Exploring Concurrent Relationships between Economic Factors and Student Mobility in Expanding Higher Education Achieving 2030

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Dear authors, I find it very interesting and well defined. I would just like to make a few comments:

I apologise beforehand because I did not know how to interpret the tables and graphs in sections 43. and 4.4 with their corresponding sub-sections. The lag from -7 to 7 I do not know what they refer to. The graphs are not of sufficient quality to be able to see the data correctly. I am sorry for not being able to evaluate these points of your work.

 In figure 9 the variable Periods appears at the bottom and I don't know what it refers to. Just as in figure 10 they change the years for periods (they should not make these changes and leave the real data for a better visualisation of the graph), here I don't know what they are referring to. Please, could you clarify this?

On the other paragraphs of the article, I see that you have made modifications that have greatly clarified and improved the article. I do not have much more to say.

I hope my comments can be useful to your work.

Best regards.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Reviewer’s comment and response

Dear authors, I find it very interesting and well-defined. I would just like to make a few comments:

 

1. I apologize beforehand because I did not know how to interpret the tables and graphs in section 4.3. and 4.4 with their corresponding sub-sections. The lag from -7 to 7 I do not know what they refer to. The charts are not of sufficient quality to be able to see the data correctly. I am sorry for not being able to evaluate these points of your work.

Response:

4.3 Students’ Mobility Flow, Table 3 is the trend of two series raw data; Table 4 is represented as a ratio format of the two series data.

4.4 The lags from -7 to 7 represent the concurrent relationship with time series data. The related explanations are presented on page 6.

 

2. In figure 9 the variable Periods appears at the bottom and I don't know what it refers to. Just as in figure 10 they change the years for periods (they should not make these changes and leave the actual data for better visualization of the graph), here I don't know what they are referring to. Please, could you clarify this?

Response:

We have revised the appearance in Figure 10. Periods represented the series data and predicted values of GER from 1976-2030.

 

3. In the other paragraphs of the article, I see that you have made modifications that have greatly clarified and improved the article. I do not have much more to say. I hope my comments can be useful to your work.

Kind regards.

 

Response: Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

‘This study aims to explore the effects of higher education expansion, to determine the relationships between higher education expansion and student mobility and to predict their future trends.’  It did not appear to address ‘the effects of’, unless inwards and outward mobility was intended to be ‘the effects’. This is an ambitious paper, as two of its research questions seek to predict the short-term future for higher education expansion and student mobility, but only taking into account a selection of economic factors, and this seems somewhat short-sighted and quite seriously incomplete, not least given the current fragility of Taiwan with regard to mainland China and the West, i.e. the assumption that economic trends can predict with any reliability the future of non-economic matters such as higher education expansion and student mobility is dangerous and needs to be justified more fully. Justifying it on trends heretofore, in a turbulent world, particularly in Taiwan, is questionable and it needs to be defended, and not only, for example, on demographic grounds, even if, as the paper states, it only seeks to examine ‘the relationships among expansion and inbound and outbound mobility flows in the economic context’. The ‘economic context’ is much wider than this study includes. Indeed, the paper accepts this (‘[h]igher education expansion has not grown out of purely endogenous factors but might be influenced by exogenous economic and political forces’) but then proceeds as though this doesn’t seem to matter in the present paper. Indeed, if there is one thing that the charts show, it is volatility. Indeed, the paper states that ‘[r]egarding Education 2030, we may confront with numerous challenges in the future’, and ‘the factors that impact student mobility are complicated in uncertain global settings’.

 

The paper would have benefited from a much clearer statement of the purpose of relating economic factors with student mobility in expanding higher education achievements in 2030, given that, as admitted in the ‘Limitations’ section, potentially critical factors are excluded. In this respect, of what is Taiwan, a breakaway self-declared independent country, which is highly contested, a fair representation of anything but itself? Taiwan is in a fragile political, and, hence, economic, situation which is unlike that of many other small countries or territories, and this raises questions of what can be taken from this paper that might apply outside Taiwan.

 

The paper states that ‘[w]e believe only meaningful expansion can trigger healthy higher education development’; we are not really interested in the authors’ beliefs, and beliefs are an insufficient basis for a study here; we need evidence.

 

What, exactly, is the argument that the literature review seeks to make, and how does this relate to, and inform, the subsequent analysis and what can be taken from it? This needs to be made clear before, during and after the literature review.

 

Where is the evidence that ‘While student mobility issues have been addressed persistently, the phenomenon is rarely discussed in association with economic factors and higher education expansion systematically’?  Reference to research on the economics of higher education is needed here.

 

The assumptions of linearity and linear causation, that underpin the analysis here, are contestable, because so few factors have been included, even though the paper acknowledges this and confines itself to economic data and manipulation alone. In other words, the problem lies with the scope of the model being used here, and this needs to be stated and justified more strongly here.

 

Though the direction of causality has been suggested and defended, the defence is based on statistics rather than reality, and such reality is far more complex, multi-factorial and multidimensional than the paper assumes it to be. Like many papers in economics, the stipulative assumptions on which the paper is based are of arguably limited applicability, and this is reinforced by the absence of controls or other major factors, and the justifications provided are somewhat convincing, however attractive they may be. Research question 3, which concerns causality, is unsuited to this paper, and the paper would be wiser for removing suggestions of causality, and limiting itself to relationships which might or might not be causal. The assumption of putative linear causality in the situation of Taiwan is questionable, and this limits what can be taken from the paper as offering a workable model for wider application or, indeed, for comparatively short-term prediction in Taiwan itself. Had the paper brought in other parts of the work then this would have been more useful.

 

The paper claims that it ‘[f]ocused on the influential economic factors, [and] we found the economic growth ratio will drive student mobility flows’. This might be the case, but the economic growth rate does not operate in a vacuum, and the other factors at work are neglected, and this is dangerous, however sophisticated are the analyses provided. As the ‘Limitations’ section states: ‘[h]owever, the factors that impact student mobility are complicated in uncertain global settings’, e.g. social, cultural, political, international, regional etc. Indeed, the self‑acknowledged limitations are substantial and significant.  Further, the statement that ‘[f]ocused on the influential economic factors, we found the economic growth ratio will drive student mobility flows’ is not as secure as the authors might wish it to be, as that causality is only as clear as the assumptions made, and these need to be justified more clearly, i.e. to be more circumspect about what can be taken reliably and usefully from the paper, even though the future time frame is very short-term. There is also the remaining issue of how far causality can be determined by correlational analysis.

 

What we have here is somewhat statistically acceptable (though, as an aside, the null hypothesis significance testing is largely discredited, and the acceptability of the assumption of the null here is unproven), but the problem concerns the assumptions behind these, what has been included and excluded, and, therefore, what can be taken from this paper, despite the authors’ claims.

 

It is unclear to me why the authors have gone back to Randall Collins’s 1971 paper, or, indeed, to human capital theory at all, as it has come under intense criticism in the last decade or so.

 

Within its owns limits, the paper makes a strong case; my concern is just how useful this case is – a feature of many papers in the economics of education, which are confined by their own, stipulated assumptions, inclusiveness and scope.

 

As an example of analytical methodology, the paper is interesting and clear. The problem here concerns whether its scope does justice to the wider issues that it purports to address.

