Towards Sustainable Mobility? The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Romanian Mobile Citizens in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read carefully the paper entitled: ”Towards sustainable mobility? The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on Romanian mobile citizens in Spain”.

 

 1. We found that in this paper a number of ideas are developed around information taken from the websites of some institutions (links are provided in References).  

2. The writing of the paper does not take into account the template of the journal Sustainability.  

3. The sample of interviewed subjects is small.  

4. In general, we cannot say that there is a solid scientific construction on this paper. In terms of qualitative research, however, we find a notable part.  

5. The conclusions of the paper should no longer refer to References (three cases).  

6. Small errors can be easily fixed. If they read carefully the text of the paper, the authors will detect for themselves the negligences...  

7. But he must apply the rules of the Journal.

8. It would be good to expand the bibliography with some articles from prestigious scientific journals (WoS) published in 2019-2020-2021.  

9. All in all, eventually, it may be seen by an English teacher (native).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your explanations, for your time and for your engagement in the quality of the article that I submitted for publication in Sustainability Journal. Your support is very important for this paper in meeting the quality requirements of the Journal.

We found that in this paper a number of ideas are developed around information taken from the websites of some institutions (links are provided in References).  

Yes, you are right. However, as you well know, the institutions provide useful information, that help us in this case – help me - me to build the argument. However, my work is original and innovative.

Anyway, I have introduced more references.

The writing of the paper does not take into account the template of the journal Sustainability.

 The article, in its current form, fits perfectly with the topic of the Journal because it is worked around the concept of Sustainability, in this concrete case mobility and sustainability in time of pandemic.  

In addition, as specified in the article, drawing on in-depth interviews with mobile people during the period of lockdown and circulation restrictions, and in accordance with the objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the paper advances and contributes to the relevance of sustainability and its impact on people’s mobility in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Thus, the paper is very suitable for Sustainability Journal.

1. The sample of interviewed subjects is small.  

I respect your opinion. However, 45 in depth interviews is more than enough to make an innovative scientific qualitative article. It's like I usually work. Sometimes, in my field, we work with a sample of 25-30 interviews. This is not a project. This is an article pilot. I have analysed very well my interviews. In addition, I have included, all the most representative profiles of the population that were confronted and that continue to be confronted with the pandemic. I have worked to bring out the most important aspects of the mobility of Romanians between Spain and Romania in the middle of the pandemic. I modestly consider that despite limitations I have accomplished my goal.

In general, we cannot say that there is a solid scientific construction on this paper. In terms of qualitative research, however, we find a notable part.  

Thank you for your kind commentary. I have reworked the paper. I believe that writing about the pandemic situation and its mobility process is an innovation in itself, and that all members of the scientific community - including you, are certainly committed to helping to find out, really, what the impact of the pandemic is. For this reason, I consider that its impact is more than relevant.

The conclusions of the paper should no longer refer to References (three cases). 

I have reworked the paper. I Have introduced more references.

Small errors can be easily fixed. If they read carefully the text of the paper, the authors will detect for themselves the negligences...  

I have read again the article is correct in its current form.

It would be good to expand the bibliography with some articles from prestigious scientific journals (WoS) published in 2019-2020-2021. 

I have introduced more scientific references in the paper.

All in all, eventually, it may be seen by an English teacher (native).

The article has been revised by a native translator.

Thank you very much for your explanations, for your time and for your engagement in the quality of the article that I submitted for publication in Sustainability Journal. Your support is very important for this paper in meeting the quality requirements of the Journal.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the topic of the reviewed paper, entitled Towards sustainable mobility? The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on Romanian mobile citizens in Spain, interesting. The research is conducted properly, but the research sample is relatively small and the methods used are not advanced. The author(s) should improve the quality of the paper.

Below there is a list of my remarks (substance and technical) on the reviewed paper:

• Please revise the keywords (e.g. it would be better to use Romanians than Romanian) and add sustainable mobility.
• Please update COVID-19 numbers (cases and deaths) in the first sentence of the introduction.
• The main aim visible in the abstract (“paper aims to advance and contribute to the relevance of sustainability and its impact on people’s mobility in the context of the pandemic”) misses the word COVID-19. The aim of the paper presented in the text (“the paper aims to advance and contribute to the knowledge on the sustainable mobility of the people”) misses the statement “in the context of COVID-19 pandemic”.
• Figure 2. (term COVID-19 is missing in the title).

• There is a lack of visible paper’s scientific contribution. Please write literally (e.g. at the end of the introduction section or in the methodology section).

• The research methods used should be considered not too advanced (qualitative case study, using in-depth interviews).

• The analysed sample is small. The author conducted 45 in-depth interviews (40 minutes long).
• Is the following statement, “The agricultural sector was the most affected of all” true?

• The introduction part, particularly the literature review, could be developed. The author(s) could find more strictly scientific references.
• The conclusion part includes the discussion.
• I recommend separating these two parts. There are 3 references in the conclusion (discussion) that are not visible in the introduction part or theoretical background.

• There is a lack of visible paper’s scientific contribution and formulation of research hypothesis/es. Please write literally (e.g. at the end of the introduction section or in the methodology section).
• The author(s) should see and present the limitations of the study.
• The entire text of the paper is quite diffuse. Please be more specific.

• Apart from the substance of the paper, the linguistic aspects require some improvement and proofreading (e.g. “I argue that despite” and “Second, we discussed”)

Overall assessment

I find the reviewed paper valuable and interesting. However, the author(s) should develop the reviewed paper to improve its quality. I recommend making changes (considering the above-mentioned remarks) that could improve the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and your help, for your questions and support.

With your help, I have made the essential changes - as you kindly suggest.

2)   I find the topic of the reviewed paper, entitled Towards sustainable mobility? The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on Romanian mobile citizens in Spain, interesting. The research is conducted properly, but the research sample is relatively small and the methods used are not advanced. The author(s) should improve the quality of the paper.

 

Thank you very much for your kind report. I have reworked my paper.

Below there is a list of my remarks (substance and technical) on the reviewed paper:

• Please revise the keywords (e.g. it would be better to use Romanians than Romanian) and add sustainable mobility.

You are right (I have added a “s”)

• Please update COVID-19 numbers (cases and deaths) in the first sentence of the introduction.

I have updated the number of cases and death. Thank you.

• The main aim visible in the abstract (“paper aims to advance and contribute to the relevance of sustainability and its impact on people’s mobility in the context of the pandemic”) misses the word COVID-19.
• I have included COVID-19
• Figure 2. (term COVID-19 is missing in the title).
• I have included COVID -19 in the title

• There is a lack of visible paper’s scientific contribution. Please write literally (e.g. at the end of the introduction section or in the methodology section).

• I have written literally both in the introduction and in the methodology the scientific contribution that the article makes

 

• The research methods used should be considered not too advanced (qualitative case study, using in-depth interviews).

• I strongly respect your point. However, I think yes, because knowing the direct experiences of the population we can find solutions to the problem

 

• The analysed sample is small. The author conducted 45 in-depth interviews (40 minutes long).

• I respect your opinion. However, 45 in depth interviews is more than enough to make an innovative scientific qualitative article. It's like I usually work. Sometimes, in my field, we work with a sample of 25-30 interviews. This is not a project. This is an article pilot. I have analysed very well my interviews. In addition, I have included, all the most representative profiles of the population that were confronted and that continue to be confronted with the pandemic. I have worked to bring out the most important aspects of the mobility of Romanians between Spain and Romania in the middle of the pandemic. I modestly consider that despite limitations I have accomplished my goal. It has also been a very difficult process, contacting so many profiles of people and conducting these interviews. I believe they meet my scientific goals. In addition, the article is relevant in itself because it adds useful global information for the scientific community. And it really reveals the experience of a collective of mobile people.

• Is the following statement, “The agricultural sector was the most affected of all” true?

• Yes, it is true, in the case of people who work in this sector.
• The introduction part, particularly the literature review, could be developed. The author(s) could find more strictly scientific references.

I have included more references in the Literature review section.

I have improved the introduction. I have highlighted my contribution.

• The conclusion part includes the discussion.
• I recommend separating these two parts. There are 3 references in the conclusion (discussion) that are not visible in the introduction part or theoretical background.

The analysis of the article is very broad, detailed and includes discussions.

However, taking into account your successful recommendations, I have titled the last part of the article “Discussions and conclusions”.

• There is a lack of visible paper’s scientific contribution and formulation of research hypothesis/es. Please write literally (e.g. at the end of the introduction section or in the methodology section).

I have included literally ant the end of the introductions the limitations of the paper.

Also, I have included literally (in the section of methodology) the difficulty and limitations in carrying out fieldwork in pandemic conditions.

• The entire text of the paper is quite diffuse. Please be more specific.

I have reworked the paper. In this version the paper is very well articulated.

• Apart from the substance of the paper, the linguistic aspects require some improvement and proofreading (e.g. “I argue that despite” and “Second, we discussed”)

I have modified the phrases:

• I argue that even in the midst of the crisis, sustainable ways may be found to promote and protect human mobility. 
• Second, we discussed their experiences of mobility during the pandemic, the factors that triggered their mobility during quarantine periods and throughout the year, whether they were afraid of the risks of infection.

 

The article has been revised by a native translator.

 

Overall assessment

I find the reviewed paper valuable and interesting. However, the author(s) should develop the reviewed paper to improve its quality. I recommend making changes (considering the above-mentioned remarks) that could improve the paper.

Thank you for your kindness and final commentary.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting and well written manuscript showing how COVID19 crisis presents both challenges and opportunities when it comes to human mobility and sustainability. I have only few minor comments:

Abstract: a comma is needed after the Spain

Delete parentheses during the second use of (SDGs)

I suggest to authors adding a limitation section.

I congratulate the authors for the quality of the conducted study.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for your explanations, for your time and for your engagement in the quality of the article that I submitted for publication in Sustainability Journal. Your support is very important for this paper in meeting the quality requirements of the Journal.

Abstract: a comma is needed after the Spain

I have introduced the comma, after Spain

Delete parentheses during the second use of (SDGs)

I have deleted the parentheses during the second use of SDGs

I suggest to authors adding a limitation section.

I have adding the limitations of the paper, both in the introduction and methodology sections

I congratulate the authors for the quality of the conducted study.

Thank you very much for your kind report. Thank you for your appreciations.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors' insistence and work are remarkable. 
I am in favor of supporting them to reach a publishable form. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The author took into account most of my remarks. The text of the revised paper is still a little bit diffuse. The author could be more specific. However, I can accept the paper in the present form.