Building Community Resilience to Violent Extremism through Community-Based Youth Organizations: A Case of Post-Conflict North Waziristan, Pakistan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article Building Community Resilience to Violent Extremism through Community-Based Youth Organizations: A Case of Post-Conflict North Waziristan, Pakistan addresses an issue that needs attention. It is from the identification of shortcomings that it is possible to propose possible improvements for the future. Unfortunately, the article contains a number of shortcomings that the authors should eliminate:
• The article acts more like a review.
• The abstract is written only in general terms. The abstract should clearly state the methods used in the article and the contribution of the article itself.
• In the abstract and introduction there is the same part of the sentence: communities with particular emphasis on the promotion of education in North Waziristan with a common and resonant slogan: "we want peace.". I recommend changing it in the abstract.
• The Materials and Methods section is not completely clearly constructed in the article. It should clearly describe the way the research is carried out, its possible repetitions, shortcomings and the like. It is also not clear what interview the authors are talking about (who conducted it? What were the questions, etc.
• In the results section, the authors refer to the source: 2020, personal communication. This source should be clarified in the Materials and Methods section. It is necessary to answer in particular the process of creating questions, describe individual questions and the method of communication, etc. The added value by the authors must be clearly visible in the results section.
• The Discussion and Conclusion section is at a low level.It is necessary to clearly point out the shortcomings and propose relevant improvements that can be applied. The discussion should be supported by various researches and publications.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment for Reviewer 1's comments"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an interesting topic of community Resilience to Violent Extremism through Community-Based Youth Organizations that is investigated by ethno-methodological study. The paper is well written and the data is convincing, but I think there are spaces for improvement.
1. Please write the finding in the abstract.
2. Since the paper describe the area and location of study in geographical context, I think it would be better if the authors present them in a map, such as location of study and the areas of CBYOs that were interviewed.
3. I think result doesn't need to be specific as "Results: Functioning and Role of CBYOs in Post-Conflict North Waziristan". Results is enough to express them.
4. The discussion and conclusion sections are combined that is fine. However, the authors need to discuss the finding with relevant literature.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment for Reviewer 2's comments"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for conducting research of interest. Humbly, I believe that it should be published for its relevance to the field. However, I would ask you to consider the recommendations I make to improve future readers' understanding of research.
The summary correctly explains the framework of the study problem and correctly states the methodology to be used. However, they should also mention succinctly the sample used and the main results and conclusions of the study.
The introduction and the theoretical framework of reference is correctly structured and mentions enough aspects to understand the research background of the research carried out.
About objectives: The summary and introduction should clearly reflect the general objective of the research and, before or within the methodology, there should be a section to reflect them all, the general and the specific.
The methodology places the reader in context and comments on different issues to consider. However, it should be structured in a more appropriate way and go into depth in the methodological aspects of the research, differentiating the different sections that it must at least: context, methodological approach / design used, sample used, technique / tool of data collection and, finally, data analysis procedure.
Reading the list of interviewees raises the question of whether you have the consent to publish the names or are fictitious names. I think it would be more appropriate to present the sample based on its sociodemographic characteristics related to the study.
In the results section, different perceptions extracted from the interviews are shown in an interesting way. It would be of great interest if the authors supported the discourse through some quotation from the interviews and that, in this way, the statements they make were evidenced. Above all, in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2
Although the discussion appears in the section following the results, the configuration and methodology of the article should be carried out as it presents the results. Therefore, the author is strongly recommended to conduct the discussion in conjunction with the results. It can be a considerable effort but it will contribute a lot to the article. Likewise, in section number 6 there is no discussion itself, so it must be done in the previous point.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment for Reviewer 3's comments"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improved and clarified the article. However, in the results section, I would expect some statistical evaluation of the all questions, search for dependence or other significant signs. This would add a higher informative value and greater scientificity to the article. The last source in the article ends with the number 51, but in the References section there are only 50 sources and no change is visible there. The authors should fix this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been revised in accordance with the previous comments. I think it is ready for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