 

I suggest that the paper adopts a more cautious approach to its claims and what can be taken for the analysis, not least by including statements of ‘if and only if …’.  If these, and the points mentioned above are addressed, in the knowledge that this might extend the paper somewhat then the paper could be useful.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Reviewer’s suggestion and response

 

1. ‘This study aims to explore the effects of higher education expansion, to determine the relationships between higher education expansion and student mobility and to predict their future trends.’ It did not appear to address ‘the effects of’, unless inwards and outward mobility was intended to be ‘the effects’. This is an ambitious paper, as two of its research questions seek to predict the short-term future for higher education expansion and student mobility, but only taking into account a selection of economic factors, and this seems somewhat short-sighted and quite seriously incomplete, not least given the current fragility of Taiwan with regard to mainland China and the West, i.e. the assumption that economic trends can predict with any reliability the future of non-economic matters such as higher education expansion and student mobility is dangerous and needs to be justified more fully. Justifying it on trends heretofore, in a turbulent world, particularly in Taiwan, is questionable and it needs to be defended, and not only, for example, on demographic grounds, even if, as the paper states, it only seeks to examine ‘the relationships among expansion and inbound and outbound mobility flows in the economic context’. The ‘economic context’ is much wider than this study includes. Indeed, the paper accepts this (‘[h]igher education expansion has not grown out of purely endogenous factors but might be influenced by exogenous economic and political forces’) but then proceeds as though this doesn’t seem to matter in the present paper. Indeed, if there is one thing that the charts show, it is volatility. Indeed, the paper states that ‘[r]egarding Education 2030, we may confront with numerous challenges in the future’, and ‘the factors that impact student mobility are complicated in uncertain global settings’. The paper would have benefited from a much clearer statement of the purpose of relating economic factors with student mobility in expanding higher education achievements in 2030, given that, as admitted in the ‘Limitations’ section, potentially critical factors are excluded. In this respect, of what is Taiwan, a breakaway self-declared independent country, which is highly contested, a fair representation of anything but itself? Taiwan is in a fragile political, and, hence, economic, situation which is unlike that of many other small countries or territories, and this raises questions of what can be taken from this paper that might apply outside Taiwan. The paper states that ‘[w]e believe only meaningful expansion can trigger healthy higher education development’; we are not really interested in the authors’ beliefs, and beliefs are an insufficient basis for a study here; we need evidence.

 

Response: We agree variable selection in a study is always tough, it is no exception to select related factors to interpret an expanding higher education system. This topic focuses on the student mobility phenomenon, it is assumed that the phenomenon is linked to higher education expansion and economic development-related factors. We have revised the unclear statement in the paper. In this study, we treated Taiwan as a resilient economy based on the World Trade Organization’s identity rather than a political entity. Regarding IMF’s report, the GDP in Taiwan is listed in 21 out of 191 economies in 2022; Based on 2022 IMD’s Word competition, Taiwan ranked 7 of the selected 63 economies. The GDP per capita has reached US$ 30 thousand, over Japan and Korea. Considering the prediction, typically, 5 years belong to a long-term period. In this paper, we considered 8 years toward 2030 for a specific target of "Education 2030". We assumed positive development for freedom, democracy, and prosperity will lead to a well-being society.

 

2. What, exactly, is the argument that the literature review seeks to make, and how does this relate to, and inform, the subsequent analysis and what can be taken from it? This needs to be made clear before, during and after the literature review.

Response: Thanks. We have carefully reinforced the logic of these linkages. For example, on Page 3, lines 127-129: “Higher education expansion was driven by internal and external demands. Economic growth could be a crucial driver. How has this driver shaped student mobility in global settings?”

 

3. Where is the evidence that ‘While student mobility issues have been addressed persistently, the phenomenon is rarely discussed in association with economic factors and higher education expansion systematically’? Reference to research on the economics of higher education is needed here.

Response: Thanks. We have revised the sentence in the abstract section.

 

4. The assumptions of linearity and linear causation, that underpin the analysis here, are contestable, because so few factors have been included, even though the paper acknowledges this and confines itself to economic data and manipulation alone. In other words, the problem lies with the scope of the model being used here, and this needs to be stated and justified more strongly here.

Response: We have reinforced this point.

 

5. Though the direction of causality has been suggested and defended, the defence is based on statistics rather than reality, and such reality is far more complex, multi-factorial and multidimensional than the paper assumes it to be. Like many papers in economics, the stipulative assumptions on which the paper is based are of arguably limited applicability, and this is reinforced by the absence of controls or other major factors, and the justifications provided are somewhat convincing, however attractive they may be. Research question 3, which concerns causality, is unsuited to this paper, and the paper would be wiser for removing suggestions of causality, and limiting itself to relationships which might or might not be causal. The assumption of putative linear causality in the situation of Taiwan is questionable, and this limits what can be taken from the paper as offering a workable model for wider application or, indeed, for comparatively short-term prediction in Taiwan itself. Had the paper brought in other parts of the work then this would have been more useful.

Response: Thanks. We revised the research question 3. We have redefined the variables of the model at the beginning of the method section. The suggested application will focus on the testing model, not the result of the case study.

 

6. The paper claims that it ‘[f]ocused on the influential economic factors, [and] we found the economic growth ratio will drive student mobility flows’. This might be the case, but the economic growth rate does not operate in a vacuum, and the other factors at work are neglected, and this is dangerous, however sophisticated are the analyses provided. As the ‘Limitations’ section states: ‘[h]owever, the factors that impact student mobility are complicated in uncertain global settings’, e.g. social, cultural, political, international, regional etc. Indeed, the self‑acknowledged limitations are substantial and significant. Further, the statement that ‘[f]ocused on the influential economic factors, we found the economic growth ratio will drive student mobility flows’ is not as secure as the authors might wish it to be, as that causality is only as clear as the assumptions made, and these need to be justified more clearly, i.e. to be more circumspect about what can be taken reliably and usefully from the paper, even though the future time frame is very short-term. There is also the remaining issue of how far causality can be determined by correlational analysis.

Response: Thanks. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have removed the causality issue. In this case, related factors on economic growth rate are neglected and have been addressed in the limitation section.

 

7. What we have here is somewhat statistically acceptable (though, as an aside, the null hypothesis significance testing is largely discredited, and the acceptability of the assumption of the null here is unproven), but the problem concerns the assumptions behind these, what has been included and excluded, and, therefore, what can be taken from this paper, despite the authors’ claims.

Response: We have carefully revised these statements. The null hypotheses have been added on page 7, line 291.

 

8. It is unclear to me why the authors have gone back to Randall Collins’s 1971 paper, or, indeed, to human capital theory at all, as it has come under intense criticism in the last decade or so. Within its owns limits, the paper makes a strong case; my concern is just how useful this case is – a feature of many papers in the economics of education, which are confined by their own, stipulated assumptions, inclusiveness and scope.

Response: Randall Collins’s 1971 paper was used to interpret the concept--Functional and conflict theories of educational stratification to interpret what are the functions of human capital theory. Yes, it is true that the human capital theory has been criticized for a long period. Simon Marginson, an editor of Higher Education, put that human capital theory is dead in his recent paper, while many economies claimed that expanding higher education and encouraging student mobility can enhance human capital for global competition.

 

9. As an example of analytical methodology, the paper is interesting and clear. The problem here concerns whether its scope does justice to the wider issues that it purports to address. I suggest that the paper adopts a more cautious approach to its claims and what can be taken for the analysis, not least by including statements of ‘if and only if …’. If these, and the points mentioned above are addressed, in the knowledge that this might extend the paper somewhat then the paper could be useful.

Response: Thanks. We have revised the statements to make them clear.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The article's writing style confuses the reader. The English language makes the story difficult to comprehend. Authors must use the correct terminology for a variety of terms. Moreover, they should justify the usage and application of the terms in their experimental design, as they assert that it is the case. In general, authors should exert greater effort to present a logical rationale for their research and effectively communicate their findings in a manner that is compatible with their conceptual and framework.

Before final publication, the authors should have their text proofread at several points because the language is not easily comprehensible.

Methodology should be separated into its own section and expanded upon. The evaluation section seems extremely intriguing and should be clarified further. Moreover, the findings are positive, and the future work appears promising.

The authors should include more references regarding other related fields, such as game-based learning and serious games (e.g. CMX MMORPG), and how they have been designed utilizing relative design frameworks, evaluated utilizing relative evaluation frameworks, and implemented utilizing learning analytics.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Reviewer’s suggestion and response:

 

1. The article's writing style confuses the reader. The English language makes the story difficult to comprehend. Authors must use the correct terminology for a variety of terms. Moreover, they should justify the usage and application of the terms in their experimental design, as they assert that it is the case. In general, authors should exert greater effort to present a logical rationale for their research and effectively communicate their findings in a manner that is compatible with their conceptual and framework. Before final publication, the authors should have their text proofread at several points because the language is not easily comprehensible.

Response: This article has been proofread with MDPI. 

 

2. The methodology should be separated into its own section and expanded upon. The evaluation section seems extremely intriguing and should be clarified further. Moreover, the findings are positive, and future work appears promising.

Response: The methodology section is well-defined.

 

3. The authors should include more references regarding other related fields, such as game-based learning and serious games (e.g. CMX MMORPG), and how they have been designed utilizing relative design frameworks, evaluated utilizing relative evaluation frameworks, and implemented utilizing learning analytics.

Response: The references have been added to 72 items.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Congratulations on the work done.

Best regards.

Author Response

Reviewer 1’s comment and response:

 

1. Congratulations on the work done.

 

      Best regards.

 

Response: Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper is suitably more cautious than the original version, and the changes that it has made are clear, and they strengthen the paper. The change to RQ3 is well done; the need to recognize the limits of somewhat decontextualized data is useful; the statements of the assumptions made and the confinement of the study to a bounded set of data types and variable foci are useful; the statement of the confining of the research to indicated theoretical models is useful; the excision is justified; and the limitations are suitably fuller now.

 There are three matters that need to be tidied up; very minor but important: (i) include a sentence or two with regard to the limitations of what can and cannot be said because of the few variables chosen, i.e. that the model might have some, but bounded, applicability in practice; (ii) that, whilst the study is important for Taiwan, how far this can generalize beyond Taiwan is unproven, as specific contexts matter a great deal; (iii) a footnote / endnote on the limitation of human capital theory in the present world would be useful in the section on lines 543-7, including a reference to Marginson.

 Lines 546-7 state this: ‘We found economic factors based on human capital theory [23], only the positive economic growth can make senses for students’ global mobility’.  There are two problems here, and they need to be rectified: (i) the sentence is not a sentence; it seems that one or more words have been missed out – should it be something along the lines of ‘We found that, of the economic factors used here, based on human capital theory [23], only those concerning the positive economic growth could make considerable sense for students’ global mobility in this analysis’. If this is not what the sentence meant, then it raises problem (ii), which concerns what is meant by ‘only’, and with regard to which variables, as the singularity of this is dangerous; my advice would be to avoid such exclusive words as ‘only’. This sentence needs to be amended.

 Line 618: ‘evidences’ should be ‘evidence’, as it can be regarded as a collective noun.

 Lines 619-21: ‘Moreover, the economic growth has become a critical driver that attracted international students, thus why the inbound mobility flow growth in the system regardless the impact of COVID-19 pandemic.’ The second clause here does not make sense, because the use of ‘thus’ means that a verb is needed in this clause; it needs to be rewritten.

 Lines 640-642: “This study suggests that the importance of appropriate data sets, both CCF and the time series methods can work well to determine the effects of the phenomena of higher education expansion on student mobility flows in the future.” The absence of comma renders this sentence ambiguous: is it that ‘the importance of appropriate data sets’ can work well, i.e. attention is given to the importance, or should there be a comma after ‘time series methods’, so that the implication is that it is the data sets which can work well? This sentence needs to be amended.

 Line 654-5: ‘In this study, we considered the phenomenon with trend format only, it is limited to the interpretation of the issue within a particular period’. The second comma should either be a semi-colon or should be followed by the word ‘and’. I would advise the latter.

 

Line 656: ‘For example, the COVID-19 pandemic periods.’ This is not a sentence; it must be rewritten as a sentence, with a subject and verb, and preferably with a predicate, in order to make sense.

 Lines 657-8: ‘The explanation of the result might be limited’. What does this mean, and ‘limited’ to what (and it is insufficient to say that it is limited to an explanation; rather, tell the reader in what way the explanation is limited? This needs to be rewritten.

Once these small amendments have been made, the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 round 2

Reviewer’s Comment and response:

 

1. This paper is suitably more cautious than the original version, and the changes that it has made are clear, and they strengthen the paper. The change to RQ3 is well done; the need to recognize the limits of somewhat decontextualized data is useful; the statements of the assumptions made and the confinement of the study to a bounded set of data types and variable foci are useful; the statement of the confining of the research to indicated theoretical models is useful; the excision is justified; and the limitations are suitably fuller now.

Response: Thanks reviewer’s positive comment.

 

2. There are three matters that need to be tidied up; very minor but important: (i) include a sentence or two with regard to the limitations of what can and cannot be said because of the few variables chosen, i.e. that the model might have some, but bounded, applicability in practice; (ii) that, whilst the study is important for Taiwan, how far this can generalize beyond Taiwan is unproven, as specific contexts matter a great deal; (iii) a footnote / endnote on the limitation of human capital theory in the present world would be useful in the section on lines 543-7, including a reference to Marginson.

 

Response: We have added some interpretations as the reviewer’s suggestions. (i) & (ii) see page 21; (iii) see page 19.

 

3. Lines 546-7 state this: ‘We found economic factors based on human capital theory [23], only the positive economic growth can make senses for students’ global mobility’. There are two problems here, and they need to be rectified: (i) the sentence is not a sentence; it seems that one or more words have been missed out – should it be something along the lines of ‘We found that, of the economic factors used here, based on human capital theory [23], only those concerning the positive economic growth could make considerable sense for students’ global mobility in this analysis’. If this is not what the sentence meant, then it raises problem (ii), which concerns what is meant by ‘only’, and with regard to which variables, as the singularity of this is dangerous; my advice would be to avoid such exclusive words as ‘only’. This sentence needs to be amended.

 

Response: We have collected it (page 19).

 

4. Line 618: ‘evidences’ should be ‘evidence’, as it can be regarded as a collective noun.

  Lines 619-21: ‘Moreover, the economic growth has become a critical driver that attracted international students, thus why the inbound mobility flow growth in the system regardless the impact of COVID-19 pandemic.’ The second clause here does not make sense, because the use of ‘thus’ means that a verb is needed in this clause; it needs to be rewritten.

  Lines 640-642: “This study suggests that the importance of appropriate data sets, both CCF and the time series methods can work well to determine the effects of the phenomena of higher education expansion on student mobility flows in the future.” The absence of comma renders this sentence ambiguous: is it that ‘the importance of appropriate data sets’ can work well, i.e. attention is given to the importance, or should there be a comma after ‘time series methods’, so that the implication is that it is the data sets which can work well? This sentence needs to be amended.

  Line 654-5: ‘In this study, we considered the phenomenon with trend format only, it is limited to the interpretation of the issue within a particular period’. The second comma should either be a semi-colon or should be followed by the word ‘and’. I would advise the latter.

Line 656: ‘For example, the COVID-19 pandemic periods.’ This is not a sentence; it must be rewritten as a sentence, with a subject and verb, and preferably with a predicate, in order to make sense.

Lines 657-8: ‘The explanation of the result might be limited’. What does this mean, and ‘limited’ to what (and it is insufficient to say that it is limited to an explanation; rather, tell the reader in what way the explanation is limited? This needs to be rewritten.

Once these small amendments have been made, the paper can be accepted.

 

Response: Thanks. We have collected the weak points. (See pages 20-21)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In order for this to become publishable eventually, a lot more work would have to be done to go beyond a blind curve fitting exercise. Currently, very little space in the manuscript is dedicated to what any of the variables, model parameters, or results actually mean, or whether the way the model is specified adequately captures relevant properties of the domain being investigated. Parts are also sloppy. The definition of the GER on p. 5 is incorrect (in the numerator, students of any age count), for instance. Also, the "IR" is simply the growth rate, what's the point of claiming a new indicator label for it? The notion of seasonality is treated completely uncritically as something that the model will tell us exists or not, even though over a series of years, what would "seasonality" even mean and how could it conceivably exist in tertiary participation? That inbound mobility influences net mobility is presented as a hypothesis and a "finding", even though it is an algebraic tautology. Lags are interpreted ad hoc. 

At the same time, none of the modelling is actually related to the completely disconnected background discussion and generic literature review. 

The questions posed, whether it is the case that domestic expansion reduces the demand for outbound mobility, and when demographic decline frees up capacity increases the attraction of inbound mobility, are interesting and important. And there are important equity considerations, e.g., whether outbound mobility may decline because the last steps towards universalisation finally reach students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who can less afford to travel. But the methods presented here are unsuitable to answer this question, even if they were correctly applied. Without a careful consideration of other concurrent factors and policies, time series analysis of a single country will never establish whether one of these variables drove the other, and especially not when a key variable such as GER has hardly any year-on-year variation to exploit and is completely dominated by the overall trend. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, congratulations on the article you have written. I find it very interesting and well defined. I would just like to make a few comments:

 

- In the hypotheses you say the effect of IR or GER, but in reality they are not an effect but a variable. You should modify the wording of the hypotheses and state that the GER will have a positive or negative influence on ..... I think you should clarify this in the hypotheses.

 

I apologise beforehand because I did not know how to interpret the tables and graphs in sections 43. and 4.4 with their corresponding sub-sections. The lag from -7 to 7 I do not know what they refer to. The graphs are not of sufficient quality to be able to see the data correctly. I am sorry for not being able to evaluate these points of your work.

 

- In figure 9 the variable Date appears at the bottom and I don't know what it refers to. Just as in figure 8 they change the years for periods (they should not make these changes and leave the real data for a better visualisation of the graph), here I don't know what they are referring to. Please, could you clarify this?

 

- The discussion has not provided answers to the RQs that were raised in the introduction of the article.

 

I miss the limitations of the study.

 

The conclusions, the second paragraph makes the most sense. I think that they should go deeper in this epigraph on what they raise in that second epigraph and make a more correct conclusion assuming the results raised in the discussion.

I hope my comments can be useful to your work.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your interesting paper. I highly appreciate the idea of the manuscript and the research design to address the research problems. I believe that this paper is publishable with some minor revisions:

1. Title: you may adjust the title to cover the sample of this paper i.e., Taiwan 

2. Research questions appear to be not very relevant to research hypotheses. Given the nature of the exploratory research, I do not think that research hypothesis statements are necessary in your cases. 

3. Second, Tow’s expansion stage is a useful framework [32] (p.17) => Tow is a typo. The correct one is "Trow". 

4. The quality of all the Figures should be enhanced. 

5. The impact of Covid-19 on international student mobilities appears to be overlooked in this paper. 

6. Some relevant papers which may be useful for your further revision: 

Yıldırım, S., Bostancı, S. H., Yıldırım, D. Ç., & Erdoğan, F. (2021). Rethinking mobility of international university students during COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Evaluation and Development. 

Schleicher, A. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 on Education: Insights from" Education at a Glance 2020". OECD Publishing.

Pham, H. H., Dong, T. K. T., Vuong, Q. H., Luong, D. H., Nguyen, T. T., Dinh, V. H., & Ho, M. T. (2021). A bibliometric review of research on international student mobilities in Asia with Scopus dataset between 1984 and 2019. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5201-5224.