Reviewer’ s report
Title: Examining Determinants of Gender Attitudes: Evidence among Tanzanian adolescents
Version: 0Date: 20 Jan 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 major 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?Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS:
This is an interesting concept for a study among a population from which we know very little.There are several aspects of the study that are well done - the grammar and writing style of thepaper is quite good, it is an important topic and a large sample size. However there are multipleaspects of the manuscript that are not clear or well described including why/how it is mixedmethods, the purpose of the randomization and the emphasis on SEM in the title as the focus of thestudy's purpose.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The overall purpose of the study is not clear or well specified. One gets the impression it was to
perform the SEM as well as to get a baseline understanding of the attitudes of this age group
regarding gender. It is unclear how this is a mixed methods study - it appears subjects completed a
survey but unclear how the survey was administered - was it paper? did they complete on theirown or did someone read to them? There is no qualitative component to the study. The purpose ofthe randomization and how this was a RCT is also not clear or well described. There are manymore limitations than those described by the authors. Reasons for the large non-participationshould be provided. The authors state the questions for the survey were informed by a reference(5) that is not a publication? There are not enough details on the survey . It is clear the GEM itemswere used but there must have been additional items. Readers should know the exact number ofitems and their purpose . Also it is not evident the GEM scale was normed for this culture of this
country? The introduction should focus more providing details on the culture to frame the results.
The discussion should do this as well. What do these data mean? What are their implications?Why was the homophobia portion of the GEM scale removed? If there were 130 villages in therandomization process why was the analysis reduced to a binary distribution?ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:The authors should consider removing SEM from the title and focus the title and discussion in away that tells the reader the story of the culture, what these results mean and how they lay thegroundwork for change (or the inability to change attitudes about gender) and decrease the focuson the statistical concept of structural equation modeling (SEM). Perhaps a diagram showing thesteps of the experiment would help readers to understand. This reviewer remains confused aboutwhat the RCT was, what people were randomized to and why, and the point of the survey withinthe RCT. Was this an evaluation of two different programs?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does 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.
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 has
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License
attributed 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