Navigating Layered Exclusion: Workplace Dynamics and Inter-Migrant Discrimination Among African Professionals in Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Navigating Layered Exclusion: Workplace Dynamics and Inter-Migrant Discrimination Among African Professionals in Australia

General comments

This paper is timely, making a strategic contribution to the understudied issue of “layered exclusion” of African professionals in the workplace in Australia. The use of the triad theories provides a strong descriptive and interpretive lens for the study.

Specific comments

Abstract

1. Arrange the keywords in alphabetical order.

Introduction-

1. The phrase “African migrants” is too generic. A brief explanation is critical to give the reader the overall picture. Are they professionals from diverse African countries, are they first generation or second-generation Africans living in Australia or are the Australian-Africa. An elaborate information can be given in the demographic description in the methodology.
2. At the end of the introduction, provide how the paper is organised.

Methodology

1. Instead of putting XXX university, provide the actual university which granted the ethical clearance (line 718)
2. Provide a detailed demographic of the participants, including age, gender, nationality, profession type, years in Australia, visa type, etc. (see my comment in the introduction). Such provisions authenticate intersectionality claims and sample representativeness.
3. What was your recruitment strategy?
4. A small interpretation of how survey data (quantitative snippets) and interview data (qualitative) were integrated during analysis beyond using NVivo.
5. Mention the researcher's positionality.
6. Expand the limitation of the study.

Findings

8. There are repetitions in section 8; the introduction to Theme 8.1 is duplicated verbatim (lines 261-263 & 265-267).
9. In Section 8.1 there is an abrupt end in lines 263-4: “…thereby limiting Participants consistently reported…”
10. Revisit section 8 and fix repetitions and the flow of data.

Discussions

1. To avoid confusion, the difference between "layered exclusion" and "intersectionality" might be briefly emphasised in the discussion. Layered looks at origins (such as the dominant group, other migrants, and co-ethnics), whereas intersectionality looks at how identity markers (including race, gender, and status) build on each other.

Recommendations

1. The recommendations are good. Suggest how exactlythe accreditation framework should be revised
2. Explain what “do language courtesy guidelines” should look like
3. Are there any specific government agencies that can act on these issues?

References

• About 10 references are cited in the text but not in the reference section.
• Duplication(s) (check Schweitzer (2022)).
• What is the correct name for Bolaji Bolaji & Imonitie (2025) or Bolaji & Kuteyi-Imonitie (2025)

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Please find attached our detailed response to your comments and suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for such an important research article!! 

It is very well written with a robust structure and an excellent theoretical and conceptual background. 

My only comments relate to the research design section, where I would like to see some demographic information regarding the research participants, such as country of origin, age, gender, educational background and years of residing in Australia. I think this information would offer a better understanding of the quotations used in the article and justify them. Moreover, the authors might need to consider adding a paragraph about the limitations of the study. It would also be useful to add some references for thematic analysis. 

Overall, it is a very important piece of work which contributes significantly to our understanding of discrimination.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Please find attached our detailed response to your comments and suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf