PREreview of A population perspective on international students in Australian universities

This review is the result of a virtual, collaborative live review discussion organized and hosted by PREreview as Module III of the Open Reviewers: Champions Program 2024 workshop on February 27, 2024. The discussion was joined by 22 people: 3 facilitators, and 19 members of the PREreview 2024 Champions Program cohort. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint. 

Summary paragraph

This study aims to examine the influence of distinct economic factors, including gross domestic product (GDP) and the proportion of GDP allocated to education, within the home countries of a significant cohort of international students who choose to pursue higher education in Australia. The primary objective is to discern potential inequities in access to university education in Australia and identify barriers encountered by prospective students seeking to study abroad. Utilizing publicly available data, from 2019 to 2022, from the Australian government and the World Bank, the authors looked for correlations between different factors such as GDP, % GDP spent on education, and geographical location with international student enrollment in Australian universities.

Their design involved grouping countries that contributed more than 20 students into regions such as Southeast Asia, the Pacific, the Indian subcontinent, Sub-Saharan Africa, and China. Furthermore, they contrasted the level and field of study preferences between international and domestic students enrolled in Australian universities. While the authors did not find a strong correlation between the population rates of international student enrolment and the socioeconomic variables they used to compare, some outliers suggest that countries with higher GDP are associated with increased enrolment numbers in Australian universities. It is important to consider the potential impact of such exclusions on the overall interpretation of the results. Greater consideration of these “outliers” and their potential influence on the data coupled with robust sensitivity analyses, could enhance the validity and reliability of the findings.

The reviewers commend the study for its focus on global equity in higher education and its potential policy implications for Australia which could spark further research into higher education accessibility issues worldwide. However, concerns are raised about the clarity of the conclusions and the accuracy of the statistical methodology, indicating areas where the authors could enhance both their manuscript and the data analysis. 

Major issues and feedback 

Despite the qualities of the paper, we have identified the following major issues:

• The methodology fails to account for significant covariates such as cultural, political, and economic factors, which exert considerable influence on international student enrollment patterns. This oversight increases the risk of providing incomplete and biased conclusions. A comprehensive analysis requires the inclusion of these factors to accurately capture the complex drivers of global higher education migration (which also includes factors such as visa regulations, language barriers, societal attitudes toward education, and perceptions of safety). 

• The statistical methods used may not be the most appropriate for the type of data being examined. A longitudinal study would have been more advantageous for a more thorough understanding of international student enrollment patterns and the factors influencing them. Unlike cross-sectional studies that capture data at a single point in time, longitudinal studies track the same variables over an extended period, offering insights into trends and changes over time. We would recommend the Haussmann test as an appropriate tool for this study; the fixed and random effect addresses also the issue in a manner that could benefit the study. 

• Clarify the role of COVID in the study, addressing its potential impact on the findings before and after its occurrence, to provide context for the results obtained.

• The manuscript lacks clarity on the criteria used to include or exclude certain countries from the analysis. While it explains why some countries were excluded due to having fewer than 20 students studying in Australia, the rationale for removing outlier countries isn't adequately explained. While it's understandable that Malaysia/Singapore might be outliers due to Monash's campus there, a clearer justification and explanation of the threshold used to classify a country as an outlier within its region is necessary.

• While the introduction focuses on countries of varying incomes, the main conclusions are aimed at low- and middle-income countries. This inconsistency can lead to confusion for readers, requiring a more thorough explanation for why low- and middle-income countries are the primary focus of the paper. Please provide more details about the criteria for grouping countries by geographical regions when the main research question is related to socioeconomic factors. 

• The methodology followed does not explain the reason for using (or not using) some variables nor does it show how the were results obtained. Better explaining their choice of methodology and comparing it to similar studies would add to the comprehension of the study.

• It is unclear how variables having “apparent association” were determined. We suggest that whether this was determined numerically or in some other way, to include how this decision was made (ie: correlation coefficient, p-value).

• While the data used is clear and easy to find, the methods used in the analysis are not sufficiently elaborated on, making it difficult for readers to reproduce. More detail on the statistical tests conducted is needed for greater reproducibility.

• The conclusion seems to present ideas not directly supported by the data presented and lacks clear suggestions for future perspectives in the wider discussion about equity in access to higher education. Providing a more thorough commentary on the statistical analyses in the conclusion would strengthen the conclusions and remind readers of the basis for the arguments being made.

Minor issues and feedback 

Concerns with techniques/analyses

• The authors mention the countries that were excluded from the analysis and the inclusion criteria. A complete list of the countries included in the study is desirable in the main text.

• Regarding the methods section, an explicit state of the cross-sectional 2019-2022 nature of their study could enhance clarity regarding their research approach.

• Please describe the acronym GDP, this would be particularly useful for non-native English speakers.

• In the limitations section the authors say that they selected “data from the countries and regions of most “relevance” to Australia’s international education. Please provide more clarity on what is meant by “relevance”. 

• In the conclusions, the authors suggest the development of a network for global online learning to reduce the global inequalities in access to higher education. We recommend a better explanation of what this network would look like, citing examples. 

Details for reproducibility of the study

• The lack of direct access to the original data creates an additional step that might hamper reproducibility efforts. 

• The authors should be commended for depositing the data and methods used in Zenodo for reproducibility purposes. However, we had some difficulties finding that repository when reading the manuscript, and it included only the data and not the detailed methods applied. An explicit indication of its existence in the methods and/or abstract sections would solve this issue.

• The methods section could be improved by including details of the computational tools used to analyze and plot the data. It would be useful to add the code/script as a supplementary file to increase reproducibility.

Figures and tables

• As a general comment, we recommend improving the tables and figures to enhance their clarity and visual appeal, making it easier for readers to understand the information presented.

• The use of different colors for the outliers and highlighting specific relevant countries in the graphs would make the graph easier to understand. Moreover, the integration of figures 1 to 4 in a single image with identical y- and x-axes could enhance data comparison and interpretation.

• Regarding tables, making the table design more uniform and adding grid lines would also enhance the comprehension of the data by the reader. Percentages in Tables 3 and 4 don’t seem to add up to 100% - consider adding another row to show where the rest of the data is.

• Authors might want to check a typo in Table 4, where one of the percentages is 438.2%

• Consider removing titles for Figures 1-4 and including all the relevant information to understand the figures in the figure captions.

• The legends and numbers in Figures 1-4 are hard to read because the font size is very small.

Discussion

• The authors were cautious when stating their conclusions/interpretations, and we believe this is a positive aspect of the work. This is acknowledged in the title by the use of the word “Perspective”. They acknowledge the lack of strong correlations between the variables studied, while at the same time recognizing the potential importance of the outlier data for their interpretation.

• Greater discussion of what (if anything) changed pre and post-COVID is recommended.

• The discussion will benefit by including more socioeconomic variables that could describe better the population under study.

• Regarding the discussion of results, a comparison with other studies with similar goals could add some perspective on the results obtained by the authors.

• It is appreciated that the authors mention cofounding factors in the limitations section, they should consider including this in the discussion section as well.

Additional comments

• Typo on Page “on educationor” the “or” should be separated.

• Generally to improve the overall professionalism of the manuscript we recommend conducting a thorough check for spelling errors, utilizing tools like Grammarly or similar software for assistance.

• As this preprint might be interesting to many stakeholders, then the authors might make it easier to understand for a broader audience. For example, providing a plain text summary.

Concluding remarks

We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. We also thank all participants of the Live Review for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.