Dear Dr. Slamat,

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.

Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 25 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.

• 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,

Vanessa Carels

Staff 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"Higher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan, Overseas grant

Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek – Vlaanderen (FWO) Travel grant"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Reviewer #1: 1. Summary of the Research and Personal Overall Impression

The research brings out issues that trouble women failing to have children. Motherhood performativity of childless women is evident in rural Punjab. The research reveals that they are seen as incomplete because of childlessness. When they get children (biologically or by adoption) and love them, they will have performed what is socially required for their gender. This study revealed that they are seen as responsible for childless marriages. Men are excused from impotence.

I commend the use of Butler’s Performativity theory as it amplifies the lived experience of involuntarily childless women. The researchers managed to highlight areas that a women must perform to validate her gender.

What I like about this research is the choice of a rural context for the study of involuntary childlessness. This is where the cultural expectations are undiluted by modernisation. The context reveals what a specific people group believe before their culture is influenced by other cultures.

2. Discussion of Specific Areas for Improvement

The Conceptual Framework

Instead of describing Butler’s Performativity theory in depth, the researchers were supposed to highlight the main key factors and how they are related. In this case, women’s identity or gender in rural Punjab is validated by their performativity. Bearing children in this study is the main “performance” that women can use to validate their gender.

Research Methodology

The research methodology section on page 8 and 9 is discussing the research context.

The researchers didn’t highlight the limitations of their study. For instance, the primary researcher was a mother of two children. What effect did that have on the data analysis? Did the self of the researcher have any impact on the presentation of findings? If not, what measures were put in place? Or how was that achieved?

Data Analysis

In data analysis, the researchers need to reduce the number of direct quotations of the participants. They can paraphrase them and give their interpretation of the excerpts. In some places, there is very little data analysis but more participant quotations. Readers will need to hear what the researchers make of the collected data.

How is the cited excerpt speaking to motherhood performativity of Punjabi childless women? How does it address the implications of the exhibited behaviours and further reveal the importance attached to motherhood? How does the gendered expectation of mothering a child regulate the lives of these childless women as they work towards becoming mothers?

Flow of Thought

The clarity of some of the research findings is clouded by language articulation. While there are some minor typographical errors, there are some portions in the manuscript that will need expert language editing. This will enhance the readability of the article.

The researchers need to allow an interaction of the authors they cite. They can employ using joining words to make the transition from one author to the other smoother. On page 5 and 6, the authors have liberally used direct quotations. They can paraphrase the quotes to avoid monotony.

A minor observation is on use of respondents and participants interchangeably throughout the paper. This article has participants rather than respondents. The target population provided qualitative data.

The section which discusses the bride in limbo (page 15 onwards) is not very clear. The connection between the subtheme (mentioned in the title) and the body needs to be strengthened. The researchers have a good intention; however, more clarity is needed to openly bring out the finding on motherhood performativity in Punjabi childless women.

Confidentiality

In the data collection paragraph (page 11, last line), I am concerned about confidentiality issues. If “All transcriptions were rechecked by two language experts,” what did the researchers put in place to protect the participant’s identity? Clarity on that may help

In data analysis, when coding the participants, mentioning their age may reveal their identity to those who may have seen the participants. I suggest a revised coding system.

Layout of Manuscript

Page numbers are missing. This is a minor issue that can be rectified.

References and In-text Citations

On page 27, reference number 7, the researchers must follow the guidelines for published media (print or online newspapers and magazine articles).

The numbering of references did not follow the order they appear in the text. Authors should refer to the author guidelines for this.

I have a minor observation on intext citations throughout the paper. According to the guidelines, in the text, the reference number must be cited in square brackets. The researchers used parentheses.

The authors must align all other references to the Vancouver reference style.

Recommendation

I recommend the article for publication. It presents a crucial matter that needs to be discussed. However, the above revisions can be taken into consideration to strengthen the article. More attention should be given to data analysis. In some places (especially the first section on “The constitution of marriage pointing towards motherhood”, over-quoting the participants repressed in-depth analysis.

**********

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: Yes: Sikhumbuzo Dube

**********

[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: Observations.docx

Dear Dr. Slamat,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 2025 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.

• 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,

Jenna Scaramanga

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

--> -->-->Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised? Please note that Reviewer 3’s comments appear largely in an attachment. -->?>

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a valuable contribution to our understanding of how childless women in rural Pakistan navigate and perform their gendered identities within a cultural context that strongly equates womanhood with motherhood. Using Butler's performativity theory as a theoretical framework, the authors effectively demonstrate how these women maintain an identity as "mothers in the making" through various performances that align with cultural expectations while exercising limited forms of agency.

Minor Suggestions

1. Theoretical Applications:

While the theoretical framework is well-established, there could be more explicit connections between Butler's concept of "subversion" and the adoption practices described in the fifth theme. This would strengthen the analysis of how women exercise agency within constrained cultural contexts.

2. Comparative Context:

The manuscript could benefit from brief comparisons with findings from studies in other cultural contexts to highlight what might be unique about the Pakistani rural context versus what might be more universal experiences of childless women in pronatalist societies.

3. Policy Implications:

Consider adding a brief discussion about the potential implications of these findings for healthcare providers, community workers, or policymakers working with childless women in rural Pakistan or similar contexts.

4. Intersectionality:

Although the paper acknowledges differences in religion, education, and marriage duration among participants, a more explicit discussion of how these factors might intersect to shape women's experiences of childlessness would enhance the analysis.

Overall, this is a well-executed qualitative study that makes a significant contribution to understanding the gendered experiences of childless women in rural Pakistan. The manuscript effectively demonstrates how these women navigate cultural expectations through performances that affirm their maternal identity and desire, even in the absence of biological children. The paper provides valuable insights into the complex interplay between cultural discourses, gender norms, and individual agency in shaping women's lives and identities.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: This research is novel and innovative. The methodology is sound and well-described. However, there are some issues which need addressing in order to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please see my recommendations below.

The manuscript would benefit from one more professional edit. There are some small expression issues that need to be ironed out.

There are several points in the manuscript where the research is referred to as ‘my study’ even though there is more than one author listed. Also, in the analysis section, it is revealed that the first author conducted the analysis by themselves. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. It is unclear to me what the contribution of the other authors consists of. It should be more evident in the manuscript how all contributed.

The abstract highlights the main contribution of the article as showing how ‘societal discourses shape women’s lives.’ However, this is not necessarily new in the literature. What is the study adding to what we know about motherhood, performing gender, involuntary childlessness? This should be better emphasised in the abstract, introduction, literature review and conclusion.

Related to the point above, there is too much dwelling on performativity and explaining Butler in the literature review. There should be more connections made with the broad literature on gender performativity, motherhood expectations, and infertility. What do other studies say about these topics and how can this research contribute to these conversations even if they are not necessarily located in Pakistan.

I am wondering about the rationale behind broadening the childless category. Is it because all participants experienced the pressures of motherhood at some point? This should be specified early in the manuscript.

Below table 1 there are two paragraphs that are an exact copy of each other.

Theme titles are long and convoluted. I recommend shortening them to make the key message of each theme clearer.

The conclusion needs to be strengthened. It does not discuss any of the broader implications of the findings. This is a shame because the analysis is excellent. I already recommended that more relevant literature should be added to the review in the first part of the manuscript. The conclusion should connect to this literature (on motherhood, childlessness, etc.) by telling us how the findings contribute to scholarly work that is related, but not specific to Pakistan. There is an opportunity to strengthen the relevance of your findings, and this should not be missed.

Best of luck with revisions.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Shinnosuke Komiya

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: plosone-reviewer.doc

“Mother in the making”: Motherhood performativity of childless women in rural Pakistan

PONE-D-24-06562R2

Dear Dr. Slamat,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Saeed Ahmad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: This revised manuscript presents a well-executed qualitative study examining motherhood performativity among childless women in rural Pakistan through the lens of Butler's performativity theory. The authors have demonstrated good faith in addressing previous reviewer comments and have made substantial improvements throughout.

Strengths:

The manuscript makes an important contribution by documenting the lived experiences of childless women in a pronatalist society where motherhood is socially obligatory. The theoretical framework effectively demonstrates how women navigate cultural expectations through performative acts - from treatment-seeking to displaying maternal qualities toward others' children - even in the absence of biological motherhood. The methodology is sound, with 15 in-depth interviews and 6 focus group discussions providing rich empirical data. The authors have appropriately acknowledged ethical considerations, limitations, and have added practical policy recommendations.

Recommendation:

This manuscript is ready for publication. It makes a valuable contribution to scholarship on motherhood, childlessness, and gender performativity in South Asian contexts, and effectively demonstrates how cultural discourses shape women's lives while revealing spaces for limited agency within constraining structures.

**********

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 #2: No

**********