The Nepalese Diaspora and Adaptation in the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank authors for examining the subject matter of Nepalese diaspora in the USA. I have read it with great interest. My immediate observation is that the study is policy-relevant. However, the claim to inform policy making – stated in the Conclusions - is not responded to in any form through recommendations. The authors may either delete the reference or add recommendations. In a number of sections, there is a reference to “phenomenal” and / or “rapid” growth of the Nepalese diaspora, while the absolute number of 167 thousand over the period of several decades does not seem to support the statement. The authors may want to add a specification that the number is notable compared to the extremely low/negligible numbers of immigrants from Nepal during in the second half of the XX century. In a number of places, it is suggested that they assimilate successfully, and in lines 34-35 that they fail to assimilate – there are certainly cases of both; the narrative needs to be aligned or specified.    

A few concrete suggestions below, where the draft raised most questions:

45-46: seems to suggest that Nepalese wives are submissive; this is outside of the scope of the study and needs supporting evidence.

147: what does it mean/refer to “chatted/discussed online”

290: table 2 seems to be out of place, it needs to be placed in an appropriate section

331: should it be “were hesitant” or hesitated (without “were”)

362-366: interesting questions on the marital adaptation.

520-528: earlier sections state proficiency in EN.

521: better services – such as? The draft does not cover the services in any form; either this part should be elaborated or removed.

527-528: why?

535: limitations of the study should be moved to the methodology

541-543: this is an important selection bias; should it be reflected in the title and specified in the methodology?

Minor suggestions included above. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attachment 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article presents survey results of an online survey about recent Nepalese immigrants' assimilation into US society. It is always good to have more data about a population that has been little documented to date, so in this way, its contributions to scholarship are high. The quantitative aspects of this study are sound and the data are clearly presented, and could possibly be of use to organizations aiming to help new immigrants from Nepal, or possibly for policy applications that the authors do not state. It would be nice to hear more details about how the authors envision the potential impact of their findings.

Beyond this, I am not in the field of demography and am therefore not qualified to judge the salience of the framing within that field, but coming from anthropology, I find the framing still to be based on 1960s ideas about assimilation and identity, and therefore to be a bit outdated. Although the authors exchange the term assimilation for adaptation, the survey seems like it is still designed based on old assumptions about one to one assimilation from one static culture into another. I would like to see more clarifications (ideally citing scholarly discussions on the topic) about how an "adaptation" framework is different from an "assimilation" framework. This may simply be a matter of adding a clarifying sentence with a few more recent citations. 

Finally, I suggest that the authors remove sarcasm ("so-called political parties") and political commentary from their discussions of Nepal's internal situation, as the audience for this paper is unlikely to understand their intended meaning. I have also marked a few suggestions for corrections in comments on the PDF. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English is generally excellent. I have marked a few minimal corrections regarding articles and prepositions. A copyeditor should catch the rest. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the revised manuscript. It reads better, and additional analysis enriches the draft. Comments and suggestions have been addressed in a coherent manner.

Line 14: practical implications – what does this refer to? or do you mean policy implications (?)

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Two issues need to be addressed: Figure 1 needs to be revised and cleaned considerably. It's a mess now. Start the graph at 1995 or perhaps 1990. There is no trend to see before 2000. And if you cannot display the numbers clearly and independently on the graph, eliminate them. (Include the source in the Figure description.) Enlarge the font and make it stand alone, clear and attractive. 

Second, the authors may argue that the perceptions of the migrants may not have changed since the survey was completed, but it's been 14 years since the survey, and immigration politics has changed (worsened), and many of the respondents now have children who have adapted in many ways ("too American!!?") and their experiences may have changed the respondents. I think the authors need to discuss this in the conclusion or in the limitations. It is a snapshot of Nepalese immigrants from 2010, but it would be disingenuous to say the results apply equally to today. 

It needs a copy edit to eliminate a few awkward phrases, but overall it's pretty good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf