Overall statement:

The study focuses on the evaluation of the impact of two acculturation attitudes on academic misconduct based on the data collected from the international students with humanities and social sciences backgrounds studying in a Malaysian public university. The research identifies that adjustment-centric attitudes significantly influence three types of academic misconduct. These effects, due to their magnitudes, are practically relevant. In addition, no empirical evidence is found on the impact of attachment-centric attitudes on academic misconduct.

Overall strength:

In this study, reasons for applying an advanced method of analysis have been provided that is a very important and good practice. The representation of the findings is acceptable. The paper can simply extend the borders of the knowledge in internationalization, acculturation, higher education, and psychology disciplines.

Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.

1. The first paragraph of the introduction seems problematic due to lack of recent studies being cited. Specifically, the first few sentences are not backed up with any citations. It would be advisable to amend this paragraph and set a better stage for the study by providing a general introduction on the gap in the knowledge in this very first paragraph.
2. The main theoretical model supporting the study has been developed in 1997 and given the shifting environment of higher education, it would be preferable to strengthen the study by linking the study in its current format to a more recent model.
3. I believe the issues related to academic misconduct are issues that are not encouraged in any country. They are not specific to Malaysian higher education context. No higher education system in a country would encourage cheating in exams regardless of the culture of the people living in that country. So, if my assumption is true, which I think it is, the introduction and statement of the problem should be revised. If not, the authors should provide evidence in the literature that the mentioned academic misconducts in this study are academic misconducts only in Malaysia and not elsewhere.
4. Please highlight the objectives and significance points and explicitly mention who would benefit from the results of the study in the introduction section.
5. Please contrast the previous research findings in the literature review section and provide justifications on why the questions in this study to be answered are important.
6. With respect to hypotheses development, it appears that the hypotheses are not backed up with previous research works as indicated by the limited number of citations. There should be adequate literature for the contribution of predictors to the outcome variables. In other words, proving literature focusing on the variables (and not the linkages between them) may not add value to the process of hypotheses development.
7. Please specify the sampling method in this study. Also provide justifications for the selection of international students with humanities and social sciences background from one public university.
8. A careful look at the demographic profile of the participants shows that they are mainly from Asian (80%) and African countries (18.5%), narrowing down the generalization the results. In fact, as reported by the authors, only 1.1% of respondents are from European countries. I would recommend deleting the students from the European countries and rerun the analysis.
9. Given that the instruments have been adapted, please provide information in the measures section on how the original instruments have been modified to meet the needs of the research team. Related to this, introduce the Likert scale you used to measure two different types of attitudes in this study.
10. Given that the instruments have been adapted, please provide information on how the research team has ensured the content validity of the instruments.
11. It will be preferable to report power analysis results with respect to the adequate required sample size in this study.
12. Please consider running full collinearity assessment to check whether the data is contaminated with common method bias.
13. Please provide information about how you handled the issues of missing values in this study.
14. Please provide information on detection of the multivariate outliers in your study. If multivariate outliers were detected, the analysis should be carried out without them.
15. Please address the address of multivariate normality of the data in your study.
16. Please report Cronbach Alpha and Rho_A as two other measures of reliability in table 1.
17. Prior to testing the significance of hypothesis, it is essential to check the collinearity among the predictor variables in the structural model.
18. Please consider running predictive relevance analysis and report q2 effect sizes.
19. Please report the f2 effect sizes.
20. Please consider a bigger number of sub-samples in running bootstrap procedure. Basing the hypotheses on 500 bootstrap sub-samples may not be appropriate. Consider 10000 sub-samples.
21. While the significant paths in the structural model are quite large, it would be a good idea to discuss about their practical relevancy.
22. It will be a good idea to extent the basic results of the analysis through running IPMA or multi-group analysis to increase the rigor.
23. An specific poor reason for the rejected hypotheses has been provided which is "higher level of reliance of the students on the norms of their countries of origin". However, it seems that the academic conduct, as measured in this study, has the same meaning in all the countries. For example, no higher education system would encourage cheating in exams or paying others to do the assignments. Therefore, it will be a good idea to provide more solid reasons for the rejected hypotheses.
24. With respect to the conclusions and discussions, I need to say that theses sections should be amended based on the results of a new analysis of the data without the outliers and the European students.
25. Please report the fact that all the sampled international students are from humanities and social sciences schools as a limitation of the study and highlight that your findings can be generalized to the students of with these backgrounds in the selected public institution. Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies.
26. Please specify the method applied to analyze the data, sample nature and size, as well as the research design in your abstract. In addition, the main practical implication should be stated.
27. Narrowing down the informative title of the manuscript should be considered as the analysis of the sampled data form students with humanities and social sciences studying in a public institution may not be fully in alignment with this broad title.
28. Please consider adding a few more recent studies to the introduction and literature review sections.
29. Please provide an appendix containing uni-variate statistics of the items such as mean, SD, skewness, kurtosis, and their standard errors to address the issue of uni-variate normality.
30. Displaying only t statistics in figure 3 is not a common practice in reporting structural model results. It should be combined with the path coefficient.
31. Since figure 2 shows the initial measurement model evaluation and table 1 shows the final results, it will be confusing for the readers to compare the statistics displayed in figure 2 and table 1. I would recommend making these two sources of information consistent with each other.
32. It will also be better to display non-significant paths with dashed lines in the final model shown in figure 3.
33. While all the numbers in table 1, 2, and 3 have three decimal places, there are two numbers in table 1 with two decimal places. Please correct that.
34. In table 3, rather than the mean value of bootstrapping results, the observed mean value should be reported.
35. Given that the provided textual material with respect to table 1, 2, and 3 appear to be mainly a description and replication of the results displayed in these three tables, I would recommend summarizing the descriptions.