Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Exploring the Differences between Men’s and Women’s Perceptions of
Gender-based Violence in Rural Tajikistan: A Qualitative Study
Version: 
1 
Date: 
24 Jun 2020
Reviewer's report:
Background section: 
1. The authors have done a great job explaining the history of this country and
this is important because it helps understand how women are vulnerable to
experiencing GBV. My main suggestion is that this section needs to be re-
organized so that it reads much better. For example, the information on GBV
should be weaved in a good way so it flows well and connects with the history of
this country that led to social structural in-equalities. 
2. The authors should also provide more background information on perceptions
of men and women towards GBV. For example what does perception mean and
what do mean when we say perceptions towards GBV, is it their thoughts,
views? Etc. I believe there is also research that has been conducted in other
countries in Asia related to perceptions of GBV, could the authors include some
of these studies. 
3. Please add the research questions for your study.
4. This study also fails to discuss theoretical understanding of men and women
perceptions of GBV. 
Methods
1. The method of data collection is innovative.
2. This section has too much information and I think it would really help to have
some sub-headings such as Research Design, Participants,
Measures/Instruments, Data collection and Data Analysis. 
Results
These are great findings as it is always great to hear the voices of people in
regard to empowerment. 
1. I am not sure why the authors omitted the quotes. Qualitative quotes always
strengthen findings. 
2. The discussion of themes is a bit shallow and needs more information for each
finding. 
3. The theme on marital status should be revised to religious believes because
the discussion is more about religion and its impact on marital status. 
Discussion
1. The discussion should start by reminding the readers on the objectives of the
study. 
2. Overall the discussion is well done. However, the authors did not discuss
implications of their study. I think some of the implications are included in the
conclusion. The authors can add a section on implications in the discussion
section. 
Overall this paper has potential for great contribution in the literature on
empowerment because it includes perspectives from men and women. I however
think that the paper needs a lot of editing before it can be published. There is so
much information discussed but I think a lot of it is repeated. 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (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 Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
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 Publons, 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. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons 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
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the
authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you
recommend an additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects
require further assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
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)