Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Perpetuation of Gender Discrimination in Pakistani Society: Results from
a Qualitative Study conducted in three provinces of Pakistan
Version: 
2 
Date: 
03 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Background 
Inconsistencies regarding singular and plural "a women"
"on women's life"
Abstract Methods Initial sentence needs to be reworded to add clarity. Numbers
should be One and Two.
It is suggested that the statement regarding the search is reworded to highlight
the data two data bases were searched and then explain to the reader that the
search of the grey literature was conducted. 
The use of the term Lady is jarring - I suggest changing this or clarify for the
reader why this language is being used. This has not been addressed from the
previous review.
"The data were complied" There are several errors in language that I suggest the
authors revise. 
Inconsistency in past and present tense - suggest the authors work with an editor
to revise this. 
Abstract Conclusion Lack of clarity in lines 30 - 34
Introduction Consider rephrasing "It is much evident in certain culture while
considerably in others. The hereditary approach …
My concern regarding some of the language remains the same as the previous
comments provided
Methods Abbreviations needs to be stated in full for the reader
Literature search strategy It is suggested that the statement regarding the search
is reworded to highlight the data two data bases were searched and then explain
to the reader that the search of the grey literature was conducted.
I am wondering why articles after 2018 were not included in the search. This has
not been addressed from the previous review.
The authors have suggested that they have used the PRIMSA chart for study
selection. My suggestion is to remove some of the prose for the study search and
just present this is the PRISMA diagram
Suggest there is a rewording to highlight that the other authors agreed that the 15
included articles met the eligibility criteria
Suggest the authors reference the latest PRISMA guidelines
PRISMA diagram does not include how many articles were included in the
review 
Data Collection I would suggest not using the abbreviations to differential
between interviews and focus groups
There is no clarity of the year in which the interviews were conducted
I am wondering if some additional information can be included regarding the
subject experts to provide evidence. IE; Years of experience in the field 
Data analysis I am unsure of what the authors mean by emerging and framework
analysis. Is there a reference for this?
Data Integrity There are no references provided regarding the discussion of data
integrity
Systematic review Abbreviations need to be avoided to provide clarity for the
readers
I am unclear what the authors mean by desk review
Another request for the authors to clarify the meaning of Maulvis
Results from Primary Data Collection Quotes - suggest that the identifiers used
are altered as these potentially could be identifying as they are very specific. I
suggest use of a pseudonym
Theme 4: Recommendations from participants / community / society This reads
as though the recommendations are from the authors rather than findings from
the data. Suggest this is reworded to highlight these are findings. 
As with previous review I suggest the authors revise the tense they are writing in.
Discussion Suggest removing the term kids as this is informal language 
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?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes