Review Reports - Perceiving Migrants as a Threat: The Role of the Estimated Number of Migrants and Symbolic Universes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is a good essay with potential for publication, but I do think it could benefit from some revision.

The abstract is interesting, but I found the numbering unusual. If you would like to retain the numbering, I recommend an initial statement preceding the first number (1), such as "This study focuses on the perception among native Italians of the societal threat posed by migrants to modern Italy." Then you might carry on with the numbering as written. In its present form, I find the numbering a little unusual and slightly off-putting.

I caught a number of minor language issues that need clarification to improve understanding. A few of them may be simple typographical errors.

My most substantive comment is that I think there needs to be a table early in the piece that summarize the four analytical categories (Disheartened affiliates; confident engaged; idealizing optimists; reactive anomics), explains/defines them, and lists their main characteristics before these terms begin to be routinely used in the text. For instance, did the author invent these interpretative categories based on her/his own conclusions, or are they standardly used in similar studies? What does "Disheartened affiliate" mean? What are the characteristics of a "Disheartened affiliate"? Some characteristics are listed later in the text, but putting this material earlier would improve comprehension of the article.

Below are my other suggestions, line by line (including a few that are not associated with line numbers but come in the area where tables are shown for several pages):

Abstract: Why the numbering? It strikes me as odd, at least for this periodical. It should at least be preceded by a narrative sentence.

Line 15: an…universes does not work – it should be either “an… universe” or no “a” or “an”

Line 43: Elevated (typo?)

Lines 137-138: Is authorize the best word? If so, perhaps its use should be explained a little more?

Line 144: Verify or answer? (i.e., answer a question, verify a statement)

Line 148: I don’t think “may” is necessary to include.

Line 154: I don’t think the comma is necessary.

Line 166: Should Analysis be capitalized? (Analysis or analysis)

Line 169: “have higher level of the perceived threat” sounds a bit awkward

Line 174: I am not sure what "Note: *Duncan’s test" means/refers to?

Line 186: Comma is in wrong place (an extra space before it)

Line 196: Meaning of “Chi square test not significant” may not be clear to everyone? It should be better explained, perhaps in a footnote?

General Comment (see comment listed above -- but this is the area where I began to reflect more and more on these terms): I think the terms Disheartened affiliates; confident engaged; idealizing optimists; reactive anomics should be better explained, maybe in a table or a footnote or earlier in the study than pages 5-7 – from the meanings of the words, I have a sense of what they may mean, but I am not sure if my understanding corresponds correction with the author’s intention.

The same comment applies to lines 254-263. Perhaps all these descriptors could be put into a table with some additional explanation of what they mean. Does every group have these characteristics, or do only some groups have them? It’s not entirely clear to me. Are these standard analytical categories, or categories of the author's own devising?

For instance, with the following statement:

“Disheartened affiliates: moderate fatalism, distrust in people, conformity, passivity, pessimism”

Are these characteristics of the disheartened affiliate? Why are these attributed to this category? Why were these descriptors applied here? This could all be explained in a table in which each analytical category is defined and explained and its attributes listed.

Did the author add these descriptors? Or are these standard terms in studies of this particular type?

Line 290: Is education a better word choice than instruction (i.e., “higher levels of education”)?

Line 292: Is a comma needed after “affiliates), “ ?

Line 304-305: “could been” is wrong – should it either be “could be” or “could have been”?

Line 374: I’m not sure what “realized” means here? Finalized? Or is this when the survey was taken/distributed?

Line 450: Should the categories “Disheartened affiliates” and “Reactive anomics” be in quotation marks? It might be good put them them in quotation marks throughout the study?

Pages 6 – 7: Summary of Questionairre: Most statements are phrased in a negative manner. Only one is positive (Immigrants are a source of cultural enrichment). Could this incline the survey takers to think in a negative manner? Is this addressed in the article? I did not see it.

Overall, this is an interesting study with potential to make a useful contribution to scholarship. I would like to see a reworking that responds to these comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good overall, but there are some minor complications. I found certain sentences hard to understand. I have noted many of these above, including the portion of the sentence that seemed problematic.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

I think this is a good essay with potential for publication, but I do think it could benefit from some revision.

The abstract is interesting, but I found the numbering unusual. If you would like to retain the numbering, I recommend an initial statement preceding the first number (1), such as "This study focuses on the perception among native Italians of the societal threat posed by migrants to modern Italy." Then you might carry on with the numbering as written. In its present form, I find the numbering a little unusual and slightly off-putting.

RESPONSE: We deleted the numbers used in the abstract.

I caught a number of minor language issues that need clarification to improve understanding. A few of them may be simple typographical errors.
RESPONSE: English revision has been done.

My most substantive comment is that I think there needs to be a table early in the piece that summarize the four analytical categories (Disheartened affiliates; confident engaged; idealizing optimists; reactive anomics), explains/defines them, and lists their main characteristics before these terms begin to be routinely used in the text. For instance, did the author invent these interpretative categories based on her/his own conclusions, or are they standardly used in similar studies? What does "Disheartened affiliate" mean? What are the characteristics of a "Disheartened affiliate"? Some characteristics are listed later in the text, but putting this material earlier would improve comprehension of the article.
RESPONSE: Thanks for this suggestion. We added an explanation of the terms at pp. 3-4.

Below are my other suggestions, line by line (including a few that are not associated with line numbers but come in the area where tables are shown for several pages):

Abstract: Why the numbering? It strikes me as odd, at least for this periodical. It should at least be preceded by a narrative sentence.
RESPONSE: We deleted the numbers used in the abstract.

Line 15: an…universes does not work – it should be either “an… universe” or no “a” or “an”

I have not found this typo.

Line 43: Elevated (typo?)

Lines 137-138: Is authorize the best word? If so, perhaps its use should be explained a little more?

REPHRASED. Lines 156-157: On the base of these findings we hypothesize that symbolic universes…

Line 144: Verify or answer? (i.e., answer a question, verify a statement)

ANSWER. Line 163.

Line 148: I don’t think “may” is necessary to include.

DELETED “MAY” line 167.

Line 154: I don’t think the comma is necessary.

SOBSTITUTED BY ; (line 170)

Line 166: Should Analysis be capitalized? (Analysis or analysis)

Written “analysis) – line 185

Line 169: “have higher level of the perceived threat” sounds a bit awkward

REPHRASED IT: participants who overestimate the number of migrants perceive them as a threat (Line 188)

Line 174: I am not sure what "Note: *Duncan’s test" means/refers to?

Explained (line 193). Duncan’s test is a post hoc test to measure specific differences between pairs of means (in the analysis of variance).

Line 186: Comma is in wrong place (an extra space before it)

CORRECTED (line 204)

Line 196: Meaning of “Chi square test not significant” may not be clear to everyone? It should be better explained, perhaps in a footnote?

Added an information: “It is used to determine whether data are significantly different from what expected.” (lines 213-214).

We described these terms earlier in the text (lines 134-150).

For instance, with the following statement:

“Disheartened affiliates: moderate fatalism, distrust in people, conformity, passivity, pessimism”

Did the author add these descriptors? Or are these standard terms in studies of this particular type?

We added a table (lines 449 – 450) and explained the terms.

Line 290: Is education a better word choice than instruction (i.e., “higher levels of education”)?

Changed the term as suggested (line 307).

Line 292: Is a comma needed after “affiliates), “ ?

Added. Thanks. (line 309)

Line 304-305: “could been” is wrong – should it either be “could be” or “could have been”?

Modified as “could have been” (line 321).

Line 374: I’m not sure what “realized” means here? Finalized? Or is this when the survey was taken/distributed?

Modified as “survey was conducted” (line 389).

Line 450: Should the categories “Disheartened affiliates” and “Reactive anomics” be in quotation marks? It might be good put them in quotation marks throughout the study?

We put the names of the clusters in in quotation marks throughout the text.

Pages 6 – 7: Summary of Questionnaire: Most statements are phrased in a negative manner. Only one is positive (Immigrants are a source of cultural enrichment). Could this incline the survey takers to think in a negative manner? Is this addressed in the article? I did not see it.

We acknowledged this potential limit. Lines 347 – 350.

Overall, this is an interesting study with potential to make a useful contribution to scholarship. I would like to see a reworking that responds to these comments.

Thank you very much for your precious comments and suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thanks a lot for the corrections and all your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject matter is of interest since it attempts to correlate perceptions of immigrants and realities. However, I am surprised that this has been submitted to the Genealogy Journal. I do not think that it fits into the scope of the journal, and the link with ethnicity or multi-ethnicity is too tenuous. There is no relation to the actual heart of the journal's scope, in fact, unfortunately.

I feel that there needs to be a change in the papers organisation. The methods come after the actual results, which is rather surprising. It would gain in quality if it were the -other way round.

