The Right to Leave: Dissolution of Child, Early, and Forced Marriages and Unions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you to the authors for their work on this paper. This is a well-written, comprehensive, and insightful exploration of an incredibly important issue. I was grateful for the opportunity to review the paper.
Overall the paper is well developed and takes a detailed, critical look at the issues. I hope the following feedback is helpful in further developing the paper. My feeling is that the below represent minor/moderate revisions which will help to strengthen the paper prior to publication.
Can I please recommend changing the phrases around "non conforming" genders + sexualities -e.g. "non conforming sexualities" on line 617, but there are other similar uses - and using a different phrase. "Non conforming sexualities" is a jarring phrase and arguably quite dehumanising to queer people and the queer community. Perhaps you could use language that reflects diversity of sexuality or gender identity, or you could reference the LGBTQI+ community. My perspective is that this would be a more compassionate and ethical way of writing this up.
I think the comparison made to abortion advocacy is helpful; I would recommend citations being woven in throughout this section to substantiate and to draw readers' attention to relevant and helpful literature.
Line 648, I would suggest changing "motherhood" to "parenthood".
Lines 650-652 currently feel incomplete; I recommend that this is rewritten and fleshed out in more depth and detail.
Lines 670-672 you mention that significant additional research is needed but only one example is currently stated. I recommend building out this part with some further recommendations or provocations for future researchers. One key thing that would be helpful to mention here is whether more research is needed in general, or whether specific types of research are most needed (e.g. more qualitative exploration, or more work w/ specific cohorts)
Minor copy editing required throughout - there were a few spacing issues and other errors that I spotted, e.g. line 215. Some sections could be revised/refined to enhance clarity + flow, e.g. lines 581-583 (the sentence about role models).
Thanks again to the authors for their work on this paper and in this space, and best wishes for the publication of this paper.
Mostly strong; minor editing required to ensure accuracy, clarity, flow throughout.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an excellent piece of research, capturing well the state of the art, raising a novel issue, and ending with advocacy recommendations. Controversial issues and dilemmas are not avoided. Eloquently written.
I spotted a couple of minor issues of style/language:
-line 250: 'they are experience': 'are' seems redundant
- p. 11: box 1 may be more appropriate for a brochure or report than for an academic piece?
line 650-653: consider rephrasing 'Make sure we discuss abandonment ...'
And a final point on substance: section 2.3 seems to cover a much broader issue than CEFMU. I understand why, but perhaps the specific relevance for CEFMU could be spelled out more explicitly?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper focuses its research on the marriage and divorce of child, early and forced unions. The object of the research is very interesting and has gained prominence in the scientific community over the years.
The paper, overall, demonstrates a great deal of work. The literature review is extensive, correct and up-to-date. The organization of the text responds to a scientific writing. However, I find some aspects that need to be improved so that the article has a greater coherence and the reader can situate himself from the beginning:
1. In the "introduction" section: when we begin to introduce ourselves to the research topic, it´s not very clear what the objective of this writing is in a concrete way. A very good introduction is presented but nevertheless this aspect isn´t clear. This is necessary so that the reader knows how to understand the writing.
2. A systematic review of the literature is carried out in order to obtain results and build the research. My question is: if this results in building the writing, shouldn't it be explained in more detail? shouldn't it be specified in a method section? It´s true that it is explained in the introduction but this section serves to introduce the reader. If multiple databases have been used as stated, this needs to be explained in a separate section.
Normally, when systematic reviews of the literature are carried out, it´s explained how it´s carried out, the total number of articles found, the total number of articles analyzed, etc.
3. By not explaining this, there is a problem: we don't know whether to locate ourselves geographically or not. The paper deals with the object of study in a global way (if I have not misunderstood) but this can cause complications. For example, when reference is made to obstacles for girls to access a divorce and to protections after it, does this not vary by country? It´s the same, for example, in the European context as in the Asian one?
4. Conclusions are very well constructed and the findings are really interesting. However, future research is delimited but not so much the limitations of this research
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, thank you for making some of the suggested changes. Undoubtedly, the research is coherent and deserves to be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. We are grateful for your further comments on our paper and it has clearly been improved by your inputs.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
