Reviewer's report
Title:Media coverage and awareness of violence against women in India: a
review of the December16, 2012 New Delhi gang-rape
Version:1Date:29 September 2014
Reviewer: Abhishek Sharma
Reviewer's report:
Review report
Manuscript ID: 3743419213931228
Title: Media coverage and awareness of violence against women in India: a
review of the December16, 2012 New Delhi gang-rape
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. In general, the
topic of sexual violence (and media’s role in social mobilization against sexual
violence) is extremely important and current. However this article lacks clear
objectives and consequently structure. In my opinion, the article cannot be
accepted for publication in its current standing. I have tried to provide detailed
and constructive comments to assist the authors in revising the manuscript.
COMMENTS:
1. Question(s) posed by authors is (are) unclear [Major compulsory revision]:
It is unclear if the authors aim to conduct a content analysis of the professional
media’s response to 2012 Delhi rape case, or to map certain pattern regarding
information flow through professional media using Delhi rape as a case study, or
both.
The introduction says “It is…useful to use the spread of information through
media of previous events of violence against women as an indicator of the
pattern in which information will spread for future events” (lines 104-106).
Besides articulation issues and missing references, this objective statement fails
to explain how such evidence/understanding about flow pattern would be useful?
In introduction, authors mention that the news about Delhi rape did rapidly
spread across the globe. Subsequently it is unclear what the line “objective…is to
inform and visually represent media’s role…” means (lines 108-110). The authors
need to be clear and explicit.
Suggestions: The introduction section would benefit by providing a succinct
account of the Delhi rape case and the following events pertinent to this study,
and a sub-section providing background about the role and ability of media in
raising important public concerns and shaping public opinion and policy reforms.
Lastly, the authors must identify and state objectives clearly.
In my opinion, this study is a descriptive analysis of media’s response to the
Delhi rape case. The study answers following questions: How the information
regarding Delhi case did spread globally (just a part of study)? What
issues/themes regarding Delhi case gained more or less importance in media?
On what information sources were the media reports based and if that is a
concern? This study may also explain how active/fair media can play an
important role in social mobilization and governmental reforms regarding sexual
violence. (Unfortunately rape cases occur daily, but why this one got media
attention and consequently global response?).
Lastly, the introduction section does not have any references from the scientific
literature (except the one from Econ Polit Wkly). It seems inappropriate both
scientifically and also in light of authors’ discussion which questions the reliability
and consistency of media sources. I recommend authors to refer to
research/working papers on the subject matter, at least for the introduction part.
2. Methodology is acceptable/appropriate, but needs to be adequately
described/structured [Major Compulsory revision]:
Overall the methodology is acceptable (if this is a descriptive content analysis
study). The data sources are sound and have been used in past. However, the
methodology is not well described/structured. Following are some of the
concerns which must be addressed:
1. In lines 114-116, the authors mention “two comprehensive databases
(LexisNexis Academic and factivia)” which they used as data sources. Authors
must describe these data sources because presumably not every audience
would be familiar of these sources: which media sources are included in these
databases? What is the inclusion/exclusion criteria of these databases? Are
there any drawbacks of using these as data sources? Provide citation for these
databases.
2. I believe the word “eligibility” refers to inclusion criteria. Authors must include
two separate sub-sections i.e. inclusion (lines 120-126) and exclusion criteria
(lines 128-141). These must be explicitly described. It is unclear that to what
“unusual and unique events” (lines 132-134) authors are referring to and
consequently this exclusion criteria demands justification. Including references
will help.
3. In line 38, these are number of reports published per “what” unit of time
(day/week etc.)? Define ‘rate’ (line 39)?
4. One way to structure methodology would be:
• Data Sources
• Search Strategy
• Data Collection/synthesis
o Inclusion and exclusion criteria
o Author bias assessment
• Data analyses
• Limitations
3. Results and discussion [Major Compulsory revision]
Although the objectives of the study are unclear, I chose to review the results.
The results present an important account of content analysis of media reports.
The tables/graphs/map adequately supplement the results text. This section also
comments on how the news of Delhi rape case did spread globally. However, the
discussion/conclusion are not adequately supported by the data (results); authors
must be careful at data interpretation. For instance, decline in number of media
reports could be due to reduced activity/news to report, and not necessarily due
to media’s lack of interest. (lines 367-369) Furthermore the study reports
variability in content (not facts) which is somewhat a function of media
personnel’s sources of information and access to various stakeholders, and not
merely “ideals of the author” (line 383).
4. Additional comments:
The title needs revision. (Unclear and not a true representative of the study)
The authors must keep the international audience of journals (like BMC Women’s
Health) while revising the manuscript. The authors must not assume any prior
knowledge about the details (regarding the incident and place/setting) among the
readers. For instance, Mahipalpur (a city or district? In Delhi?), Jantar Mantar (is
it a place etc.?), what “current state of the treatment of women in India” (line 91)
are the authors referring to? [Major compulsory revision]
Language/word choice and grammar needs major revision: “English-language
published media reports” (line 32), “commented” (line 77), her status (line 81),
“affect” (line 103), “use” (line 186), “transfer of knowledge” (line 194), each
country: Delhi, rest of…” (line 222), “victim’s condition” (line 261), “sources of
data” (line 304), “push for change, talks of debate” (line 320), “results of the 55
articles” (line 314), “Hindi Film” (line 317), “underscore, their criticism” (lines
321-322), “the protest fight to” (line 347) etc. Authors may benefit from using
active voice. [Major compulsory revision]
The choice of sub-headings in the results section needs reconsideration. [Minor
essential revision]
In Figure 3, the y-axis label must clarify if it’s absolute number or percentage of
media reports. Also it is unclear why the spike in Figure-3 consists of 3 days?
(line 232) Perhaps these should be 18, 23 and 29 December? The authors may
consider adding a continuous fitted density line to the Figure 3 to demonstrate
spikes/peaks? [Minor essential revision]
Prepared by:
Abhishek Sharma (abhi0991@bu.edu)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.