Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses the important issue of visits to emigrant children by their often elderly parents and presents important contents that can contribute to the understanding and knowledge of the migratory phenomenon from a family perspective. However, there are some aspects that, in my opinion, need to be reconsidered.

At line 147, there is a typo that needs to be removed.

In general, the method section should precede the results section, for a better understanding of the article contents. Moreover, this section requires some clarifications and adjustments: 

1. Given the economic impact of the trips, it would be advisable to enhance the sample table with an income indicator. This could differently affect the extent of travel costs.
2. The table with sample charateristics has to be moved in method section
3. In the methods section, it is necessary to present the interview tool, providing justification for the questions included.
4. It is better to avoid using the first person (lines 674-677).
5. There is a repeated sentence (lines 697-704) that should be removed.

Regarding the discussion section, the passages between lines 485-495 and 505-523 contain contents that cannot be linked to the cited results, and therefore they appear inappropriate.

After the revision and improvement work, especially on the methods section, the paper, in my opinion, deserves to be published.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is important, engaging and interesting. The findings are clear and succinctly presented. However, in general, the major issue with the paper is the general lack of literature, in several key sections:

1. the introduction/rationale

2. the literature

3. the discussion

The issue is not just that the presented literature is limited to one context, there is almost no generalised, or globally extended and critiqued literature in this area, and as such, its findings are limited in relation to assessing its contribution to knowledge, as well as ts claims to originality.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thankyou for your amendments and your careful engagement with the topic and my feedback.