The study provides valuable insights into workplace discrimination faced by Venezuelan immigrants in Colombia. However, the use of a non-probabilistic snowball sampling method raises concerns about the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. Given the reliance on voluntary participation, there is a potential for selection bias, particularly from undocumented immigrants who may have avoided participation due to fear or distrust. How do the authors address the limitations of this sampling approach in ensuring that the results are reflective of the broader population of Venezuelan immigrants? Furthermore, could the authors elaborate on whether alternative or supplementary sampling strategies were considered to mitigate these concerns?
Reliability claim contradicts reported α. Tables 5 and 8 report average Cronbach’s α = 0.548 and 0.455, but the text says these are “within the range of reliability.” These values are below conventional thresholds (≈0.70). Please justify or soften the MCA interpretation.
Table 1 appears to assign each respondent to one “abusive situation.” Each row sums to 55, yet the text says some immigrants experienced more than one abuse. Clarify how multiple abuses were coded; if collapsed into one category, prevalence and MCA results are biased.
Section 4.3 has an inconsistent denominator. It says “of the 31 illegal immigrants…” and then “out of the 105 illegal immigrants…” after the denied-work total is 136. The latter is almost certainly 105 regular/legal immigrants. This materially affects the migratory-status interpretation.
Figure 4 text does not match the plot. The text says university, HUT, and “No level” categories are closer to “Prinative”; in Figure 4 they are visibly far above and not close to Prinative. Correct the text or the figure.
Figure 6 text does not match the plot. The text says appearance discrimination (“YourAppe”) is closest to men, high school/university, under-35, Upthree, employed, and regular immigrants. In Figure 6, “YourAppe” is isolated at the top and far from those points.
K-means is mentioned but never reported. The Methods state a k-means classification module was used, but no cluster solution, validation, or results appear. Report it or remove the claim.
Objective non-compliance is conflated with perceived discrimination. You treat no contract and below-minimum wage as discrimination while also coding “no abusive situation” from a separate perceived-abuse item; statements such as “31 … reported not having perceived abuse … seems illogical” depend on this conflation. Clarify how the measure distinguishes objective violations from perceived discrimination.