Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The Use of first person pronoun has to be checked to ensure that it is in line with the journals guide.
2. The entire background lacks citations even where the are required
3. The literature centred only on colonial impact on xenophobia without accounting for other contending factors like economic, political and global migration trends
4. The methodology is not well captured. The study used content analysis and textual analysis without properly applying the former. the components were missing and there is no comprehensive description of its application
5. The background basically looked at social media platforms such as Facebook and X as the main sources of information for the study whereas the methodology listed about seven mainstream outlets as being the study focus.
6. The study did not include excerpt examples of media contents that reported xenophobia in SA as to establish its correlation with coloniality. 
7. Other comments can be seen in the attached document. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to extend a big thank you to the reviewer for their insightful observations and suggestions. I have addressed the majority of the comments and added further context and background, drawing on relevant sources where appropriate. A few points proved more difficult to reorient, as they may require a more substantial redirection to fully capture the broader concerns raised. That said, I am sincerely appreciative of the reviewer’s detailed feedback and expert guidance, and I remain open to making further refinements should they be considered necessary.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a valuable contribution to the field of media studies, African studies, and decolonial theory. It makes visible the ways in which digital media can act both as a space for participatory discourse and as a battleground for reproducing historical injustices. Its central claim—that xenophobic discourse in South Africa is a manifestation of enduring colonialities—offers a critical lens through which scholars and policymakers alike can better understand the social fractures and ideological fault lines that plague post-apartheid society. Despite minor limitations in methodological clarity and structural organization, the article succeeds in providing a deeply humanizing and intellectually rigorous interrogation of what it means to belong.

One of the article's principal strengths lies in its seamless integration of theory and context. The application of decolonial thought, particularly through the works of Maldonado-Torres, Grosfoguel, and Ndlovu-Gatsheni, adds depth to the interrogation of xenophobia as not merely a social ill, but a lingering epistemic and ontological residue of colonial domination. The coloniality of being is compellingly foregrounded in the analysis, demonstrating how digital discourse dehumanizes African migrants and reifies exclusionary narratives about identity and belonging, even among Black South Africans. This intra-Black xenophobia (or afrophobia) is situated within the historical continuities of apartheid, nationalism, and racialized citizenship.

Methodologically, the article adopts a qualitative content and textual analysis of media coverage from major South African news outlets and social media discourse. This is a suitable approach for the research objectives and is well-executed through rich interpretative engagement. However, while the analysis is conceptually sound, the article might have benefit from a more detailed explanation of sampling strategies and coding procedures to bolster methodological transparency and replicability. Additionally, the selection of media sources could be more critically appraised in terms of ownership, ideological leanings, and audience demographics to contextualize potential biases in coverage.

Another commendable aspect is the exploration of citizenship laws and the contested terrain of legal versus emotional belonging. The author highlights how Adetshina, despite fulfilling formal criteria for citizenship, was delegitimized through a complex mix of suspicion, rumor, and moral panic, illustrating the disjuncture between legal status and social acceptance. This resonates strongly with Boatcă and Roth's (2016) concept of the "coloniality of citizenship," and further underscores the structural violence embedded in postcolonial nationhood.

Nevertheless, the discussion section, while rich in examples, could be improved by synthesizing insights into clearer thematic clusters (e.g., “crime and criminality,” “digital hate and virality,” “state power and institutional complicity”). This would improve analytical coherence and reader navigation. Moreover, while the article concludes with a powerful critique of beauty pageants as symbolic sites of belonging and exclusion, this line of argument could be more thoroughly developed earlier in the piece to give greater weight to the role of spectacle in identity politics

Author Response

I am sincerely grateful for the reviewer’s perceptive observations, which provide excellent guidance and align closely with the deeper inquiries I have sought to pursue. While some suggestions required a minor detour from my original academic focus and posed challenges in integration, I have carefully considered them within the framework of my approach. I greatly appreciate the reviewer’s careful attention and expert insight, and I welcome any further opportunities to refine and strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this article. As our own society is grappling with xenophobia and attacks on immigrants, the complexities of South African xenophobia revealed in the article were enlightening. I find this piece well written, well researched, and structurally well organized. I particularly appreciate the literature review and the detailed discussions of Xenophobia and citizenship. 

I have 2 line comments (that is all I could find) for revision:

Line 78 seems odd…

Line 92—avoid starting a sentence with “this”—what do you mean by “this”? explain the thing "this" represents instead.

The English is quite good in this article and I see no need for revisions (other than the above).

 

Author Response

I am very grateful for the reviewer’s thoughtful comments and appreciate the opportunity to refine and strengthen specific sections of my manuscript in accordance with their observations. I sincerely thank the reviewer for their keen eye, meticulous attention to detail, and expert guidance. I remain open to any further suggestions and welcome additional opportunities to enhance the manuscript where appropriate.