The use (l. 90) of 'illegal migrants' is rather problematic, since it reveals politico-media tic use of language, which is incorrect - technically speaking human beings cannot be 'illegal'. They are irregular or undocumented.

Figures provided (l. 86, for example) date from 2016, which cannot be considered to be recent.

We only actually learn late on in the article that this particular study was carried out in 2020, during COVID. Surely, this should be stated and put into perspective at the start?

Spacing and punctuation is also weak and it seems that it needs to be proofread - in particular for the bibliography. I will provide just one example: l. 512 Psychology72 - spacing is an issue and the italics are missing. This is very recurrent in the bibliography.

Due to the fact that the methodology is only presented after the results, it seems somewhat difficult to understand, and the reader is required to back-track in order to look again at what the results showed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English is relatively weak and there are constant grammar mistakes throughout, as well as simple grammar errors. These are just a sample of them, but the paper needs major revisions on this point:

l. 24 a representative samples

l. 41 the perceived threats

l. 73 hosting

l. 84 augmenting - uncommon in English

l. 85 - tense is incorrect.

l. 92 spacing is problematic.

l. 93 syntax is not English.

l. 97 what does this mean?

l. 104. Not expressed in English.

l. 108 grammar and use of definite article.

l. 161 less is used instead of fewer.

l. 63 12 millions of migrants.

There are really mistakes almost on very line.

I have not listed them all, since there are too many.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I feel that there needs to be a change in the papers organisation. The methods come after the actual results, which is rather surprising. It would gain in quality if it were the -other way round.

The structure follows the journal’s guidelines for the authors.

Modified as “irregular (lines 89-90).

Figures provided (l. 86, for example) date from 2016, which cannot be considered to be recent.

That part of sentence is deleted.

We only actually learn late on in the article that this particular study was carried out in 2020, during COVID. Surely, this should be stated and put into perspective at the start?

The survey was conducted in April 2021.

Corrected.

The structure follows the guidelines for the authors.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In order to understand and estimate well the immigrant situation in Italy, the article suggest to check not only the number or percentage of immigrants, not only where they are coming from and their cultural bias, but also their symbolic universe. Symbolic universe, is a term borrowed from cognitive sociology, or among Semiotic Cultural Psychology Theory (SCPT), "An Affect-laden Generalized pattern of meanings, operating as basic framing for perceptions…" enabling sociologist to deal with ideologies without losing a distance necessary for research.

I find this attempt important, and the survey portrayed in this article to be of an utmost importance. Any attempt to understand social attitude towards immigration or any sort of a social sentiment without relating to symbolic universe is lacking its essence. The article is convincing and I hope that it will make a change in the policy making towards immigration.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

MANY THANKS FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well structured paper with clear goals and methodological proceduresion Discussion a stonger link should be made between the debate and the theoretical references. The Discussion could be enriched with more examples from the Italian society that may help to interpret the results obtained in the survey.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some spelling mistakes. A thorough revision is needed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thanks for your comments.

We added some more information in the discusssion section.

Best regards.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In support of the author's arguments, a concise literature review would be very useful in order to identify the gap, if any, in the state-of-the-art.

More details as per the sampling criteria would help the reader form a more informed opinion on the robustness of the findings.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In support of the author's arguments, a concise literature review would be very useful in order to identify the gap, if any, in the state-of-the-art.

We think that the state-of-the-art describes clearly some of the previous studies and identifies the gap.

More details as per the sampling criteria would help the reader form a more informed opinion on the robustness of the findings.

We added some more information about sampling.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe this paper has significant merit and is important to publish because it reveals personal viewpoints regarding migration and its effect on culture-- i.e. how individuals in a nation or community perceive migrants as changing their culture in a particular way and the meaning of integration, assimilation, cultural change, cultural preservation, and who gets to decide what the expectations are for a country or a society when it comes to the acceptance of a particular culture- in either direction- arriving or receiving. It is nuanced and well researched, the study was conducted ethically and scientifically, and the cultural perceptions recorded are unique and valuable to know.

Author Response

Reviewer 5

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

MANY THANKS FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your responses to my comments. I have reviewed the changes you have made and think that they do improve the piece. You have done impressive and valuable research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is good overall. Minor typos that I noticed have been corrected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments in both rounds.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Has been vastly improved, and the issues involving terminology eliminated (illegal migrants).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Vastly improved. but there still remain issues with some small typos, such as:

line page 22 - "succeed in the life"; line 599 (The capitals for the Journal or not used correctly as per the norm); and line 664 (...), for example for the authors.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Best regards.