The topic of loneliness among international students is an interesting, serious and pressing topic due to the increasing internationalization of higher educational institutions in the West, integration and the importance of wellbeing for students’ experiences. Despite the relevance of the topic, this paper does not sufficiently advance understandings of loneliness or its predictors. I comment further as follows:

The hypotheses are banal and intuitive; they lack novelty, unique insights or implications for what is already known about international (Chinese) students and loneliness. As the authors note, there are substantial research on all the hypotheses presented, so what is the unique angle or twist. There are no theoretical, methodological or empirical contributions in the article. To be successful, the researchers needed to distinguish why Chinese students are an important case study or exception to what is already known in the extensive literature on the topic. Perhaps anchoring the research on rising anti-Asian sentiments in the West or Orientalism (Said) would provide a sounder rationale for the study. Even that might not have been enough to offer a contribution. Many of the literature that the authors were done based on Chinese international student populations in the West. Hence, it is unclear what is novel or different about the hypotheses, population, predictor variables and subsequent findings.

An alternative way of address the issue of novelty or contribution to the literature might be context. What makes Germany different or interesting for this kind of research?

The study claimed to make a contribution to the predictors of loneliness. Again, this was not achieved. The study merely recycled existing research, and did not offer any new predictors. Perhaps, in the line of network analysis, it might have been useful to examine pre-migration and post-migration social networks, and the effects of loneliness. Alternatively, the authors could dig deeper into network characteristics e.g., categorizing the alters into groups based on factors such as family, casual friends, deep friends, host v. international friends etc.

A significant issue with this paper is the lack of theoretical focus. A better literature review is needed in addition to a focused theoretical framework to study loneliness. This would justify why the five hypotheses were chose and not others. For example, why are these predictors more relevant to Chinese International Students than others. Furthermore, the authors need to dig deeper into the literature to better explain how the variables relate to each other, ex. what is the relationship between experiencing discrimination and loneliness? What are the nuances in that relationship. Studies have shown that experiencing discrimination might build solidarity and avert loneliness (see Liu et al, 2016; Balingue, 2021). Likewise, a better assessment of the link between discrimination and network size (p. 14) is needed. Similarly, the authors need to interrogate the relationship between ALL the hypothesized variables and the DV, with more nuanced discussion of the literature and relevant theory.

As mentioned above, the authors need to articulate how theory influenced the research and how the research contributes to theory. There is brief mention of network analysis but reference to it is rudimentary. Again, the focus on Chinese students need to be theorized as well as the context of Germany. Concerning the other hypotheses around discrimination, emotional ties, romance and friendship, the readers need to know why these things matter theoretically.

I am curious why there was a single item measure for an important variable as the dependent variable. Given the robust debates around the efficacy of single-item measures, particularly around loneliness (see Michalska da Rocha, Beata, et al, 2018; Mund et al, 2023; Reinwarth et al, 2023), the authors need to offer a justification as to why that approach was used. They also need to also evaluate the reliability and validity of the measure. Interestingly, the problem was cited as a probably explanation for the unexpected relationship discovered between strong emotional support and loneliness. However, no attempt was made to remedy, resolve or justify the issues. Furthermore, the authors themselves recognized that the measure could have underestimated the true extent of loneliness, which makes the findings questionable.

Even more troubling is the scant attention given to the only interesting finding in the study (higher number of emotionally supportive ties is associated with higher levels of loneliness). First, better evaluation of the data is needed to determine if the results are valid, reliable or spurious. Once a determination is made about that, the authors need to provide more nuanced explanation as to why this might have occurred. This would involve theoretical explanations on the connections between the two variables. For example, how might culture affect definitions of emotional ties and the role of personal networks. As alluded to by the authors (p. 13), the study needed to explore the roles of students within network better (i.e., are they primary giver or recipients of emotional support). That would require more engagement with the literature. Commendably, the authors highlighted the possibility of reverse causality is an explanation for the relationship discovered between emotional support and loneliness. This is interesting, but I wish they had explored this more. Check the literature on that as well.

Overall, I feel that the study needed better predicting variables, more ambitious hypotheses, a stronger literature review, a focused theoretical framework and a revision of the measures/methodology. Based on that, I recommend that the manuscript is rejected in its current form.