Tourist Nomads, Leisure Constraints, and Social Cohesion: A Study on International Students Living in Istanbul

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study that examines leisure constrains viz-a-viz social cohesion amongst international students in Turkey. The study findings are not completely new, however given the limited knowledge on leisure barrier and constraints of international student the findings warrant a wider dissemination and for this reason the reviewer supports its publication. However, there are some issues the author(s) might need to address before publication which are listed below:

The writing needs to be clearer. For example, in the last paragraph of page 2 the authors state ‘…it is the factors that…’ It is not clear what fact are they referencing to. Similarly when discussing findings of table 5 the authors refer to ‘graduate students’. It is not clear who are they, because they are not degree or Masters students.

It would be helpful if the quality of discussion in the first section can be improved. The authors discuss various concepts associated with the study, such as, social cohesion, leisure, recreation, however this discussion is very disjointed and does not provide insights into the research problem. The authors can make this discussion more cohesive and needs to articulate the research problem more rigorously. There are some papers published in the journal Tourist Studies (Sage) on leisure constraints and barriers which the authors may find useful.

I found a little contradiction in the results. The authors state that people who have higher socio-cultural adaptation have more leisure constraints, whereas those who have higher recreational activity have less leisure time barrier. Since more recreational activity means higher socio-cultural adoption score, how the above contradiction can be explained?   

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

We extend our gratitude to you for dedicating your valuable time to provide insightful feedback for this research. We have diligently incorporated all the suggested revisions to the best of our understanding and have presented them in a structured manner throughout the manuscript. The modified sections have been indicated in yellow in the revised version of the paper.

Reviewer Comments

This is an interesting study that examines leisure constrains viz-a-viz social cohesion amongst international students in Turkey. The study findings are not completely new, however given the limited knowledge on leisure barrier and constraints of international student the findings warrant a wider dissemination and for this reason the reviewer supports its publication.

However, there are some issues the author(s) might need to address before publication which are listed below:

The writing needs to be clearer. For example, in the last paragraph of page 2 the authors state ‘…it is the factors that…’ It is not clear what fact are they referencing to.

Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable suggestion. The relevant sentence and the paragraph in which it is located have been reviewed, and since the factors that limit participation in leisure activities are more clearly expressed in the following paragraphs, this sentence has been removed from the text due to its lack of clarity and the repetitive sentence structures in the text.

Reviewer Comments

Similarly, when discussing findings of table 5 the authors refer to ‘graduate students’. It is not clear who are they, because they are not degree or Masters students.

Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable suggestion. The mentioned errors and expression inaccuracies have been acknowledged, and the recommended corrections have been made and marked in yellow in Table 5 and its explanations, as well as in the sections discussing the results obtained in this table in the discussion section.

Reviewer Comments

It would be helpful if the quality of discussion in the first section can be improved. The authors discuss various concepts associated with the study, such as, social cohesion, leisure, recreation, however this discussion is very disjointed and does not provide insights into the research problem. The authors can make this discussion more cohesive and needs to articulate the research problem more rigorously. There are some papers published in the journal Tourist Studies (Sage) on leisure constraints and barriers which the authors may find useful.

Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable suggestion. According to your suggestion, the discussion and conclusion sections have been reviewed, and the text has been simplified to make it more understandable. These changes have been supported by similar studies published in Sage journals, and the relevant modifications are highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer Comments

 I found a little contradiction in the results. The authors state that people who have higher socio-cultural adaptation have more leisure constraints, whereas those who have higher recreational activity have less leisure time barrier. Since more recreational activity means higher socio-cultural adoption score, how the above contradiction can be explained?   

Author’s Response

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. It was realized that some of the results obtained in the study were generalized, and only the questions asked and the analyzes performed in this study were used to simplify the relevant texts and reconsider this situation in the results section. These areas have been marked in yellow.

More specifically, the data obtained in the study showed that students who regularly engage in recreational activities had high social adjustment scores as expected, while their scores on leisure constraints were low.

In another result, students who were members of various social communities had high social adjustment scores as expected, but their leisure constraints scores were unexpectedly high. In addition, a positive correlation was found between social adjustment and leisure constraints, which was contrary to expectations. These areas were revisited and marked in yellow, and efforts were made to support these results with studies from the literature, as you suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

The article provides valuable information on the importance of leisure time for international students and its relationship to social cohesion.  However, the article missed when the data was collected. The period of data collection is very important for academic research.  I cannot find it. Also, authors mentioned, "Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to test the construct validity of the Turkish short form of the scale. CFA results consist of 6 factors and 18 items of the short form of the scale (LCQ-SF). For the 18-item structure of the scale, item factor loading values ranged from 0.49 to 0.89. The internal consistency coefficients of the scale range from α = 0.65 (time) to α = 0.86 (lack of information). " Authors should have shown the results of the CFA with a table and GFT, CFI, NFI, RMSA, etc. 

 

 

The study's results are presented clearly, and the discussion provides insights into the implications of the research for policy and practice. The article is likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners interested in international student mobility, But data collection and methodology are not clear. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

We extend our gratitude to you for dedicating your valuable time to provide insightful feedback for this research. We have diligently incorporated all the suggested revisions to the best of our understanding and have presented them in a structured manner throughout the manuscript. The modified sections have been indicated in yellow in the revised version of the paper.

Reviewer Comments

The article provides valuable information on the importance of leisure time for international students and its relationship to social cohesion.  However, the article missed when the data was collected. The period of data collection is very important for academic research.  I cannot find it. Also, authors mentioned, "Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to test the construct validity of the Turkish short form of the scale. CFA results consist of 6 factors and 18 items of the short form of the scale (LCQ-SF). For the 18-item structure of the scale, item factor loading values ranged from 0.49 to 0.89. The internal consistency coefficients of the scale range from α = 0.65 (time) to α = 0.86 (lack of information). " Authors should have shown the results of the CFA with a table and GFT, CFI, NFI, RMSA, etc. 

 Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable insights and contributions. The information regarding the data collection process and the results of the CFA table for LCQ-SF have been added to the methodology section per your valuable suggestions. These additions have been marked with yellow highlights.

Reviewer Comments

The study's results are presented clearly, and the discussion provides insights into the implications of the research for policy and practice. The article is likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners interested in international student mobility, but data collection and methodology are not clear. 

Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable insights and contributions. The data collection and methodology sections have been revised and made more comprehensible in accordance with your valuable suggestions. Relevant changes have been marked with yellow highlights.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I am very honor to review this important issue. Thank you very much. However, I have some concerns.

1. The Introduction is too long. Thus it is hard to capture key information, such as research gap, research question and research motivation. Therefore, the introduction needs to be simplified. So I suggest rewriting the introduction section. The introduction may include five sub-sections. The first part proposes the research topic and introduces the importance of the research topic. The second part carries on the literature review of research topic and points out the research gaps. The third part puts forward some research questions aiming at the research gaps. The fourth part points out the contribution of this research after solving the research questions. The fifth part points out the layout of the article.

2. The research samples are all students, which will inevitably have an impact on the universality and generalization of the conclusions.

3. This study carries out a simple statistical analysis, however, what is the contribution of knowledge promotion and theory promotion?

4. The practical implication is lack.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,

We extend our gratitude to you for dedicating your valuable time to provide insightful feedback for this research. We have diligently incorporated all the suggested revisions to the best of our understanding and have presented them in a structured manner throughout the manuscript. The modified sections have been indicated in yellow in the revised version of the paper.

Reviewer Comments

The Introduction is too long. Thus it is hard to capture key information, such as research gap, research question and research motivation. Therefore, the introduction needs to be simplified. So I suggest rewriting the introduction section. The introduction may include five sub-sections. The first part proposes the research topic and introduces the importance of the research topic. The second part carries on the literature review of research topic and points out the research gaps. The third part puts forward some research questions aiming at the research gaps. The fourth part points out the contribution of this research after solving the research questions. The fifth part points out the layout of the article.

Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable suggestion. Taking into consideration the complexity you pointed out in the introduction section, we have rewritten the entire section in a simplified manner to make it more understandable, while also ensuring its conciseness.

Reviewer Comments

The research samples are all students, which will inevitably have an impact on the universality and generalization of the conclusions.

Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable suggestion. Following your suggestion, the entire study has been reviewed in terms of generalized statements and care has been taken to make inferences specific to the research sample. To address this issue in the results section, only the questions asked and the analyzes performed in this study were used to simplify the relevant texts, which have been highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer Comments

This study carries out a simple statistical analysis, however, what is the contribution of knowledge promotion and theory promotion?

Author’s Response

We are grateful for your contributory question. Considering that social cohesion and leisure constraints are distinct phenomena, it is anticipated that the results obtained from the sample of international students will provide unique contributions to these components. For instance, in this study; the social cohesion process and potential leisure constraints faced by international students during their adaptation to a new culture were investigated through their participation in recreational activities and efforts to access recreation, as well as other variables. The results obtained in the study demonstrate that regular participation in recreational activities facilitates social cohesion, while also indicating that participation in recreational activities and the experience of leisure constraints are distinct from each other. It was found that international students may encounter leisure constraints even when they participate in recreational activities regularly. Similarly, a positive correlation was found between social cohesion and leisure constraints contrary to expectations. These results, which have similar examples in the literature (shown in the conclusion section highlighted in yellow), will aid in reviewing the negotiation strategies for leisure constraints and restructuring potential blind spots in the components of leisure constraints and social cohesion with theoretical data support from this study and future qualitative and mixed-methods studies.

Reviewer Comments

The practical implication is lack.

 Author’s Response

We appreciate your critical contribution. As this study adopts a perceptual and descriptive approach, it has the potential to provide valuable insights for future practical studies. The perceptual and descriptive data obtained from this study may serve as a foundation for designing practical studies in the future. For instance, future research could be designed to investigate the negotiation strategies employed by international students in order to overcome leisure constraints or to assess the effectiveness of these strategies. Such studies may contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by international students and inform the development of interventions or programs aimed at enhancing their leisure experiences and social cohesion. Furthermore, it is anticipated that conducting future research on a larger sample of international students and immigrants, focusing on cultural differences in participation in leisure activities and needs, and providing practical suggestions, can facilitate social cohesion and development in the context of international human mobility.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good revision. But statistical figures must be expresssed as 0.34 instead of 0,34 (example).  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude to you for taking the time to provide us with valuable feedback on our research. We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and incorporated them into the manuscript to the best of our understanding.

Thank you again for your insightful comments and contributions.

Reviewer Comments

Good revision. But statistical figures must be expressed as 0.34 instead of 0,34 (example). 

Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable suggestion. In accordance with your suggestion, all relevant corrections have been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

congratulation, all the questions have been solved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude to you for taking the time to provide us with valuable feedback on our research. We have carefully considered all of your suggestions and incorporated them into the manuscript to the best of our understanding.

Thank you again for your insightful comments and contributions.

Reviewer Comments

Extensive editing of English language and style required.

Author’s Response

We appreciate your valuable suggestion. In accordance with your suggestion, extensive editing of the English language and style has been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf