Reviewer’ s report
Title: The social paradoxes of commercial surrogacy in developing countries: India before the
new law of 2018
Version: 0Date: 29 Jun 2020
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound?
If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS:
This is an important study exploring the experiences of surrogates living in India. Data wascollected some time ago and there is no explanation for why there has been a lag time since datacollection in 2014-2015 and publication 5 years later?). It locates the findings (in the conclusion)in relation to the 2018 legislation banning transnational surrogacy in India, which only allowswomen known to family members to be surrogates and for them no longer to be paid.I enjoyed reading the paper which is well organised and with methods and findingscomprehensively described. However I did find some uses of language problematic, some sectionslacked clarity and will need re-writing in parts. There is also a need for a more comprehensive
literature review in the introduction.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The abstract could be re-written. For example, the use of the word paradoxes is limited withouthaving read the paper-i would suggest using another word/phrase to describe the tension/complexity of the findings in relation to the literature. More clarity/explanation is needed in theabstract, for example 'under constant domination' (by who?) 'surrogacy questions gender norms (orchallenges them?). The abstract could be improved by introducing feminist theories of surrogacyand how data presented here challenges existing work.
The introduction to the article needs a much more comprehensive overview of the background to
surrogacy in India, how it has been written about to date/existing research and where this study fitsin. The reference list is very comprehnsive but i did not get a sense of this literature when readingthe introduction to the article.p.4, line 89, delete 'new', it is not new!p.5, line 101, please add a reference for this hypothesisp.5, line 104, please give a more detailed account of the legislative and policy contextp.5, line 113, please re-writep.5, line 115-117 delete and re-write, suggested text is 'the aim of this study is to analyse theexperiences of Surrogates living in India. We were interested to find out if existing viewspublished on surrogacy practices within India matched with reports from surrogates themselves.
methods
lines 130-131, you mention observations (and again on p.20, line 452, did the researcher makeobservational fieldnotes of the clinical settings and/or carry out informal or formal interviews withclinic staff and/or parents to be?12-80 minutes is a huge range-can the authors explain why there was so much difference7 women did not agree to be recorded, was their data included in analysis, if so, in what form
-hand written notes?
p.7, line 147, do the authors mean 'topic guide' rather than 'template'?line 158 'harmoniously coded' -please explain what you mean by thisPlease state how coding was conductedPlease describe your approach to analysis and the methods used.
Findings
The findings are very interesting to read but need some clarification at certian points.The authors use the word discourse, but i dont think they have carried out a discourse analysis,please change the use of the word discourse, at p.12, line 262 to 'theme'p.13, line 281, change the word 'globally' to 'overall'line 285, insert 'their' husbandp.14, line 306,insert comma after 'sinful'p.15, line 330, difficulties and feeling dis-empowered by??? more detail neededp.15, line 331, competenciesp.15, line 329-332 make into 2 sentences
Discussion
p.16, why do the authors use the word representations, rather than 'womens own accounts'? what
about saying instead 'we have presented new insights into Indian women's lived experience ofhow surrogacy impacts upon their own perceptions of their role as women'line 343, 'ON one hand'. Again why do the authors prefer the term 'discourses' , perhaps insteaduse the phrase 'women's accounts'line 344, regarding [insert 'womens'] work, [insert 'economic'] exploitation.line 345, again consider using 'womens accounts' instead of discoursesline 347, though i like the sections that are to follow, at this point in the discussion i found theword 'paradox' unhelpful-can another phrase/term be used?
line 348, please reference 'non choice'
lines 347-353, please re-write this paragraph, more reference to the literature is needed or a clearerindication that this is signposting what is to follow> e.g. 'in the remainder of the discussion wedescribe how our findings can be seen as pivoting on four types of conflicting views/paradoxes/complexities...p.17, line 363, a, not 'an'line 364, in our study as seen in other WORKline 372, better conditionS than THEIRline 374, in THEIR (not the) neighbourhoodp.19, line 414, insert comma after sinful.p.19, please provide a reference for essentialist feminist and include competing feminist theoriesof surrogacyp.19, line 437, explain more about Temans study, correct disemBODY .p.20, line 446, a different citation may work better here.line 455, CONDUCTED, not broughtline 452, what is difficult about working conditions, elsewhere (in findings section) you describeworking conditions as good -please clarify this contradiction in your descriptionp.20, lines 253-462, again anotehr contradiction in your summary, did women report a lack of
autonomy, or did researchers observe and interpret a lack of autonomy? Please clarify.
p.20, line 463, complaintS. Is it possible for authors to be descriptive and specific about 'gendernorms' as these can differe so much between different contexts -we need to know what gendernorms were operating where women resided.p.21, lines 468-472, please re-write this section and explain more the claims being made by theauthorslines 472 -this suggests parents and doctors were interviewed as well-were they?lines 480-486, this is well written and may work well in the abstractp.22, lines 500-502, this doesnt make sense please re-write.p.22, line 506, do you mean, legislation guiding state response to issues of rape, femicide anddomestic violence are yet to be endorsed/taken up seriously...p.22, lines 503-513, very interesting but needs fuller discussionp.29, reference 44, india needs a capital 'I'Table 3- 'who took decision' 'surrogate alone' is listed twiceADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:Despite a great reference list the introduction does not coherently introduce how surrogacy isviewed by different feminist writers, nor is it clear how much of the existing work on surrogacywithin India has involved interviews with women surrogates. Is this the first study to do this?
The authors need to discuss abit more the limitations of the interview data as the women were not
allowed to speak/to have their voice heard without this being policed by the clinic being present.
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 upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registeredat 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 newprofile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit ofPublons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. Forexample, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on itswebservice 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
NoAre 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.
No
Are 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.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
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 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 a
specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. 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)