Review: Mental Health and Social Isolation among Sub‑Saharan African Migrants in Tunisia: A Cross‑Sectional Quantitative Study {under peer review}

Reviewer: Hanna Denysenko

Completed: 26.03.2026

Recommendation:  Decline

	Yes	No	N/A
Is the research question clearly defined?		+
Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently detailed?		+
Is the data analysis robust and replicable?		+
Are the conclusions supported by the results?		+
Is the manuscript well organised and clearly written?	+
Are tables, figures, and supplementary material informative and necessary?			+
Is the abstract an accurate summary of the study?	+
Does the manuscript contribute meaningfully to the field?		+
Is it relevant to the field of mental health or related disciplines that are connected to the scope of the Journal?	+
Are ethical approvals and participant consents adequately described?		+
Have competing interests, funding, and data availability been transparently declared?		+

Bottom of Form

Comments for the authors:

The study addresses a relevant and promising topic. However, the manuscript is not ready for publication and requires substantial revision.

The primary limitation of the study concerns the sampling strategy. First, the sample size is insufficient, and no control group is included. The use of non-probability sampling methods, such as convenience sampling and time-location sampling, introduces significant bias in the interpretation of the results, which cannot be considered reliable.

The methodological description is incomplete, particularly due to the absence of information regarding the validity and reliability of the brief composite scales.

The statistical analysis presents several issues in interpretation. Specifically, the use of parametric tests is not justified by an assessment of their underlying assumptions. For example, no information is provided regarding the normality of distributions or the homogeneity of variances, which raises concerns about the validity of the reported results. Furthermore, although ANOVA is listed as one of the methods, the corresponding results are not presented in the manuscript. Key elements of transparent reporting are also missing, including confidence intervals. The interpretation of the statistical findings is incomplete and primarily descriptive in nature, and the conclusions are exploratory, which cannot be considered sufficiently robust for scientific inference.

The overall conclusions of the study are overstated. In particular, comparisons with theoretical scale midpoints do not constitute evidence of clinical significance and should not be interpreted as such.

The study requires substantial revision, including improvements in the sampling strategy, refinement of the measurement instruments, and a more rigorous and theoretically grounded interpretation of the results.