Barriers to Governmental Income Supports for Sex Workers during COVID-19: Results of a Community-Based Cohort in Metro Vancouver
, Kate Shannon 1,3, Andrea Krüsi 1,3, Melissa Braschel 1, Jennifer McDermid 1, Brittany Bingham 1,3 and Shira M. Goldenberg 1,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
comments attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work is useful, necessary and interesting. It is very useful to publish and inform society and the academy of this problem.
As I specify in the comments, it is necessary to expand information on the feminist debate on sex work in Canada.
As well as on the Canadian political model and its relationship with similar ones such as the Argentine or the French.
It is a global debate that has similarities and consequences for sex workers in many countries. It should delve into the relationship of the exclusion of indigenous women in Canada, comparing it with the exclusion and racialized migrant women in other countries.
It is also a global trend. It goes beyond the effects of colonization. Suggested changes are placed in the pdf with comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Many thanks to the authors for submitting the paper. The title and purpose of the paper are meaningful, but when I read the text, I felt a little disappointed. I think the article should not be published.
First, the title of the article is 'Access to governmental income supports among women sex workers during COVID-19', but the authors discuss colonialism in the introduction of the article. I do not understand the authors' intention in discussing colonialism, and the authors have not explained it in detail.
This article lacks a theoretical framework. Since the authors bring up some conceptual terms such as colonialism and racism, I think the authors need to explain the linkages between the terms and the topic.
The measurements of the paper have not been explained in detail; how they were selected, and did they work? How did the authors comment on the reliability and validity of the measurements?
Table 2 does not show p-values, as does the article. On line 221, I see the authors define statistically significant as p<0.2. This is an unacceptable setting and is far below the 0.05 standard. This error alone is enough to get your article rejected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the reviewer requests. All the requested changes have been undertaken, and the piece is now much clearer. The article makes a clear contribution to the field of critical sex work studies. However, there are some minor revisions needed.
The theoretical framework could be improved by fleshing out how this article will use concepts. The section "Theoretical framework" (lines 296-226) briefly discusses the operationalization of structural determinants and intersectionality in this paper. Including a few sentences to justify using these concepts in this paper would be valuable. There are some signs of justification earlier in the paper (lines 98 – 133). I suggest merging lines 98-133 with lines 296- 226 for a coherent and concise contextualization of the theoretical framework.
The discussion and conclusion section can also be improved by highlighting the theoretical concepts. Here I am asking you to hold the hand of the reader to make the connections between theory and the empirical. Doing so will make this paper accessible for undergraduate students.
There are still some typos and incomplete sentences throughout the paper.
Also, the intext citations need formatting for consistency throughout the paper. Sometimes the author's first and last name is used. Other times only the last name is used. Some citations have initials and last names, and others have two initials and last names. For example, see lines 230- 231.
Additionally, you must cite the author's name if the report has an author for an organizational report. Only when there is no author do you use the organization's name in the citation. Please check to name sure all the reports are cited correctly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my questions. I am happy to accept this paper in its present form
Author Response
Thank you.
