Reviewer’ s report
Title: Understanding individual, family and community perspectives on delaying early birth
among adolescent girls: Findings from a formative evaluation in rural Bangladesh
Version: 1Date: 26 Aug 2019
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several testable
research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can furtherrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the manuscript is that is interesting and
largely well-written.
The authors have addressed most the of relevant comments from the reviewers and editor. The
results section has been re-organised in line with the suggestions made from the review process.The introduction section also appears to be more thorough than the previous draft. The methods
section has also been well-revised.
The review process raised the need for greater nuance in the results section, and although some
progress has been made in this draft, I do not think it is adequate for a journal publication.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The aim and objectives of the study at the end of the introduction section needs more clarity. Theaim of this particular piece of research needs to be disentangled from the aim of the broaderintervention project.
Reviewer 1 raises the issue of the lack of clarity on what is meant by 'influential males and
females' and the authors state that this has been described in the methods section. However, this isalso an inadequate description. The reader is not given any information about what the relationshipof these individuals to the adolescent girls who names them as influential in their lives. Theauthors description of this group of participants in their response to reviewer 2 could be includedin the methods section.
The second comment from the Journals editor requests more detail about the strategy for
recruitment of study participants. In particular there is a question about whether the authors wereseeking diversity in the characteristics of their participants. This is an important question and theauthors have not answered it sufficiently.
In response to comment 4 from the editor, the authors state that they customised the interview
guide for each sub-group of participants. This is key information that is not given in the article.
My major issue with the current version of the article is the lack of nuance in the presentation of
the results. This issue is also raised by reviewer 1 and the editor of the journal. The authors havenot sufficiently engaged with this issue in their revised version of the article. For example reviewer
1 states that the authors should "provide an interpretation of whether the norms you have described
are shared by all or whether they are subgroups in which the norms are being challenged". Theauthors response to this comment discussed unsuccessful attempts to interview "positivedeviants". However there are other ways to deal with this, including indicating whether the quotespresented were shared by the (e.g.) majority of respondents/half of respondents/a minority ofrespondents/entirely exceptional.
The authors have also not succeeded in dealing with similar comments from the editor (esp.
comments no. 9,10 and 11). The authors have not added a sentence to describe the themes to bepresented in the results section. I still find the text that surrounds the (very interesting) quotesoversimplified. It does not help us to pick out the differences, similarities and contradictions in thequotes. There are a number of instances when the authors describe a quote in the surrounding textand then put the same quote in the list of quotes that follows the text. This repetition isunnecessary.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors need to check the consistency of the formatting of the quotes.
The formatting of the references (the capitalisation of article and journal names) is not consistent
with recognised referencing formats.
There is no evidence the adjustment the authors have claimed to make in response to the comment
from reviewer 1 that asks the authors what the basis for suggesting that not having a child is themore prosperous option (background, line 4 from bottom). Similarly, the authors have not changedthe word "indicator" in the introduction section, para 1, line 1.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal