Gender-Based Violence in Some Pentecostal Churches—A South African Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The chosen topic is relevant and can contribute to the critical discourses regarding GBV, however, kindly take note of the following comments and also those highlighted in the text:

> The scope (religious institutions) is too broad, perhaps you can consider a revision of your title for a more precise and direct title.

> The aim of the study should be consistent throughout the paper. 

> The methodology and theories should be stated.

> The are a lot of generalized statements without substantiation.

> The objectives of the study are more than necessary.

> The literature review fails to identify the gaps considering the title of the paper and the aims.

> The geographical space of the research is not highlighted.

> The focus/ children/ girl child/ women or women and girls.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate English language editing is recommended.

Author Response

Please see attachment below 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author addresses an important topic, gender violence, with a focus on abuses conducted in religious settings and by religious leaders, with an emphasis on South Africa. Although it is a noble attempt, the paper requires better organization, more relevant citations, a more extensive literature review, and is free of grammatical and structural writing errors. For example, the section, Research Problem, beginning with "report on the CRL Commission" to "not innocent in this problem," is awkward and needs to be rewritten. The Research Objectives need to be re-written with greater clarity. The literature review is only 20 lines and the last few lines need references. Section number 6 has numerous grammatical errors with awkward sentence structure, e.g. the section on "music being sold to them." The meaning of this is lacking in addition to the emphasis on girls, yet the outcome for boys is not clearly explained. The author attempts to address a wide range of issues contributing to child sexual abuse and provides relevant examples.  A significant drawback is the number of outdated references. About one-third are old, with one being dated 1985. More recent literature has covered this topic. References #24 and 25 are the same (minor issue). In summary, this paper needs major revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are numerous examples of how the writing of this paper needs to be revised. It is suggested that proofreading takes place before re-submission.

Author Response

Please see attachment below

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy with the revisions except for a few issues highlighted in the problem statement and the abstract.  These are minor issues and once addressed the article can move to publications. see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Changes to manuscript

1. Added the type of study on page 1.
2. Added a source on page 2 (Ndlovu et al, 2022)
3. Added a source on page 2 (Washinyira, 2022)
4. New source (WWSOSA, 2023) was added to replace (Mbhele, 2018) on page 2.
5. Quote from Mbhele 2018 report was removed as the source was not available anymore on page 2.
6. Source (Mbhele, 2018) was removed from the source list as it is no longer available.
7. Quote by Tamara Braam was added on page 2.
8. Source was added on page 2 (Pertek, 2023).
9. Replaced “sums up the challenge that this article aims to unmask” with “articulates similar challenges that this article aims to unmask”. On page 3