Reviewer’ s report
Title: The social paradoxes of commercial surrogacy in developing countries: India before the
new law of 2018
Version: 1Date: 11 Aug 2020
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?)Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?No - there are minor issues
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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: The authors have responded comprehensively to all the reviewers
suggestions. My overall impression is that the paper will be an important contribution to theliterature. I have the following minor points (editorial) to improve meaning and clarity in therevised text:
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
1. p. 8, line80, remove the word 'including'
2. p,8, line 88, replace 'mothers' with 'mothering'
3.p. 12, the description of methods has been re-written but it is quite hard, without highlighted text
or track changes to see what changes have been written exactly. The methods no longer describediscourse analysis (because of not working in the original language of data collection butanalysing translations). More needs to be described about the analysis before publication:a. who was involved in the analysis? the lead author, or other co-authors? The notes at the end ofthe paper say VR, SU and ELR were involved in analysis and interpretation of data, but this jointprocess and management of multiple interpretations of data is not described or explained. Pleasedescribe this process more clearly. If more than one person was involved, how was data coded andanalysed -did everyone use the same translation, working from the english transcript, or was
analysis conducted in parallel in both the original language of interviewee and then the interpreters
translation ? How was data coded? How was data analysed.b. The authors now mention the use of quantitative variables in their analysis, please can theystate why they combined quali and quant approaches to their analysis and the benefits of thisapproach.c. More needs to be said about conducting interviews with a translator, the process of analysingdata from translated transcripts. Translation is an interpretative step -who did this, what was theprocess? Was there a process for exploring the potential loss of meaning in translation? There areat least 2 levels of translation, initially DURING the interview itself when working in 2 languages,and then again at the point of transcription-were both the original responses translated andtranscribed, or did the transcriptions just contain the english speaking questions/and the theenglish translation of the interviewee?p. 12, line 180, delete 'etc'.p.20. line 369, is 'field evidence' the right phrase? Qualitative data is not settign out to berepresentative. Perhaps better to say something like 'Our study findings validate....[or] t'he findingsin this qualitative study validate....p. 26, line 514, i would suggest removing 'as gender constraints' to improve the grammar of thissentence...if the authors want to add something about 'gender constraints' include this point in
another sentence...the current formation of a list, doesn't read very well currently.
p.26, line 518, ""Feminist controversies are embodied in social paradoxes"". I dont find thishelpful, consider re-stating, particularly the phrase 'social paradoxes'.p.27, lines 524-526, please can you add reference to the 2018 legislation when making this pointADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:This is an important paper. Working across two languages and two cultures, more work is neededin the methods section to engender trust worthiness of the findings. The paper makes strong claimsand so the methods underlying these claims need to eb described as robustly as possible."
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 yoursettings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email fromthem 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 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
NoDeclaration 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.
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)
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?
YesAre the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?NoIs the presentation of the work clear?NoAre the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
No