Direct and Spillover Effects: How Do Community-Based Organizations Impact the Social Integration of Passive Migrants?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    The paper offers an interesting and significant analysis of the effects of CBOs on social integration among passive immigrants in China.

2.    While the paper is primarily descriptive, its theoretical contribution or intervention appears relatively weak. However, it is clearly written and provides valuable insights into the social integration experiences of passive immigrants and CBOs in China.

3.    The precise meaning of CBO participation requires further clarification in the paper. In the quantitative analysis, CBO participation refers to the variable "CBOs participation" - community-based organization (CBO) participation of PAR migrants (respondents who have participated in CBOs, coded as 1)." (line 320) However, should individuals who engage in CBO activities without formal membership be considered participants or non-participants?

4.    The paper suggests that CBO existence pertains to non-participants of CBOs. Therefore, the exact definition of CBO existence needs clarification. In the paper, CBO existence, as a binary variable, codes respondents who do not participate in CBOs but have CBOs in their community as 1, otherwise as 0. (line 322). However, this coding differs from that in Table 3. Furthermore, how are respondents in XT community and LT community, where there are no (active) CBOs, categorized or coded?

5.    The paper primarily focuses on the CBO participation of passive immigrants. However, in XT community and LT community, there are no (active) CBOs. Additionally, "among these 287 respondents, 15.9% of them participated in CBOs; 18.9% of them did not participate in CBOs but had an active CBO in their community." (line 348) So, what is the participation status of the other respondents (65.2%)? It seems unnecessary to recruit respondents in XT community and LT community for the survey.

6.    This paper should include the sampling method of the questionnaire survey and provide detailed background information on informants in interviews and discussions.

7.    Section 4.3.2 should present more dimensions of social integration besides social interaction, as the paper focuses on four dimensions of social integration.

8.    In Section 5, "Discussion," the authors could enhance the paper's argument by integrating the discussion with existing literature.

9.  The information on p.5 need references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigates the relationships between community-based organizations and social integration among PAR migrants. The topic is important because few studies have focused on PAR migrants and the function of community-based organizations. Community-based organizations need to be emphasized in the progress of migration, and this article has examined this type of facility well. The data and methods are appropriate to answer the questions.

 

There are several issues that the authors need to focus on:

1.     The term needs to be consistent. It seems that the author mixes the use of ‘migration’ and ‘immigration’. They are different, and the author needs to use a fitting term in the context of this study.

2.     The background information is important in this article. In this article, Several phrases are difficult to understand for international readers. For example, ecologically vulnerable regions. Besides, in Line 114, what is the traditional rural lifestyle among the passive migrants? The explanation of PAR migrants is also important.

3.     Participants and non-participants of CBOs. What do you mean by participants? Usually, it refers to the people who join the activities organized by CBOs, or you mean the staff in the organization.

4.     Line 92: this sentence is confusing. What do you mean by “structures or processes”?

5.     The paragraph from Line 120: what is individual or familial human capital and social capital in this study?

6.     Some terms need to be explained, such as from Line 144: cross-cultural communication, bridge social capital, and social learning.

7.     Line 150-152: citation is needed.

8.     For H1, the terms that the author uses are confusing. They should be consistent with what has been used in the literature review. Or how did you get the four factors in Line 159-161.

9.     Line 162, what is ‘other immigrants’?

10.  Line 195: What is ‘Three Regions and Three Prefectures’. Although the term is explained in the footnote, the footnote only shows the name of the place. This does not make sense to readers.

11.  Line 197-198: what is long-distance and short-distance? Distance between what?

12.  Line 210: transfer their original agricultural land to what? If this is not related to social integration, I am not sure if you need to clarify this. Is this background information or it is important to the study?

13.  Line 197: why do you have the indicator ‘the concept of marriage’?

14.  I like the author’s efforts to use both quantitative and qualitative findings, which enrich and provide in-depth insights into the question. I encourage the authors to link tightly between the quantitative and qualitative findings. More literature needs to be cited to support the author’s argument.

15.  Line 512: What is ‘China’s five flagship initiatives’?

16.  Section 5.1: the discussion part needs to be more critical. Currently, it seems like a conclusion of the results. Reviewing literature that is related to the topic may be helpful.

17.  Sentences from Line 547-549: The argument is interesting but confusing. How does the author reach this conclusion?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1)The research question of the article is meaningful. By analyzing four dimensions, it explores how community-based organizations impact the Social Integration, providing reference for the social integration of PAR migrants from other regions in the future. The “4.2. Quantitative Findings” part has a clear level of analysis and is meaningful. At the same time, case studies were selected from representative poverty-stricken areas in Southwest China.

(2) The literature review section, especially the selection of the four dimensions of social integration, requires additional literature supplementation. The second hypothesis of “2.2CBOsʼ Role in Social Integration” needs more sufficient literature support and argumentation.

(3) Some data can support analysis, but there are still data analysis issues, as stated in “3.3.1 Social Integration Variables”, regarding the selection criteria for indicators, only the kmo values are listed, and the significance level for the Bartlett's test needs to be supplemented. And in the "4.2 Quantitative Analysis"， some data does not meet the criteria of p<0.05, it is still classified as a significant impact. The processing and analysis of data require further refinement and accuracy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has met the quality requirements for journal publication. It is recommended to modify the format of references and other aspects, and publish it after English polishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your advice. We have modified the format of the references as required by the journal, and have polished the article again.
Thank you again for your help.

best regards.