Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an important and timely question concerning the position of women workers in digital labour platforms in India and Bangladesh, focusing particularly on the adequacy of the respective legal frameworks and the reforms necessary to promote decent work and social justice.

The topic combines legal analysis from India and Bangladesh. Literature on each country already exists, but the comparative dimension fills a gap in the literature. This makes the research original. 

A comprehensive study of the legal frameworks of India and Bangladesh is missing, Thus the paper adds a new perspective that helps to better navigate and compare both legal frameworks.

The paper is  based on legal analysis and comparative method. No improvements are needed

The conclusions are consistent and are based on the sources and legal rezoning contained in the paper.

The references are appropriate. However it is essential to address the following issues:

- On 12 June 2026 the ILO adopted the Decent Workin the Platform Economy Convention, 2026 (No.193), the first international labour standard specifically devoted to platform work. The manuscript shall consider this development.

- (Rifat et al., 2022): this reference does not support this claim "The platform economy includes services in childcare, beauty, household services, and Facebook-based enterprises selling jewellery, cosmetics, and food products"

No additional comment of table or figures. As this is a legal paper, figures do not play a key role as they do in other academic fields.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has a highly interesting subject. However, the research design is not convincing. First, the third research question (effectivity of laws and policy options) cannot be answered by the doctrinal research undertaken. Research questions are way to wide. Second, the main topic (women platform workers) is not focused in the analysis. The article limits its analysis to a description of Indian and Bangladesh laws on platform work without really focusing on its relevance for women. Third, it is not clear why India and Bangladesh are compared. The similarities mentioned do not justify the comparison. It is also unclear how the comparison yields results that go beyond describing the two systems. Four, the conceptual framework ("key dimensions of legal protection") is too wide; it is also not original but rather comprises all areas of labour and social security law. Five, international analytical literature on platform work and on female workers on platforms is not referenced and used. Most of the legal literature and in particular the references stating the research lacuna is more than three years old - in a research field that is so dynamic as this one, this is a lot. Lastly, it would make sense to also look at the recent ILO Convention on the subject.

The authors should choose a more specific focus, possibly on one legal order only, and on a doctrinal research question only. They should also relate their research to recent scholarly literature.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is methodologically inconsistent, calling itself both a doctrinal legal analysis and a "conceptual paper," and it announces a feminist political economy and intersectionality framework that it never actually applies to any legal provision. Its legal claims rest mostly on press releases, news explainers and a law-firm blog rather than statutory text with section numbers, so key assertions (union rights, maternity entitlement, Bangladesh's ordinance status, contribution rates) are unverified and possibly overstated. It also has internal errors (the "eight" versus fourteen dimensions mismatch, a truncated Table 1, "gaps in the literature" used for legislative gaps), many citations that don't support their claims, uncited references, and heavy duplication between Sections 4 and 5. The gender analysis is thin because most provisions discussed are gender-neutral and the paper never shows how they affect women differently.

 

 

(1) Pick one methodology (doctrinal comparative analysis) and add a transparent source-selection protocol. (2) Re-ground every legal claim in primary texts with section numbers, and add case law and ILO standards (C190, C183, the platform-work standard-setting). (3) Either genuinely apply intersectionality and "regulatory gender blindness" to specific provisions or drop those claims. (4) Fix the table, dimension counts, bibliography and mismatched citations. (5) Cut the Section 4/5 repetition and replace it with explicit comparative criteria. (6) Make recommendations specific and prioritised rather than repeating "ensure effective implementation."

Author Response

"Please see the attachment".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the remarks from my peer review have been adressed and solved

Author Response

"Please see the attachment" 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken on the feedback wonderfully, and I am impressed by this. There is one issue still: The literature has only be considered until 2023; today is 2026. In the meantime, there has been a lot (!) more discussion on platform work, including on platform work by female workers. I would only like to mention Kocher/Bronowicka, A blunt tool for women* in platform work? A feminist perspective on the Platform Work Directive, European Labour Law Journal 16 (4), pp. 565–579. 

Author Response

" Please see the attachment "

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Yes, this seems publishable now.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment" 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf