Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A narrative review of evidence to support increased domestic resource mobilization for family planning in Nigeria
Version: 
0 
Date: 
26 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research question(s) (brief or other article
types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the objective?
N/A - no methodology
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to
make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: 1 - This is a well written review of the literature pertaining to family planning in Nigeria. I appreciate
the time and effort taken and it was easy to read and interesting. I wonder if it is more of a "scoping" review vs. a "narrative"
review. I have an example authors can review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8640629/#:~:text=Protocol%20design,summarising%20and%20reporting%20the%20results.
2 - suggest adding to the purpose and the conclusion that the findings would be useful in other countries/contexts. I imagine that
your findings would be similar to others and draw attention to the need for more funding (domestic and donor) for family planning
3 - is mCPR a commonly used abbreviation? Too many abbreviations and readers get confused. I would suggest for ones that are
only used once or twice you just write it out
4 - State is capitalized sometimes and sometimes not
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
I included minor changes in my comments above. It's one of the best written manuscripts I have reviewed!
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents
relating to the content of the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If your reply is yes to any,
please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared or apparent competing
interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative
Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a
specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY
License (
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not
wish to be included in the published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be
published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing the review.
If you
wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start
of the process and confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions
supported by the evidence presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this review directly to a Web of Science
researcher profile (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please click on the
“Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review
submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final decision on the manuscript has been
made. If you have already registered with Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was previously
known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your settings and their
policy. If you are not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them
to be able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Web of Science may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-policy/
No