Experiencing, Negotiating and Challenging Stigma in Sex Work: Examining Responses from Brothel-Based and Transient Sex Workers in Kolkata, India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Experiencing, negotiating, and challenging stigma in sex work: Examining responses from brothel-based and non-brothel-based sex workers in Kolkata, India
This is an interesting contribution to the field of sex work research and the impact of stigma on the sex workers, but article is methodologically fragile. Despite this, if the editor considers the submission, I believe a several changes would improve its overall chances of being published:
1. Abstract must be rewritten. Please provide a sound structure, including methodology, results, and conclusion.
2. Please adhere to the journals reference format.
3. Please further describe the implications of criminalization of sex work in India in the introduction section and information regarding the gender identity of sex workers (cis vs trans).
4. Objectives must be properly and clearly detailed. Also, please revise numbering of the section (it should not be a separate section in the text).
5. Methodology should be replaced with methods and materials.
6. When was this study conducted?
7. Please separate results from discussion.
8. Procedures must be clearly described.
9. Methods for the qualitative analyses are not present. Please use the COREQ criteria to provide clear information on how the research was implemented and how data were analyzed, and themes obtained.
10. Excerpts should be highlighted and separate from main text.
11. Author should provide more information in the discussion section on how stigma actually affects the lives of the participants; clearly state how the space (brothel-based and non-brothel-based) actually affects their perception (nearly all of them believe this in an immoral activity);
12. Implications for political, health and STI policies must be discussed.
Best wishes.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your detailed review. I have made all the changes that you have suggested. All new edits and additions are in blue font in the manuscript.
Please see below.
Comment 1. Abstract must be rewritten. Please provide a sound structure, including methodology, results, and conclusion.
Response 1. Abstract has been rewritten with method, results and conclusion incorporated (see edits in blue font).
Comment 2. Please adhere to the journals reference format.
Response 2. Apologies! I will change the referencing system in the next edit. Unfortunately it was rather difficult to change the citations/referencing during the first round of editing according to reviewers' responses.
Comment 3. Please further describe the implications of criminalization of sex work in India in the introduction section and information regarding the gender identity of sex workers (cis vs trans).
Response 3: Added 3rd paragraph (in blue font) in page 2
Comment 4. Objectives must be properly and clearly detailed. Also, please revise numbering of the section (it should not be a separate section in the text).
Response 4: Objective rewritten and numbering revised.
Comment 5: Methodology should be replaced with methods and materials.
Response 5: Methodology rephrased.
Comment 6: When was this study conducted?
Response 6: Method section has been revised (all edits and additions are in blue font) and dates added (page 5)
Comment 7: Please separate results from discussion.
Response 7: Results have been separated form discussion
Comment 8: Procedures must be clearly described.
Response 8: Method section has been revised, with additions and edits (in blue font)
Comment 9: Methods for the qualitative analyses are not present. Please use the COREQ criteria to provide clear information on how the research was implemented and how data were analyzed, and themes obtained.
Response 9: I have tried to incorporate COREQ criteria in the method and findings section. Method section including data analysis section has been revised with new additions (all in blue font).
Comment 10: Excerpts should be highlighted and separate from main text.
Response 10: Excerpts separated, indented and italicized
Comment 11: Author should provide more information in the discussion section on how stigma actually affects the lives of the participants; clearly state how the space (brothel-based and non-brothel-based) actually affects their perception (nearly all of them believe this in an immoral activity);
Response 11: Sections added in the discussion section (pages 12-13) and conclusion section (pages 14-15). All additions and edits are in blue font.
Comment 12: Implications for political, health and STI policies must be discussed.
Response 12: A paragraph has been added to the end of conclusion section (pages 14-15). All additions and edits are in blue font.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Thank you for your work on the difficult subject of stigma in sex work. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this project. Although I am not an expert on this research topic or the qualitative methodology used in the paper, I have a few comments on the structure and composition of the manuscript that may help improve the presentation of your research.
- The introduction could be better structured to help readers quickly understand the main focus of your paper and your approach to the study. In the current version, it takes a while to grasp how you will examine the stigma-managing and stigma-mitigating strategies of Indian sex workers and how these strategies may differ based on their organizational affiliations. Please consider revising the introduction to clearly state the purpose of the paper and the methods you will use to address your research questions.
- In the current version, the methodology and results sections are combined, which makes it difficult for readers to follow the paper's progression. I suggest presenting the methodology and results separately, providing clear details on the sampling strategy (interview recruitment), sample composition (demographics and affiliations of interviewees), interview time, and results. Additionally, please expand on your use of grounded theory methodology by explaining the coding procedures and results. The presentation of interviewee quotes could be improved by including information such as interviewee numbers.
I believe that addressing these points will help clarify the paper's structure and make it easier for readers to follow and understand your research. By enhancing the presentation of your work, you can more effectively convey the significance of your findings and their implications for sex workers in India. I look forward to seeing your revised manuscript.
Wish you all the best with your future research endeavor.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your detailed review. I have made all the changes that you have suggested. All new edits and additions are in blue font in the manuscript.
Please see below.
Comment 1. The introduction could be better structured to help readers quickly understand the main focus of your paper and your approach to the study. In the current version, it takes a while to grasp how you will examine the stigma-managing and stigma-mitigating strategies of Indian sex workers and how these strategies may differ based on their organizational affiliations. Please consider revising the introduction to clearly state the purpose of the paper and the methods you will use to address your research questions.
Response 1: The introduction has been restructured and edited as suggested. All edits and additions are in blue font.
Comment 2: In the current version, the methodology and results sections are combined, which makes it difficult for readers to follow the paper's progression. I suggest presenting the methodology and results separately, providing clear details on the sampling strategy (interview recruitment), sample composition (demographics and affiliations of interviewees), interview time, and results.
Response 2: Methodology, results and discussion have been separated. More information and edits have been done to the method section (all edits and additions are in blue font) to add more information on the sampling strategy, sample composition, interview time and results.
Comment 3: Additionally, please expand on your use of grounded theory methodology by explaining the coding procedures and results.
Response 3: Use of grounded theory methodology expanded by explaining coding procedures and results (all edits and additions are in blue font)
Comment 4: The presentation of interviewee quotes could be improved by including information such as interviewee numbers.
Response 4: Interviewee numbers have been added to all quotes (all additions are in blue font)
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for this interesting paper about the stigma and other difficulties facing Indian sex workers. It provides some useful insights.
The paper is well written overall, though requires a minor check for typos and grammar.
One general point – the headings need some attention. There are errors in the numbering, and I would recommend revisiting the wording for 4.1-4.3 [I’m not sure ‘challenging stigmatisation’ need to be included].
My comments on individual sections are below.
1. INTRODUCTION
This section provides a useful and detailed background to the paper’s topics. It’s especially interesting to see the differences between brothel-based and transient sex workers.
2. OBJECTIVE
You state the objective clearly, though on line 164 I would recommend adding something like ‘Current literature suggests that….’ before the new sentence. This will make the remaining wording more explicit about what your study hopes to add.
Please check the heading number.
3. METHODOLOGY
This section provides useful detail of your methodology and methods.
I note that consent was obtained from respondents, and ethical approval granted for the study. It would be useful to know if you used any computer software to analyse the large amount of qualitative data. Perhaps add a subheading of ‘analysis’ in this section.
I note that the study received ethical approval and you obtained informed consent from participants.
4. FINDINGS
Please check the heading number and remove ‘discussion’ from the wording [the discussion section clearly comes later]. Also, consider removing ‘challenging stigmatisation’ from the wording for headings 4.1-4.3.
This section provides details of the results. The themes you identify are a useful way of categorising the data, though I note that these are very top level – did you elicit many lower-level themes or categories?
The use of quotations is very helpful – for longer excerpts, I would recommend indenting and italicising to make sure they are clearly differentiated from the main text. It’s certainly interesting to see contrast between the experiences of brothel-based and transient sex workers (especially transgender).
I’m not sure what value the results from the DMSC survey add to this section (lines 396-422). The survey is not included in the methodology, so not directly from this study. If you feel the need to include it, it should go into the discussion section where you can refer to this and other extant sources of information to corroborate (or not) your findings.
5. DISCUSSION
This section draws together the results section and considers some of the findings in some depth. I would recommend in this section adding further citations to existing studies to confirm the validity of your findings or confirm what you have added to current knowledge.
On line 571, you refer to your own previous work in the first person. I would recommend changing this to the third person (‘Previous research among transgender sex workers….’). Also, this is another reason to include other studies in the discussion section (to balance your own previous research).
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
You note some limitations, which are appropriate. Your suggestions for future research are also useful.
7. CONCLUSION
This draws together your main points, though I would suggest editing this down so as not to risk repetition or adding new material. Also, the final paragraph (lines 675-683) needs slightly reworking for typos and terminology (especially ‘delineating’ and ‘subaltern’, which don’t seem to quite fit here).
REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Address headings – numbering, and (some) titles.
2. In the objectives section, reword slightly to emphasise what you aim to add to what is currently known.
3. In the methodology section, confirm if software was used to manage the large amount of data. If not, add a little more detail about how manual coding was managed. Consider adding an ‘analysis’ subheading.
4. In the findings section, it may be useful to the reader to know if/how many categories you identified in the analysis. Also, remove the survey results from this section – use in the discussion section if you believe it is still relevant.
5. In the discussion section, consider adding additional citations to highlight similarities/differences with current knowledge. Also, change comments on your own previous research to the third person.
6. In the conclusion – consider editing down, and address terms in the final paragraph to ensure clarity.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your detailed review. I have made all the changes that you have suggested. All new edits and additions are in blue font in the manuscript.
Please see below.
Comment 1. The paper is well written overall, though requires a minor check for typos and grammar.
One general point – the headings need some attention. There are errors in the numbering, and I would recommend revisiting the wording for 4.1-4.3 [I’m not sure ‘challenging stigmatisation’ need to be included].
Response 1. Numbering revised and "challenging stigmatization" has been removed. Typos and grammar also checked.
Comment 2: You state the objective clearly, though on line 164 I would recommend adding something like ‘Current literature suggests that….’ before the new sentence. This will make the remaining wording more explicit about what your study hopes to add.
Response 2: "Current literature" has been added to the beginning of the sentence.
Comment 3: Perhaps add a subheading of ‘analysis’ in this section.
Response 3: Subheads including "data collection" and "data analysis" have been added under methodology
Comment 4: Please check the heading number and remove ‘discussion’ from the wording [the discussion section clearly comes later]. Also, consider removing ‘challenging stigmatisation’ from the wording for headings 4.1-4.3.
Response 4: Heading numbers checked and revised, and "discussion" removed and put in the later section. "Challenging stigmatization" also removed.
Comment 5: The use of quotations is very helpful – for longer excerpts, I would recommend indenting and italicising to make sure they are clearly differentiated from the main text. It’s certainly interesting to see contrast between the experiences of brothel-based and transient sex workers (especially transgender).
Response 5: Quotations separated, indented and italicized
Comment 6: I’m not sure what value the results from the DMSC survey add to this section (lines 396-422). The survey is not included in the methodology, so not directly from this study. If you feel the need to include it, it should go into the discussion section where you can refer to this and other extant sources of information to corroborate (or not) your findings.
Response 6: Survey and discussion of survey results have been removed (page 11-12)
Comment 7: This section draws together the results section and considers some of the findings in some depth. I would recommend in this section adding further citations to existing studies to confirm the validity of your findings or confirm what you have added to current knowledge.
Response 7: Citations and references to extant studies added on pages 12-13 (additions in blue font)
Comment 8: On line 571, you refer to your own previous work in the first person. I would recommend changing this to the third person (‘Previous research among transgender sex workers….’). Also, this is another reason to include other studies in the discussion section (to balance your own previous research).
Response 8: All references to own work has been changed to third person throughout the manuscript.
Comment 9: This draws together your main points, though I would suggest editing this down so as not to risk repetition or adding new material. Also, the final paragraph (lines 675-683) needs slightly reworking for typos and terminology (especially ‘delineating’ and ‘subaltern’, which don’t seem to quite fit here).
Response 9: Conclusion edited and revised. New edits and additions are in blue font. "Subaltern" and "delineating" have been replaced.
Comment 10: Address headings – numbering, and (some) titles.
Response 10: Headings, numbering and titles have been revised
Comment 11: In the objectives section, reword slightly to emphasise what you aim to add to what is currently known.
Response 11: Objective has been reworded and revised
Comment 12: In the methodology section, confirm if software was used to manage the large amount of data. If not, add a little more detail about how manual coding was managed. Consider adding an ‘analysis’ subheading.
Response 12: Methodology section has been edited, and information added. Edits/additions are in blue font. Subheads including "data collection" and "data analysis" have been added under methodology
Comment 13: In the findings section, it may be useful to the reader to know if/how many categories you identified in the analysis. Also, remove the survey results from this section – use in the discussion section if you believe it is still relevant
Response 13: Data analysis portion has been revised and information added (all in blue font). Survey results have been removed from pages 11-12
Comment 14: In the discussion section, consider adding additional citations to highlight similarities/differences with current knowledge. Also, change comments on your own previous research to the third person.
Response 14: Citations and references to extant studies added on pages 12-13 (additions in blue font). All references to own research has been changed to third person and referred to as "prior research"
Comment 15: In the conclusion – consider editing down, and address terms in the final paragraph to ensure clarity.
Response 15: Conclusion has been edited and terms addressed in final paragraph (all additions and edits are in blue font).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for implementing all the requested changes. I believe they have improved the overall quality of the paper and it is now fit for publication.
Best wishes.
Author Response
Thank you very much
