PONE-D-24-21429

Exploring perceptions and experiences of gender-based violence among women in a refugee camp setting in Uganda - a qualitative study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  Lukasiak,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Editor comments

Do you think the finding, and recommendations are inline? Please make sure all concerns under methodology are incorporated appropriately based on the suggestions provided by reviewers.

What makes unique your study from study conducted three years back in Uganda among refugee population? http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/eas.2018.0010

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 14 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Derebe Madoro Bunte

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. For studies involving third-party data, we encourage authors to share any data specific to their analyses that they can legally distribute. PLOS recognizes, however, that authors may be using third-party data they do not have the rights to share. When third-party data cannot be publicly shared, authors must provide all information necessary for interested researchers to apply to gain access to the data. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions) 

For any third-party data that the authors cannot legally distribute, they should include the following information in their Data Availability Statement upon submission:

1) A description of the data set and the third-party source

2) If applicable, verification of permission to use the data set

3) Confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have

4) All necessary contact information others would need to apply to gain access to the data

3.  Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Do you think the finding, and recommendations are inline? Please make sure all concerns under methodology are incorporated appropriately based on the suggestions provided by reviewers.

What makes unique your study from study conducted three years back in Uganda among refugee population? http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/eas.2018.0010

Reviewer comments to author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1. Partly

Reviewer #2. Yes

Reviewer #3. Yes

Reviewer #4. Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorous?

Reviewer #1. Yes

Reviewer #2. Yes

Reviewer #3. N/A

Reviewer#4. N/A

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1. No

Reviewer #2. Yes

Reviewer #3. No

Reviewer#4.Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1. Yes

Reviewer #2. Yes

Reviewer #3. Yes

Reviewer#4.Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters).

Reviewer#1.

Dear authors! You are doing a great job. Thank you for conducting this study. Generally, your manuscript has no line number to comment on line by line. So, please try to give them line numbers. There are redundancies in the ideas and words thought out in this manuscript. Please try to reduce repetition of the same ideas and words and rewrite them in a clear and brief manner.

Ethical consideration section

This study ignored the right of study participants' spouses or partners to let their spouses or partners to participate in this study. Similarly ethical concerns pertaining to refugee camps were not addressed. Who were the data collectors? Were they females or males? Because males are not appropriate for this sensitive issue of data collection.

Recommendation section

Your recommendations not in line with your study findings. The recommendation forwarded, “Interventions across various dimensions are therefore warranted to address GBV and gendered power dynamics on multiple levels,” was not specific; it seems general and vague. Please rewrite a specific recommendation based on your study findings.

Abstract: - It contains all the scientific content and is written well. But, your recommendation was not appropriate.

Introduction correct as “Background”

Background: - it was well written and appropriately showed the problem, why this study was important and the gaps seen from previous studies. However, it is lengthy, as if it will be revised and rewritten brief manner. It is better to search for and incorporate previous studies reports about women’s GBV perceptions and experiences into this study background.

Has editorial errors for instances; - 89, 4 26,4 1,5 ??

Methods: can be correct as "Methods and materials."

For this qualitative study, study setting, design, period, source of population, sampling technique, data collection tools and procedures, and ethical consideration were not separately and clearly written. So, it is better if all the above subtopics under Methods and materials are rewritten in separate subsection and in clear manner.

It was not clear how the study participants were selected and invited from women who were supported by different organizations within single refugee camp

Under the subtopic “Interview Procedure and Consent” you stated that” Eligible participants of the interviews were informed of all aspects of the study by the principal investigator; its purpose, process, risks and benefits, voluntary participation, confidentiality, and all safety and security precautions The participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any explanation or consequences. .” This issue is to address ethical consideration, so it is better to take it to the ethical consideration section.

Results: appropriate and well done. But there are sections more focused on socio-economic and health problems that study participants faced at refugee camps. These were not in line with the study title, “Study participants’ perceptions and experiences of GBV”. Your study results should to stick with your study title

Discussion

In my opinion, it was well done and scientifically appropriate.

Strengths and limitations

This study limitation was not well addressed, for instance data collection methods such as focused group discussion and males were not participated to explore their thoughts and perceptions regarding GBV

Reviewer #2.

Yes I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the authors for their insightful exploration of gender-based violence among women in a refugee camp setting in Uganda. The article sheds light on a critical issue that affects countless individuals worldwide, and the authors' dedication to addressing this topic is commendable. Through their thorough research and thoughtful analysis, they have provided a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation on gender-based violence, highlighting both the characteristics of GBV experienced both in conflict and displacement and the perpetrators as well as the perceived risk contexts.

My concerns on the article are mainly focused on the methodology, as written below.

1. Type of Qualitative Study

Does this study fall into any specific type qualitative study, such as phenomenology, grounded theory?

2. Reflexivity

What is the background of the researchers and interviewer? Credentials, occupation, gender, training and experience? What are the relationships between the researcher and the participants? What reflexivity has been done to ensure transparency and enhance validity of the research. There are no specific information on interviewer characteristics.

Reviewer #3. I feel the study is well-executed and provides significant insights into the experiences of gender-based violence (GBV) among women in a refugee camp in Uganda. The qualitative approach is suitable for exploring such a sensitive and complex issue, and the findings contribute meaningfully to the existing literature on GBV in humanitarian settings.

Also need some improvements

The methods section could benefit from a more detailed description of the content analysis process, including how themes were identified and categorized. It would also be helpful to know if any software tools were used for the analysis.

While the results are well-organized, additional direct quotes from the interviews could enhance the richness of the qualitative data.

The discussion section could provide a more explicit discussion of the limitations of the study, particularly regarding the generalizability of the findings.

The data availability statement should be clarified to ensure that the underlying data is accessible, or a clear explanation should be provided if there are restrictions due to ethical or privacy concerns.

3. Triangulation

What kind of triangulation has been conducted in the data?

4. Number of participants

What method was used to ensure the data is saturated?

5. Data collection

Apart from the transcripts, were there any other types of data that were recorded and analyzed, such as field notes, observations, photos, documents?

6. Validity

What measures have been taken to enhance validity of the qualitative research? Member checking, participant checking?

I suggest the article should follow the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).

Reviewer#4. The manuscript presents a qualitative study that explores the perceptions and experiences of gender-based violence (GBV) among women residing in a refugee camp in Uganda. The study's primary objective is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the nuanced manifestations of GBV within this vulnerable population. It seeks to examine the cultural and environmental factors that contribute to these experiences. Through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with the women in the camp, the authors aim to shed light on the challenges these individuals face, their coping mechanisms and available support structures.

This study addresses a critical and relatively understudied aspect of gender-based violence in refugee settings. It provides valuable insights that not only contribute to academic discourse but also have direct implications for practical interventions. The qualitative approach employed in this research is particularly well-suited for exploring the intricate and sensitive issues surrounding GBV in this context. The manuscript demonstrates a well-organized structure, featuring a clear introduction that highlights the significance of the study, a detailed description of the methods employed, and a discussion that situates the findings within the broader literature.

However, there are some areas where the manuscript could be strengthened to improve clarity, rigour, and overall impact.

While the authors offer recommendations for practice and policy, there is room for further development. Specifically, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of how the findings can inform specific interventions or policy changes to address GBV in refugee settings.

Conclusion:

The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings, but it could be enhanced by restating the study's contribution to the field and proposing directions for future research.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1. No

Reviewer #2. No

Reviewer #3. No

Reviewer#4.No

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: N/A

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors! You are doing a great job. Thank you for conducting this study. Generally, your manuscript has no line number to comment on line by line. So, please try to give them line numbers. There are redundancies in the ideas and words thought out in this manuscript. Please try to reduce repetition of the same ideas and words and rewrite them in a clear and brief manner.

Reviewer #2: i feel the study is well-executed and provides significant insights into the experiences of gender-based violence (GBV) among women in a refugee camp in Uganda. The qualitative approach is suitable for exploring such a sensitive and complex issue, and the findings contribute meaningfully to the existing literature on GBV in humanitarian settings.

Also need some improvements

The methods section could benefit from a more detailed description of the content analysis process, including how themes were identified and categorized. It would also be helpful to know if any software tools were used for the analysis.

While the results are well-organized, additional direct quotes from the interviews could enhance the richness of the qualitative data.

The discussion section could provide a more explicit discussion of the limitations of the study, particularly regarding the generalizability of the findings.

The data availability statement should be clarified to ensure that the underlying data is accessible, or a clear explanation should be provided if there are restrictions due to ethical or privacy concerns.

Reviewer #3: I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the authors for their insightful exploration of gender-based violence among women in a refugee camp setting in Uganda. The article sheds light on a critical issue that affects countless individuals worldwide, and the authors' dedication to addressing this topic is commendable. Through their thorough research and thoughtful analysis, they have provided a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation on gender-based violence, highlighting both the characteristics of GBV experienced both in conflict and displacement and the perpetrators as well as the perceived risk contexts.

My concerns on the article are mainly focused on the methodology, as written below.

1. Type of Qualitative Study

Does this study fall into any specific type qualitative study, such as phenomenology, grounded theory?

2. Reflexivity

What is the background of the researchers and interviewer? Credentials, occupation, gender, training and experience? What are the relationships between the researcher and the participants? What reflexivity has been done to ensure transparency and enhance validity of the research. There are no specific information on interviewer characteristics.

3. Triangulation

What kind of triangulation has been conducted in the data?

4. Number of participants

What method was used to ensure the data is saturated?

5. Data collection

Apart from the transcripts, were there any other types of data that were recorded and analyzed, such as field notes, observations, photos, documents?

6. Validity

What measures have been taken to enhance validity of the qualitative research? Member checking, participant checking?

I suggest the article should follow the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).

Reviewer #4: The manuscript presents a qualitative study that explores the perceptions and experiences of gender-based violence (GBV) among women residing in a refugee camp in Uganda. The study's primary objective is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the nuanced manifestations of GBV within this vulnerable population. It seeks to examine the cultural and environmental factors that contribute to these experiences. Through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with the women in the camp, the authors aim to shed light on the challenges these individuals face, their coping mechanisms and available support structures.

This study addresses a critical and relatively understudied aspect of gender-based violence in refugee settings. It provides valuable insights that not only contribute to academic discourse but also have direct implications for practical interventions. The qualitative approach employed in this research is particularly well-suited for exploring the intricate and sensitive issues surrounding GBV in this context. The manuscript demonstrates a well-organized structure, featuring a clear introduction that highlights the significance of the study, a detailed description of the methods employed, and a discussion that situates the findings within the broader literature.

However, there are some areas where the manuscript could be strengthened to improve clarity, rigour, and overall impact.

While the authors offer recommendations for practice and policy, there is room for further development. Specifically, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of how the findings can inform specific interventions or policy changes to address GBV in refugee settings.

Conclusion:

The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings, but it could be enhanced by restating the study's contribution to the field and proposing directions for future research.

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE , COMMENTS & SUGGESTION.docx

Exploring perceptions and experiences of gender-based violence among women in a refugee camp setting in Uganda - a qualitative study

PONE-D-24-21429R1

Dear Dr.  Lukasiak,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Derebe Madoro Bunte

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

**********