Japanese Universities’ International Medical Partnerships: Reciprocity and Stratification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is timely for the questions being asked. Its main limitation is that it is unclear to me which percentage of agreements in place in Japan was included in this study.

My suggestions for further improvement of the manuscript are as follows:

• the introduction is too long and should be more focussed on the questions being asked. A few paragraphs are sufficient. Some considerations are better placed in the discussion, focusing on the results.
• the author should more clearly define the meaning of National/Municipal/Private/Imperial University, especially for the international audience;
• the methods section is very concise and for me it was difficult to understand the criteria for agreement selection;
• the meaning of the word “stratification” should be more clearly explained;
• a few take home messages (concluding remarks on what this study adds) should be clearly stated taking into account the research questions being asked (see introduction): a) What are the characteristics of international medical exchange agreements in Japan? b) How is reciprocity manifested in these agreements? c) How does stratification among Japanese universities relate to the characteristics of international medical exchange agreements?
• the English style should be more concise because I noticed several repetitions in the introduction and in the discussion.

The language can be more concise. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

The paper is well written and structured. Although the author tried to justify the study, I suggest working on the following:

·        Why is this study important? Why do we need to know about these agreements of Japanese universities and what important and new knowledge has the study generated? The paper has been submitted to a journal with international focus. What is the study’s contribution to international scholarship?

·        The author claims that “no previous studies have analyzed international medical student exchange agreements on a national scale.” Why is this important to do?

·        The author claims that students participating in international elective programs increased between 2010 and 2013. That was 10 years ago. What is happening nowadays?

·        The author briefly discussed in the Introduction the distinction between STEM and Humanities students. Did the author analyse any data, showing how students with different social and cultural background, including gender, ethnicity, parents’ education etc, have behaved in relation to participating in these programs? If yes, what the data have revealed? If not, why not?

·        Following the discussion of the results, the author should show what new and useful has this study brought to international scholarship. How, for example, the findings of the study, can help Universities or education authorities in other countries?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for considering my suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering my feedback!