Reviewer’s report
Title: 
The social stigma of infertile women in Zhejiang province, China: A
questionnaire-based study
Version: 
1 
Date: 
26 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting topic and one well worth exploring. 
It is evident that
attention has been given to the comments provided in the previous review,
particularly in relation to presentation of the method and statistical analysis and
findings. There remain a few gaps or concerns. 
The data provided about the
numbers recruited into the study and those who fully participated is different
between the statements in ln 103-106 and ln 140-141 (additionally, would
suggest presenting this data just once). 
More recent literature has been added
(e.g., 2015, 2019), although many articles are dated. 
Although I have seen some
theses/articles that may be more current, I wonder if you might comment in your
introduction to your study on the difficulties in finding articles related to the
stigmatization of infertility, particularly within the cultural context in which you
are investigating, as support for the significance of your study? 
Grammar has
been reviewed, but there are still some issues (e.g., ln 61 -"American female who
enquired treatment" - revise to "American females who enquired about
treatment"; ln 113 - "...Fu et al., which contained 27 items and " - perhaps,
instead, "Fu et al., and contained 27 items, which..."; ln 121 "filling out the
questionnaire" - assume that you mean questionnaires not questionnaire?). 
Ln 66
- this looks as if you should start a new paragraph..."In China..."). 
Ln 63 -
question using "The situation is worse in Africa", particularly as the next
sentence goes directly and only to stigmatization again 
(perhaps, instead, "In the
Cameroon, stigmatization extends to ..."). 
Some sources seem to be missing: Ln
201 - what is the source of this information? 
Or, is this from your own
experience? 
Ln 212 - what is the source of this information? Ln 69-74 - what is
the source of this data?
While your discussion is interesting and now includes more sources, it is still
problematic in that the discussion seems to diverge from your stated purposes or
objectives of the study and your findings, which highlight the impacts of
infertility. The findings address the purposes of investigating 'the effects of
infertility on internal stigmatization' and by implication, the purpose of
highlighting 'the necessity of psychological support." Your discussion is largely
focussed on interventions, instead of comparison of your findings with those
related to stigmatization from other literature/studies. 
A clearer bridge needs to
be established between your major findings (e.g., social withdrawal) and
possible implications for practice (e.g., what do studies indicate about working
with social withdrawal in these circumstances?) and research
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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
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?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes