Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Technology as the Key to Women’s Empowerment: A Scoping Review
Version: 
1 
Date: 
05 Sep 2020
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of the reviewers' comments but several issues
remain, especially pertaining to writing style and a few areas that require further
clarification. These are outlined below.
1) Background:
a) First paragraph:
* First statement (page 3, lines 49-50): Change "to acknowledge" to "in response
to the need for".
* Last statement (page 3, lines 56-57): Rephrase to read: "Empowerment is
achieved when a woman has the resources …" 
b) Second paragraph:
* First statement (page 3, lines 58-59): Rephrase to read: "Globally, women are
more likely to experience less favourable social determinants of health than
men." The edits aside, give examples of less favourable social determinants of
health in parentheses after the word for the benefit of readers who may not be
conversant with the concept should the paper be accepted for publication, e.g.:
"…less favourable social determinants of health (such as …) …"
* Fifth statement (page 3, lines 64-69): Delete "In" from the statement for it to
read well.
c) Third paragraph:
* First statement (page 4, lines 70-71): Insert "(ICTs)" in parentheses as shown
after "technologies" to allow you to use the abbreviation in subsequent
statements, as in the second statement.
* Second statement (page 4, lines 71-72): Change "growing" to "and grown",
i.e.: "As ICTs have become … and grown …"
* Third statement (page 4, lines 72-74): Change "technologies access" to "access
to technologies". 
d) Fourth paragraph:
* Second statement (page 4, lines 77-80): Change "launched" to "advocated for",
and "as an imperative to fully achieving" to "in order to fully achieve". Also,
provide a citation for the statement.
* Third statement (page 4, lines 81-83): Spell out "ITU" with the abbreviated
form in parentheses before subsequently using the abbreviation. Also, change
"regressing" to "declining".
* Last statement (page 4, lines 83-84): Change "reported" to "indicated" to avoid
"report … reported". 
e) Last paragraph (page 5, lines 94-95): Change "among research studies" to "in
research studies", and "towards the goal of" to "towards achieving".
2) Methods:
a) First paragraph:
* First statement (page 5, lines 97-98): Change "used" to "involved", and
"current" to "existing". Also, delete "knowledge" from the statement.
* Last statement, point #1 (page 5, lines 100-101): Delete "and as the launching
point" from the statement.
* Last statement, point #3 (page 5, lines 103-105): Insert "process" after
"review".
* Last statement, point #5 (page 5, lines 106-107): Delete "visual and/or" from
the statement since the authors do not present visual illustrations in the paper.
b) Review protocol, team and management:
* First paragraph, first statement (page 5, lines 111-113): Rephrase the last part
to read: "…for the inclusion criteria, search strategy, and data characterization."
* First paragraph, second statement (page 5, lines113-114): Be consistent with
spelling format, e.g. "rigor" here is American format while in the preceding
statement, the British format was used.
* First paragraph, fourth statement (pages 5-6, lines 114-116): Change
"capability" to "capabilities".
* First paragraph, fifth statement (page 6, lines 116-117): Change "primary and
secondary authors" to "lead and co-authors".
* First paragraph, last statement (page 6, lines 117-119): Change "contributing
to" to "to ensure".
* Second paragraph, first statement (page 6, lines 120-124): Change "with
manual removal by the primary author" to "and manually removed by the lead
author".
* Second paragraph, third statement (page 6, lines 125-128): Change "primary
author" to "lead author", and "were used" to "were involved".
* Second paragraph, fourth statement (page 6, lines 128-129): Change "primary"
to "lead".
* Second paragraph, last statement (page 6, lines 129-130): Change "secondary
author" to "co-author", and insert "the article" at the end of the statement.
c) Review question and scope (page 6, lines 132-133): The research question
posed here (global impact of ICTs on women's empowerment) is not aligned to
the objectives stated earlier. In other words, the objectives stated earlier have
nothing to do with impact. Moreover, the results presented later have nothing to
do with impact, which means that it is the research question that is out of place.
But if impact was, indeed, the research question of interest, then it should be
reflected in the objectives outlined earlier, and in the results, especially the
impact of the interventions described in that section.
d) Search strategy: 
* First paragraph, last statement (pages 6-7, lines 137-139): Change "addition" to
"additional".
* Second paragraph, first statement (page 7, lines 140-143): Change "via" to
"through".
* Second paragraph, third statement (page 7, lines 144-147): Change
"publication" to "publications".
* Second paragraph, last statement (page 7, lines 147-148): Change "can be
found" to "is presented".
* Fourth paragraph, last statement (page 9, lines 177-179): Change "via" to
"through".
e) Study selection:
* First paragraph, second statement (page 10, lines 190-192): Change "and were
refined" to "which were refined".
* Second paragraph, first statement (page 10, lines 201-202): Change "research
question" to "review".
* Second paragraph, second statement (page 10, lines 202-205): What does
"JBI" stand for?
* Second paragraph, fourth statement (pages 10-11, lines 208-209): Change
"primary" to "lead".
* Second paragraph, last statement (page 11, lines 209-211): Change "were
designed" to "was designed", i.e.: "…use … was designed…"
* Third paragraph, third statement (page 11, lines 215-217): Change "primary"
to "lead".
* Third paragraph, seventh statement (page 11, lines 221-223): Change
"primary" to "lead", "would" to "could", and "forward" to "to the next stage".
* Fourth paragraph, second statement (page 11, lines 229-231): Provide
citation(s) for the statement.
* Fourth paragraph, third statement (pages 11-12, lines 231-232): Change "of the
subsequent stage" to "in the subsequent stage".
* Fourth paragraph, last statement (page 12, lines 237-239): Delete "in the study"
after "intervention" to avoid unnecessary repetition, and change "versus" to
"instead of".
* Fifth paragraph, fourth statement (page 12, lines 245-246): Change "as per" to
"based on", and insert "criterion" after "2019". Also, provide examples of social
determinants of health according to the Government of Canada criterion in
parentheses at the end of the statement.
* Fifth paragraph, fifth statement (page 12, lines 246-247): Delete "present" from
the statement as it is already taken care of by "had".
* Fifth paragraph, last statement (page 12, lines 248-250): Which finding are the
authors referring to here? Or did they mean the criterion used to eliminate the 14
articles? If so, this is not a finding.
* Sixth paragraph, first statement (page 12, lines 253-254): The gap in timeline
here is not clear. The authors should give the reference timeframe, e.g. "given the
gap between the start of the review process and …, the authors …"
* Sixth paragraph, third statement (page 13, lines 255-256): It is not clear what
the first and second cuts here are. If they are the stages already described, then
rephrase to read: "Using the inclusion/exclusion criteria already described, all
but six articles were eliminated through the first and second stages in the review
process."
* Sixth paragraph, last statement (page 13, lines 256-257): Insert "number" after
"total", and change "within" to "in". 
f) Study characteristics:
* First statement (page 13, lines 259-260): Change "required of" to "in the".
* Last two statements (page 13, lines 268-271): Change "data was" to "data
were" in both statements.
3) Results:
a) Demographics:
* First paragraph, first statement (page 13, lines 274-275): Delete "had been"
from the statement.
* Second paragraph, sixth statement (page 14, lines 284-286): Rephrase to read:
"The lowest mean age was 24 years while the highest was 59.6 years; the
categories ranged from 16 years to 64 years and older."
* Second paragraph, last statement (page 14, lines 286-288): It is not clear what
"these" here refers to. If it is the range of women included in the studies in terms
of age, that should be explicitly stated.
* Third paragraph, first statement (page 14, lines 289-291): Change "these
studies" to "the studies", and "cannot currently access" to "could not access".
* Third paragraph, last statement (page 14, lines 291-293): Change "from
within" to "used in".
b) Empowerment definition:
* First paragraph, first statement (page 14, lines295-297): Change "challenged
achievement" to "limited our ability to achieve".
* Second paragraph, last statement (page 15, lines 307-309): Delete "over" from
the statement.
c) Measures of empowerment:
* First statement (page 15, lines 311-312): Insert "the" before "articles" so that it
is clear we are talking about articles referenced in the study.
