The Psychosocial Challenges Experienced by African Widows During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Low-Resourced African Communities: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend accepting this manuscript based on its scientific importance and novelty.  The paper studies related publications with a detailed meta-analysis and review process, and the presentation is clear. I find the main contribution is useful to the scientific world by studying the effect of COVID-19 on the support system of widows. Evidence is consistent across datasets, and comparisons look reasonable. 

Author Response

Thank you to reviewer 1. There were no amendments to be made, as the reviewer accepted the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and under-researched topic: the psychosocial challenges experienced by African widows during the COVID-19 pandemic in low-resourced communities. The focus is timely, socially relevant, and contributes to the limited literature on widowhood in African contexts. The paper provides a useful overview of four emergent themes (support system, stigmatization, emotional challenges, and post-burial customs). However, the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication.

1. Only four studies were included, all from South Africa and Zimbabwe. While this is acknowledged, the implications of such a limited sample for the validity and generalizability of the findings need to be discussed in greater depth. At present, the conclusions risk overstating the strength of the evidence

 

2. The reporting of the screening process is somewhat confusing. The numbers of included/excluded articles are not always consistent (e.g., moving from 4021 records to 12 eligible studies, then to 4). This should be clarified with a transparent PRISMA diagram.

 

3. The search strategy appears problematic in several ways. The restriction to English-language publications is particularly concerning in the African context, where much relevant research might be published in French, Portuguese, or Arabic. The authors mention this limitation but don't adequately address how it might have skewed their findings toward anglophone perspectives on widowhood and grief.

 

4. The thematic analysis process lacks transparency. The authors mention reducing nine initial themes to four through discussions with supervisors but provide no details about the criteria used for this consolidation. Were themes merged because they overlapped conceptually, or were some deemed less important? This opacity makes it difficult to assess whether the final themes truly capture the complexity of the available evidence.

 

5. The paper concludes that “more research is needed” but does not provide clear guidance on what type of research would be most useful. The recommendations section should propose more concrete directions (e.g., longitudinal studies, cross-country comparisons, intervention studies, or culturally adapted social work practices).
   
   

   Minor point:

   -Some references appear incomplete or incorrectly formatted (e.g., missing DOIs or inconsistent citation styles).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language could be polished for clarity and concision (e.g., avoid long sentences and redundancy).

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the review comments. We have responded to the comments on the attached documents.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. We have responded to all the comments on the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript does not meet the standards of methodological rigor and reporting quality required for publication. The methodological transparency is insufficient to allow confidence in the reported findings.

In particular, there are serious concerns regarding the credibility of the reported PRISMA flow diagram and study numbers, which appear inconsistent and possibly fabricated. The discrepancies between the description of the screening process and the final number of included studies are not plausible and raise doubts about the reliability of the review process.

Given these major methodological and ethical concerns, I do not believe this manuscript meets the minimum threshold for scientific publication in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your comments. We have responded to each of the review comments as needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your reviewer. We appreciate all the constructive comments you gave us.