Neelam Gupta Reviewer
Approved
Relevance and Originality
The manuscript focuses on an important dimension of bisexual individuals' experiences that remains relatively underexplored. Its discussion of discrimination within LGBTQ+ contexts and the distinction between belonging and genuine inclusion are meaningful. The authors should more clearly identify which findings confirm previous research and which provide new conceptual insights.
Methodology
The qualitative approach and semi structured interviews are appropriate for the study aims. Reflexive thematic analysis is also suitable. However, additional information about participant characteristics, interview development, recruitment, and sensitive topic management would improve methodological transparency. The use of theoretical saturation should also be reconsidered or better justified within the selected analytical framework.
Validity and Reliability
The authors acknowledge important limitations, including the small sample, self reported experiences, translation, and researcher positionality. However, some conclusions appear stronger than the evidence supports. The findings should be presented as context specific rather than representative of all bisexual individuals. The recruitment process may also have excluded people who are disconnected from LGBTQ+ networks.
Clarity and Structure
The manuscript is generally well organised, but some concepts and arguments are repeated. The literature review would benefit from stronger synthesis and less sequential description of studies. Terminology and references should be standardised, and the manuscript would benefit from careful language editing.
Results and Analysis
The findings provide meaningful insight into partial belonging, identity management, and repeated invalidation. The double outsider position has potential as a distinctive contribution. The discussion of conditional resilience also provides a balanced perspective. However, participant differences and alternative interpretations require greater attention. Practical implications should be directly linked to the findings and presented with appropriate caution given the limited sample.
Neelam Gupta Reviewer