Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper provides an opportunity to reexamine how the concept of resilience has been applied to sex workers and seeks to ground this with reference to the Pacific Island Nations.  Ad such the paper has much potential, promising insights into under-explored areas in the sex work literature.

That noted, the paper falls short in a few areas and I think readers unfamiliar with the context of resilience and sex work or sex work in Pacific Island Nations will struggle. The paper is currently patchy and appears as a number of poorly integrated and somewhat discrete sections with disjointed insights.

The paper is relatively short, so there is space for developing the paper further.

Overall, the argument and contribution of the paper needs to be made clear from the outset. It could further unpack how the concept of resilience has been used in sex work literature and make it clearer what benefits there might be in rethinking the concept.

At the outset the paper presents as through it is an empirical study with fresh data.  Three Pacific Island Nations are directly referenced in the paper, albeit briefly.  The rationale for their inclusion is not clear and we have no context for the regulation, experience and status of sex work in these nations.  The authors seem to have previously researched and published on these places, but this is not clear to the reader. The paper is clearly not presenting any new data. That noted, the context for referencing earlier research should be provided. It presents as though the authors are cherry picking examples to illustrate how resilience might be reformulated as a concept.

Some more context for the earlier research and Pacific island Nations would strengthen the paper. Perhaps some more examples also?  It is also not clear what research on Pacific Island sex work has previously found. The nations referred to are also highly different politically, culturally etc., so there selection here requires not only context but some rationale. Further, the colonial history of the nations seems largely ignored, which is a missed opportunity given the focus on resilience and the general turn in the scial sciences to ‘decolonise’ research.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions, please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really enjoyed the article and think it contributes importantly to the literature, apporting a nuanced and very needed critique of resiliance. I would appreciate some minor changes for improvement:

1. Lines 217=218 - please elaborate on /explain what it means concretely to risk being charged with trafficking if seeking labour rights.

Lines 220-223 - There is a wealth of literature on anti-trafficking and how it negatively impacts on the lives of migrant sex workers (and sex workers generally), please quote more works e.g. Mai et al. 2021 (but feel free to look for work more relevant to your region)

2. The article would benefit from having concrete exemples of collective resistance of sex workers fighting for their rights/the decriminalisation of their work. I'd strongly suggest to add some reference to these (look up: https://apnsw.net/). 

3.  Please insert a couple of key quotes from your participants, it seems important to have their voices when focussing on their resistance!

4. The conclusion could be more impactful by summarizing the main argument sand reiterating the call for a shift from resilience to resistance. A strong closing statement could incorporate sex workers own demands - the decriminalisation of sex work could be mentioned.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions, please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 1.- Originality

The article addresses the problem of resilience and how it is used everywhere without a proper definition or at least one that we can argue for or against. This topic is particularly pertinent for sex workers who are trapped in structures almost impossible to undo. It forces us to reflect on the agency.

2.-Methodology

The article uses qualitative data, but we get very little information besides that it was done in the Pacific Islands. Maybe it deserves its section. Even a few paragraphs would do.

3.- Strengths

The article offers a detailed definition of resilience. This definition is well done and much needed to guide our future discussions/debates.

4.- Weaknesses

These are minors, but I would like footnotes on a brief definition of discourse (Foucault?) and agency. Agency is another concept that has become everything – a carry-all.

Lines 121-124: could come with an example

Lines 202: what was the decree

5. Recommendations:

Depending on our audience, I think that it is necessary to have even a brief background on why sex work was and is still criminalised.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions, please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

n/a