Reviewer’s report
Title: 
‘Making of a Strong Woman’: A constructivist grounded theory of the
experiences of young women around menarche in Papua New Guinea
Version: 
2 
Date: 
25 Oct 2020
Reviewer's report:
Review Comments
Overall, this paper is a strong contribution to the growing literature on global
menstruation hygiene management.
Qualitative Design and Grounding: This paper presents a comprehensive,
rigorous qualitative design. 
The use of Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT)
methodology is timely, relevant and innovative. 
The choice to include Charmaz
and her foundational work in Grounded Theory is necessary and situates the
history and movement of the methodology and orientation to the work.
Rationale for CGT: Might the authors consider sharing a bit more about their
choice of CGT. 
As this reviewer understands it, there is not a MHM paper that
uses CHT (or grounded theory). 
Might the authors consider detailing their
rationale for the methodological approach, thus inviting consideration for others
to adopt and scale the use of this methodology. 
Is/are there any characteristics
about the researchers that could be further detailed to highlight the researcher
positionality & grounding? 
Key Questions Asked at Conference: On p. 10, lines 46-52, the paper details that
"findings were presented at two conferences." 
What were the key questions that
were asked to PNG women that guided ensuring the credibility and accuracy of
the grounded theory? 
On "Learning": 
The progress and evolution of learning (knowledge, awareness,
skill-building, 
behavior change & identity development) is clearly detailed via
themes & the 
"Making of a Strong Woman" model. 
Might it make sense to include a bit of
compare contrast to Westernized and Indigenous/De-Colonized ways of
knowing? 
I wonder if situated "learning" as an indigenous/decolonized way of
knowing (as opposed to a Bloom's Taxonomy of sorts) could be useful?
Summary: In summary, this is an excellent paper that expands global MHM
understandings, presents a model of indigenous learning/growth and invites the
critical consideration of innovative and critical qualitative methodologies. 
Thank
you for this contribution.
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 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?
Yes
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?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes