Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study with neat, phenomenological insights. The stories are harrowing and identify a number of reasons the process of grieving may be different (beyond the expected heaviness associated with conjugal loss) for this population. The findings can serve as a basis for further study to seek ways to meet the extra-ordinary needs of these widows.

The findings section incorporates a lot of literature review that would be better positioned in the discussion section. I would recommend using the findings section to share the themes/subthemes with the reader and then process what those might mean in a discussion section with more of the comparison/contrast to the existing literature identified in the literature review section.

The writing can use some refinement to strengthen the setup and presentation of the data. In the concluding sections, you use a number of big picture terms for the first time (they are framework terms that either need to be incorporated into the introduction and literature review, or removed (e.g. microsystem)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The refinements needed in the written language would add to the utility and tone of the document. Minor refinements are needed throughout.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Thank you for your review feedback. We have corrected the manuscript as suggested.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript makes an important contribution to the field. However, significant copyediting is required to rectify various grammatical errors, the most notable of which is the deletion of determiners ("a," "an," or "the"). This affects the writing's coherence. I started denoting the places that need to be revised and got tired as the manuscript was rife with them

Some examples below:

Line 6) ...to ensure the inclusion of widows...

Line 93) ...confirming the need for further studies.

This paper explores the psychosocial challenges faced by widows.

Line 118) This study employed a qualitative research approach...

through the use of open-ended questions.

 

Overall: Work on having strong transition sentences from one section of the paper to the next.

Background:

The organization of your backgrounds needs to change. You jump from the global context to the non- African context and then to south African context.  Start from global to local and use more peer reviewed journals in your background. There is plenty of relevant literature even within the last 5 years on widowhood in sub-Saharan context.

While the global perspective is useful, the background section would benefit from a sharper focus on the specific regional context of Southern Africa. Incorporating more literature from culturally and legally similar countries and more recent publications in the region (Nigeria, Malawi, Kenya, etc) would provide a more relevant framework for understanding the local practices and challenges faced by widows in Ngaka Modiri Molema.

You mention social constructivism at the end of your discussion section, but this would be better if it was integrated into your background to frame your study. I would suggest using Kimberlee Crenshaw’s intersectionality as a theoretical framework because you are looking at several factors affecting widows, including low income and rurality.

Lastly, the challenges faced by widows in your background section could use better organizations. You talk about legal and cultural changes and economic challenges. Group similar challenges together to make for a coherent literature review.

 

Methods:

You mention homogenous purposive sampling and the only thing connecting the participants is the fact that they are widows who have experienced injustices. I would argue that the term injustices is very vague as there is a wide variety of things that could be covered under that.  Was there another criterion? Do we know the type of marriages (this would maybe cover the legal rights) or even how long they had been widows?

You mentioned Cresswell steps, but you did not explain how you as authors did the analysis. How were initial codes generated? How many people were involved in this analysis? What process did you use as authors to review and define themes? Was any software used? How were discrepancies in coding resolved?

What about Bias? Positionality is a key element in qualitative research and so consider adding this to the methods

 

Results:

There was a lot of repetition and simply presenting quotes.

Some sub-sub-themes could be combined. For example, Stigma, Discrimination and unfair traditional norms are interconnected

It might be helpful to have a table of your results so that a reader can easily follow.

Discussion:

Your discussion section was very brief! You did not fully engage with the rich findings and tie it back to literature and any theoretical implications. You merely restated findings rather than explaining their significance. This portion needs to be expanded

Recommendations:

 These should be in paragraph form rather than point by point form.

References:

The reference list was inconsistent. Pick a citation style ( APA) and have them all in the same format

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript presents valuable qualitative data on a critical subject. However, in its current form, it is not yet ready for publication and requires key improvements. The major issues include the absence of a well-integrated theoretical framework to guide the analysis, and a disorganized structure that hinders the narrative flow. I think the authors would have a stronger argument by changing the theoretical framework to say, intersectionality. This is because the participants are widows of low socio-economic backgrounds with most not having more than a high school education. There is more play in these widows’ lives than just the loss of the spouse, given that the oldest widow represented is 58 years old.  Additionally, the findings are presented descriptively but lack a clear analytical thread, and the subsequent recommendations are very vague. The paper requires comprehensive copyediting to rectify frequent grammatical errors and enhance readability, as the language often impedes comprehension. Finally, a lot has been written on different widow practices in different African countries. The Authors should give examples from more culturally similar countries rather than using an example from India or Afghanistan.

My recommendation is to reject it in its current form, but with strong encouragement to resubmit after a thorough revision. This decision provides the authors with the opportunity to fully address these core issues, effectively starting from a drawing board phase to rebuild a more coherent and robust paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Thank you very much for your feedback. We have corrected the manuscript as you have suggested. It improved the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of widowhood and psychosocial challenges in low-resourced South African communities is socially important and relevant. However, the manuscript in its current form requires substantial revisions to meet academic publication standards.

First, while the paper provides a broad background on the situation of widows globally and in Africa, the literature review is largely descriptive and lacks a clear theoretical framework that guides the study. The discussion would benefit from the integration of a conceptual lens—such as social constructivism, gendered marginalization, or intersectionality—to strengthen the analytical depth and coherence.

Second, the methodology section needs clearer justification and structure. Although the qualitative, exploratory–descriptive design is appropriate, the rationale for its choice, as well as the details on sampling, data analysis, and ethical safeguards, should be elaborated more systematically. Some ethical concerns arise regarding the replacement of a participant who withdrew due to trauma; this should be carefully explained to ensure transparency and compliance with ethical standards.

Third, while the results are clearly presented and include relevant excerpts from interviews, the analysis tends to remain at the surface level. The manuscript would be strengthened by synthesizing patterns across participants, linking the findings explicitly to existing literature, and distinguishing between psychological and social dimensions of widowhood.

Moreover, the discussion and conclusions mostly restate the results rather than interpret them critically or connect them to broader theoretical or policy implications. The recommendations, though valuable, would gain credibility if more directly grounded in the empirical data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Τhe English language requires careful professional editing. The manuscript contains frequent repetitions and non-idiomatic phrasing that obscure meaning and weaken the academic tone.

In summary, the paper addresses a meaningful issue but needs major revision to enhance its theoretical grounding, analytical clarity, methodological transparency, and linguistic quality.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your review suggestions. Our manuscript has improved to a greater extent.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf