Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Spanish Validation of Female Condom Attitude Scale and Female Condom Use in  Colombian Young Women  
 
Version: 2 Date: 06 Aug 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear obj ective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (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?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient 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/d iscussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contributio n? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Yes - current version is technically sound  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS: I am glad to see the authors responding to my comments and I too 
see this as a debate, and not a challenge per se.  I see that they have made some changes, and I 
also accept that if the authors have used a similar process in the past and this has worked fine for 
them in terms of publication that this bodes well for future publication.  However, I do not feel 
that this fact invalidates my comments on translation and back translation.  It merely shows that 
this is often overlooked by editors and reviewers.   
I also think there has been a little misunderstanding in that I was certainly not arguing f or a rigid, 
word -for-word translation.  Good translation is, indeed, interpretative in nature and should 
always be carried out in keeping with cultural sensitivities and contexts.  The reason I am 
personally in favour of a final -stage blinded back translat ion is because people can be 
"cognitively lazy", and if they see the original with the translation alongside it they are more 
likely to accept the translation.  If they are forced to back translate in a blinded manner this 
process reveals any difficulties which can be looked at further by the original panel. However, I 
am aware that although this might be best possible practice, in my opinion, some editors and 
reviewers are less concerned about this, and so I do not think it is worth pursuing this point 
further except to say that in future it could be something built into grant applications so that my 
comments could be tested out in research as yet to come.   
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
None.  I think this could be published provided the issues raised by the other reviewer have also 
been addressed to their satisfaction.   
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being publis hed 
 
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 th at 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, eith er 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 t o 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 ha s 
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.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will  be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available und er an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).  I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be include d as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal