlight some errors. I am grateful that I had your review to help me to improve this study. 

Point 20: p.7 l.243. The year 2021 should be in bold.

Response 20: Thank you for highlighting this error. I changed the year 2021 to bold. 

Point 21: p.7 l.253. Delete “(2015)”.

Response 21: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have deleted (2015).

Point 22: p.7 l.256. Delete 2014, it is repeated.

Response 22: Thank you for this suggestion. The year is repeated because the year is the journal issue number, so I have not deleted it. 

Point 23: p.7 l.268. The second part of title is in Portuguese. It should be in English.

Response 23: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have changed the title from Portuguese to English.

Point 24: p.7 l.279. The title of the publication should be in italics.

Response 24: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have italicized the publication name. 

Point 25: p.7 l.294. Delete 2020, it is repeated.

Response 25: Thank you for this suggestion. The year is repeated because the year is the journal issue number, so I have not deleted it. 

Point 26: p.7 l.295. Delete “(2013)”.

Response 26: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have deleted “(2013).”

Point 27: Once again, many thanks for the opportunity to review your work.

Response 27: Thank you for the kind and thoughtful feedback. Your comments have encouraged me and guided me to improve the quality of the study. 

Point 28: Kehagia, A.A., Tairyan, K., Federico, C., Glover, G.H.  & Illes, J. More Education, Less Administration: Reflections of Neuroimagers’ Attitudes to Ethics Through the Qualitative Looking Glass. Science and Engineering Ethics 2012, 18, 775–788.

Response 28: Thank you for this citation. I found it very helpful to refer to as I was revising the manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting work is presented for the knowledge of questions related to educational aid or scholarships. The proposed revision is considered insufficient. Regarding databases, you should include internationally recognized databases if your criteria (according to the flow chart) is to locate articles with peer review. It is suggested to use WOS or SCOPUS. There is a grace in formulating research questions, they must be concise and direct. Additional graphics are required to be provided for understanding the key concepts of your review. In any case it is a good job that needs substantial improvements.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: An interesting work is presented for the knowledge of questions related to educational aid or scholarships.

Response 1: Thank you for the feedback and review. 

Point 2: The proposed revision is considered insufficient.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. I have made several revisions which I believe improve the quality of the study.

Point 3: Regarding databases, you should include internationally recognized databases if your criteria (according to the flow chart) is to locate articles with peer review. It is suggested to use WOS or SCOPUS.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. I chose to use Google Scholar, Education Sciences, and Proquest Education Journals as my databases because they were accessible to me through my university library, included both domestic and international journals, and allowed both an education focus and a wider social sciences and historical focus. I chose these databases with assistance from a university librarian. I have described these decisions in the methods section. 

Point 4: There is a grace in formulating research questions, they must be concise and direct.

Response 4: Thank you for this feedback. I have omitted the second research question and reframed the research question to clarify that the aim of the study is to understand how Fulbright scholars’ experiences are represented in empirical qualitative literature.

Point 5: Additional graphics are required to be provided for understanding the key concepts of your review.

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. I followed the PRISMA guidelines of systematic review, which guided my decision to include Figure 1, Table 2, Table S1, Table S2, and Table S3. I have updated those tables to reflect any changes I have made based on reviewer feedback. I also included Table 1 in the introduction to provide additional context about the Fulbright Program.

Point 6: In any case it is a good job that needs substantial improvements.

Response 6: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on this manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors: 

- The abstract states that this manuscript examines relevant literature from the last  '20' years but it should say 10  years (2011-2021)  

• The abstract and introduction should state the same number. Abstract  900 scholarships, introduction "850" per year. "The Fulbright Program fully funds approximately 850 post-doctoral visiting scholars from over 100 countries
• in the introduction you briefly state some findings about the experiences of visiting scholars in the US (which sounds quite similar to the experiences of Fulbright scholars, I think). But then the authors add "However, these perspectives do not necessarily account for the unique context of a United States government-sponsored program".. Unique in which ways? in the way the Fulbright visiting scholars are paid and in the way bureaucratic measures/paperwork they need to complete? If there are other differences, what is this unique context?  Because their lived experiences in the US between visiting scholars and Fulbright scholars sound quite similar.  For example, 
  
  • In the discussion section it says " The specific geopolitical relationship between the scholars’ home countries and the United States not only influenced the scholars’ attitudes toward the U.S., but also clarified one of the possible unique experiences of a Fulbright visiting scholar compared to visiting scholars in general."  How would geopolitical relationships affect in a different way Fulbright visiting scholars than non Fulbright-visiting scholars?  These needs to be clarified. The example of Chinese scholars with bad attitudes towards the US do not need to be connected to being a Fulbright but from being from China.  And the example about the Portuguese Fulbright scholars, it's unclear if their lack of focus on Brazil is an issue due to Fulbright rules or the institution the scholar's work rules. 
    
    • Are those experiences tight to being a Fulbright or to being from China or polices in institutions they work?
  • The main difference between Fulbright and non-Fulbright scholars seem to be be the bureaucratic nature of a Fulbright application. However, this is unclear too since these policies seem to be different in each country. 

I find the findings quite vague and unspecific.  What would be meaningful is to dig deeper to address what are the complex experiences and bureaucratic issues Fulbright scholars experience but that is not the scope of this manuscript. 

Author Response

Point 1: - The abstract states that this manuscript examines relevant literature from the last  '20' years but it should say 10  years (2011-2021)

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have edited the error in the manuscript.

Point 2: The abstract and introduction should state the same number. Abstract  900 scholarships, introduction "850" per year. "The Fulbright Program fully funds approximately 850 post-doctoral visiting scholars from over 100 countries

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting this error. I have edited the error in the manuscript.

Point 3: in the introduction you briefly state some findings about the experiences of visiting scholars in the US (which sounds quite similar to the experiences of Fulbright scholars, I think). But then the authors add "However, these perspectives do not necessarily account for the unique context of a United States government-sponsored program".. Unique in which ways? in the way the Fulbright visiting scholars are paid and in the way bureaucratic measures/paperwork they need to complete? If there are other differences, what is this unique context?  Because their lived experiences in the US between visiting scholars and Fulbright scholars sound quite similar.

Response 3: Thank you for this feedback. Based on your feedback, I have chosen to omit the sentence “However, these perspectives do not necessarily account for the unique context of a United States government-sponsored program.” Instead, I edited the following sentence to say, “In this systematic review, I argue that synthesizing literature that explores Fulbright visiting scholars' experiences illuminates the specific impact of government-sponsored scholarly exchange on the participants of these programs in the United States context, both similar and different to the experiences of visiting scholars in general.” I hope that these decisions prevent the manuscript from claiming that the review finds the experience of Fulbright scholars different from the experiences of visiting scholars in general, since I removed that research question from the manuscript in the previous round of edits.

Point 3:  For example, In the discussion section it says " The specific geopolitical relationship between the scholars’ home countries and the United States not only influenced the scholars’ attitudes toward the U.S., but also clarified one of the possible unique experiences of a Fulbright visiting scholar compared to visiting scholars in general."  How would geopolitical relationships affect in a different way Fulbright visiting scholars than non Fulbright-visiting scholars?  These needs to be clarified. 

Response 4: Thank you for this feedback. Based on your feedback, I have decided to omit the sentence “The specific geopolitical relationship between the scholars’ home countries and the United States not only influenced the scholars’ attitudes toward the U.S., but also clarified one of the possible unique experiences of a Fulbright visiting scholar compared to visiting scholars in general” to avoid making the claim that Fulbright scholars’ experiences are different from visiting scholars in general, since that is not the focus of the study. Instead, this section now highlights how the articles are different from one another, since the findings section focuses on how they are alike. 

 

Point 5: The example of Chinese scholars with bad attitudes towards the US do not need to be connected to being a Fulbright but from being from China.  And the example about the Portuguese Fulbright scholars, it's unclear if their lack of focus on Brazil is an issue due to Fulbright rules or the institution the scholar's work rules. Are those experiences tight to being a Fulbright or to being from China or polices in institutions they work?

Response 5: Thank you for this feedback. Based on your feedback, I have added a sentence to this section, which states, “Fu (2018) [19] argues that, although the Fulbright Program had the explicit goal of fostering mutual understanding between the U.S. and China through its visiting scholars program, the scholars were often apprehensive to embrace U.S. culture due to their nationalist positioning.” I added this sentence to clarify that their experiences were counter to the goal of the Fulbright program. I also added this sentence to the section: “These examples also illustrate how Fulbright visiting scholars’ experiences were subject to several layers of bureaucracy, starting with their national governments’ individual Fulbright commissions and ending with their institutional policies,” and clarified within the text that their were both Fulbright-level and institutional-level policies that impacted their experiences.

Point 6: The main difference between Fulbright and non-Fulbright scholars seem to be be the bureaucratic nature of a Fulbright application. However, this is unclear too since these policies seem to be different in each country. 

Response 6: Thank you for this feedback. I hope that the edits that I have made in the manuscript clarify that these studies share the finding that Fulbright scholars encounter bureaucratic challenges and several levels of their experience. I hope that this finding offers scholars and practitioners a call to action to find ways to standardize their practices to improve the experience for Fulbright visiting scholars. 

Point 7: I find the findings quite vague and unspecific.  What would be meaningful is to dig deeper to address what are the complex experiences and bureaucratic issues Fulbright scholars experience but that is not the scope of this manuscript. 

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback on the findings of the study. Based on your feedback and the feedback of one of my colleagues, I reframed the results section “3.2 Fulbright visiting scholars experience administrative burden” to “3.2 Fulbright visiting scholars experience unexpected administrative burdens.” I also edited this section to reflect this reframing of the results. I believe that specifying that the administrative burdens that the scholars experienced were often unexpected brings additional context and usefulness to the results section. I hope that this change clarifies the results section further. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for taking my suggestions into account. I think the manuscript is now more complete.

I noticed a couple of typo errors which need to be corrected if the final text is publish.

• In the Abstract (page 1, line 12), you should change “20 years” to “10 years”.
• In Methods section (page 4), you should change the number of subsections: "2.4. Confirmability and Dependability" and "2.5. Limitations".

Author Response

Point 1: Thank you for taking my suggestions into account. I think the manuscript is now more complete.   Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. I hope that this second round of revisions has made the manuscript even stronger.    Point 2: I noticed a couple of typo errors which need to be corrected if the final text is publish.   Response 2: Thank you for highlighting these errors.

Point 3: In the Abstract (page 1, line 12), you should change “20 years” to “10 years”.

Response 3: Thank you for noticing this mistake. I have edited this error.

Point 4: In Methods section (page 4), you should change the number of subsections: "2.4. Confirmability and Dependability" and "2.5. Limitations".

Response 4: Thank you for noticing this error. I have edited it in the manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for taking my suggestions into account in the final text and detailing the decisions made.

Author Response

Point 1: Thank you for taking my suggestions into account in the final text and detailing the decisions made.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback throughout this process. I believe that this second round of revisions continues to improve the quality of the paper.