* Fourth statement (page 15, lines 316-317): Insert "of the articles" after
"authors" so that it is clear we are not talking about the authors of this particular
paper.
d) ICT interventions:
* First statement (page 16, lines 323-324): Change "thought" to "though".
* Second statement (page 16, lines 324-327): Change "within" to "covered in".
* Third statement (page 16, lines 327-329): Change "within" and "among" to
"in", and delete one full-stop at the end of the statement. The edits aside, if the
statement refers to what the authors of this article did, that should be explicitly
stated. Otherwise it reads like the authors are summarizing what was done in the
studies that were reviewed. For instance, "Our categorization of ICTs …"
* Last statement (page 16, lines 329-330): Change "These" to "The".
e) Outreach, third statement (page 16, lines 336-337): Change "using" after
"accomplished" to "through", "via" to "using", and delete "using" before "Web-
based".
f) Education, last statement (page 16, lines 345-346): Change "supports" to
"support", insert a hyphen between "doctor" and "patient", and use consistent
spelling format throughout, i.e. "program" (American) or "programme" (British).
g) Lifestyle (page 17, lines 351-353): Change "these interventions" in the second
and last statements to "the interventions", and "via" in the last statement to
"through". Also, insert "and" before "promoting" in the last statement. 
h) Health challenges (page 17, lines 357-364): Change "support" in the first
statement to "address", "These" in the second statement to "The", and "based
around" in the last statement to "focusing on". Also, "Educational" in the last
statement should be with a small "e".
i) Prevention:
* First statement (page 17, lines 366-367): The authors allude to several articles
in the first statement but only indicate three out of 51 in parentheses; three out of
51 cannot be several articles.
* Second statement (page 17, lines 367-368): It is not clear what the authors
mean by "This section". Is what is being talked about here not based on the
articles that focused on prevention?
* Last statement (page 17, lines 371-373): Change "fistulas" to "fistula".
Otherwise be consistent with spelling format throughout the article.
j) Perceptions of barriers (page 18, lines 376-380): Change "via" in the last
statement to "through".
4) Discussion:
a) First paragraph, last statement (page 18, lines 389-393): Change "included
studies" to "studies included in the review". Otherwise it is not clear which
authors are being talked about here. Are they the authors of this article or the
authors of the articles that were reviewed? If the latter, then change "it was noted
by the authors that the literature supports a flipside" to "they pointed out the
flipside".
b) Second paragraph: 
* First statement (page 18, lines 394-395): Delete "the vector of" from the
statement.
* Sixth statement (page 19, lines 401-403): Delete "public and" from the
statement because there is no way the government can partner with itself.
* Tenth statement (page 19, lines 409-410): Why only "laptop sites"? Why not
"computer sites" generally?
c) Last paragraph:
* First statement (page 19, lines 413-415): Change "exists" to "exist" as it
pertains to "opportunities", and "as to" to "of".
* Second statement (page 19, lines 415-417): Change "measures to" to
"measures of", "not only in" to "not only regarding", and delete "in" after "but"
and "will" after "researchers".
* Last statement (page 19, lines 417-419): It is not clear what "this" that needs to
be operationalized exactly refers to here. Otherwise it would be clear if framed
thus, "In order to operationalize …, there is a need to develop a standardized …"
d) Overall, the discussion still lacks summary statements of what exactly the
authors found vis-à-vis the objectives stated earlier. In other words, based on the
literature reviewed, what can the reader take away as key findings regarding: (i)
how the concept of empowerment is defined, utilized and measured with respect
to ICT; (ii) use of ICTs as interventions to improve women's empowerment; and
(iii) the state of knowledge on the topic at individual, community and global
levels? After summarizing each finding, the authors can then go ahead and
discuss its implications for policy, programs or future research. Otherwise
without clear summary of key findings, it is difficult to determine the basis of
what is being discussed here.
5) Policy implications:
a) First paragraph:
* First statement (page 19, lines 421-423): It is not clear what "access" here
exactly refers to, i.e.: access to what? Also, change "claim" to "aim".
* Second statement (pages 19-20, lines 423-425): Change "a biased view" to
"biases", and "the population demographics of participants" to "population sub-
groups".
* Third statement (page 20, lines 425-427): Change "within the information
society" to "in the information sphere".
* Fourth statement (page 20, lines 428-429): Change "these women" to "such
women", and "results" to "findings". Also, delete "the" before "research".
* Fifth statement (page 20, lines 429-431): Change "cohorts" to "sub-groups",
and delete "in fact" from the statement.
* Last statement (page 20, lines 431-433): The authors should be clear about the
kind of "local policies" they have in mind. Also, insert full-stop at the end of the
statement. 
b) Second paragraph:
* First statement (page 20, lines 434-435): It is not clear what the authors mean
by "these resources". In other words, which resources do the authors have in
mind here? Also, change "will" to "could".
* Third statement (page 20, lines 437-438): Delete "as" before "important",
change "benefit their daily lives" to "improve their lives", and insert "in the
process" at the end of the statement.
* Fourth statement (page 20, lines 438-441): It should be clear what statistics the
authors are referring to here, i.e.: "disaggregated statistics on …" Also, rephrase
the last part to read: "…and existing data collection approaches do not
incorporate qualitative components that highlight the voices of women."
* Sixth statement (page 20, lines 442-444): Change "in-depth results" to
"maximum impact". In other words, we aim to achieve maximum impact by
ensuring that policies are inclusive. 
6) Conclusions:
a) First statement (page 21, lines 462-463): Delete "as" from the statement.
b) Second statement (page 21, lines 463-465): Change "on which" to "for", and
"regarding" to "on". Also, delete "can move forward" from the statement.
c) Last statement (page 21, lines 465-468): The first part of the statement is not
true because in their review, the authors noted how different studies considered
the concept of empowerment. Perhaps the authors can say something like, "This
study is the first of its kind to comprehensively describe efforts to use ICTs to
empower women, and the need for collaborations between researchers, program
implementers and policy makers to address the persistent gender disparities in
the use of technology." In other words, the authors should conclude with a
summary of the findings that ties back to the overall objective of the study (i.e.
the use of ICTs and women's empowerment) and the implications of the findings
for policy, programs or future research. 
7) Abstract:
a) Background: 
* First statement (page 2, lines 26-28): Delete "goals and" from the statement,
and rephrase the last part to read: "…understanding of existing gender gaps."
* Second statement (page 2, lines 28-30): This statement is not a good
articulation of the research gap. Instead, replace it with one from the main text
that could be rephrased to something like, "However, there is limited in-depth
understanding of use of ICTs for women's empowerment". 
b) Research question (page 2, lines 30-31): Given the discordance between the
research question and the objectives as outlined in the main text, it is not clear
whether this is the question that the authors exactly set out to answer. If it is,
then it should be stated in terms of the objective. If not, they should outline the
objective of the review properly, e.g.: "This paper examines how ICTs have been
used to promote women's empowerment globally."
c) Methods:
* First statement (page 2, lines 31-32): Rephrase to read: "We conducted a
scoping review using …"
* Last statement (page 2, lines 36-37): Rephrase to read: "Out of a total of 4481
articles that were identified, 51 were included in the review."
d) Results:
* First statement (page 2, lines 37-38): Change "capacity" to "capacities".
* Second statement (page 2, lines 38-40): Change "demonstrated" to "revealed".
* Third statement (page 2, lines 40-42): Change "this" to "the", and delete
"clear" from the statement.
* Last statement (page 2, lines 42-44): Change "among" to "by".
* The suggested edits aside, the results are so well summarized here that one
would have expected the same in the discussion section, i.e., taking each result
and discussing its implications for policy, programs or future research. 
e) Conclusion (page 2, lines 44-46): This is still not a good conclusion for the
abstract. Replace it with a statement that summarizes the implications of the
results presented in the preceding section. 
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 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
No
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 declare that 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?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes