Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Suicide and deliberate self-harm among women in Nepal: a scoping
review
Version: 
1 
Date: 
27 Apr 2021
Reviewer: 
Hridaya Devkota
Reviewer's report:
Suicide and deliberate self-harm among women in Nepal: a scoping review
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper presents a
potentially interesting study about suicide and deliberate self-harm among
women in Nepal. The results of this study may have important policy
implication in its field and may contribute on developing strategies for suicide
prevention. However, reading through the paper, I suggest authors to improve the
manuscript with revisions in some sections to get published. 
Background
* The background section is inadequately described. You should provide the
context to the information discussed throughout the research paper. Suggested to
expand this section with clear problem statement, rationale and research
question/s in a logical flow so that it helps the readers to understand the reasons
to conduct this study.
Methods
* The method section also need to be detailed. 
* The authors are suggested to indicate if a review protocol exists for this study.
If there is, state where it can be accessed. 
* The statement "scoping review is recommended ………. related topic" P3 L34
- 35 and the research question L47 - 49 could be better fit to the background
section rather than in methods. 
* P4, Selection Process: L49-50 states "Electronic searches identified 9255 peer
reviewed articles. Of these, 9219 were omitted following…..". It seems that this
number is the sum of two databases. It is better to show separately the number of
articles found in PubMed and Google scholar. 
* Describe in details the method of data extraction from the studies/literature.
How the risk of bias was assessed?
* In the scoping or systematic review several study team members may
participate in the review process applying a calibration exercise at each step. I
wonder if this review employed a single or multiple reviewers? 
* P5 Fig 1 PRISMA diagram shows the records identified, screened and included
in the review which is good. It is recommended to give the reason/s for
exclusions at each stage.
Data Extraction and Analysis
* How the authors determined whether the approach to data extraction is
consistent with research questions and study purpose?
* Arksey and O'Malley (2005) recommended the 6 stage analysis, however the
6th stage (consulting) is the optional. I understood that the authors did not apply
stage 6 in this study, if so how the findings were validated? Better to describe
something about it, such as expert's suggestions….so that it increases the validity
of the findings.
Results
* I would suggest some re-thinking and reorganization of your result/findings. It
seems that your result, discussions and conclusion sections disconnected with
your research questions. Recommended to present the results with the
themes/headings (subheadings) in relation to the research questions.
Discussion
* It is suggested to move the first paragraph of discussion section (P10 L33 - 40)
to background. Similarly, the strength and limitation i.e. second and third
paragraph (P10 L43 - 58) normally makes a last section of the discussion. 
* Could you provide the reference for the statement "although suicide can
………lifespan of an individual" P11 L9?
* The study title states that the study is about suicide and deliberate self-harm,
however, nothing is mentioned about deliberate self-harm. It is recommended
either to remove it from the title or you need to revisit the manuscript to include
this issue in the study (if you have recorded the information related to this). 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
No