Thank you for this important initiative. I see the most pressing gap in polyvictimization research as the lack of a standardised, developmentally sensitive definition. Without clear conceptual boundaries, accounting for severity, frequency, and context comparability across studies remains limited, and interventions risk being too generic.

Closely following this is the inconsistency in measurement tools, particularly how instruments like the JVQ are adapted or narrowed in scope across contexts. Third, the field often overlooks intersectional factors, such as gender, disability, and identity, which are crucial for understanding diverse victimisation pathways.

I also believe it's vital to recognise polyvictimization as a dynamic experience, not a fixed status. Additionally, one overlooked issue is the need for survivor-informed definitions. Integrating lived experience would enhance both the relevance and ethical grounding of our frameworks.

Thank you again for facilitating this crucial dialogue.