JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Factors associated with sexual violence among waitresses working in Bahir Dar City,
Ethiopia: a mixed-method study
Version: 2 Date: 03 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
Methods part: A facility-based parallel mixed-method study was conducted among 406
systematically selected 406 waitresses.  Repeated words omit one 406.
Materials and methods
• Why the authors exclude waitresses with 18 years of age and less than 18 ( e.g 16, 17, 18)?
• Why waitresses who have been working in nightclubs?
• In the abstract part data is cleaned and entered into SPSS but in materialas and methods part
of Data management and analysis data is cleaned and entered into Epidata version 7. Which one
is correct? Is it SPSS or Epidata for data entry?
Results
• In the first paragraph of result part, no need of listing or describing the contents of the result.
Please directly describe the result you obtained
Conclusion
Furthermore, this study adds essential insight into the existing research body on waitresses’
workplace sexual violence in Ethiopia. It seems significant of the study it is not conclusion or
recommendation. Please avoid it.
Title: Factors associated with sexual violence among waitresses working in Bahir Dar City,
Ethiopia: a mixed-method study
Version: 4 Date: 24 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Factors associated with workplace violence in waiters
Review
Background
Acronyms and symbols are used less likely in background
Introduction
Revise the last two paragraphs regarding grammar issues and gap identification to fill
e.g cannot……………
However, since----------
Method and materials
“Materials and Methods”----rewrite the tittle as above
“between 1 January and 30 August 2019”---- better to write as 1st January and 30th august 2019
Study population
“non-governmental organisations’ community workers living in the city where the study
participants live help us reach the females.” Grammatically wrong. Revise it please
The above is similar for sample size determination section also
Variable and measurement section
Revise it in detail please. There are incomplete sentence and wrong grammars in it
Working definition section
Most of defined variables were less clear and didn’t include last comments. Revise it please
Data collection section
“The study’s objectives and instruments were given by going over all the questions.” Rewrite
this statement please.
“Amendments and necessary modifications were made.” For what?
Revise the grammar of qualitative data analysis description.
Prevalence section
Revise the grammar please
Please use uniform presentation of IDI FGD. You presented some in italic font and the other in
times new roman. Also appropriate bracketing to refer the respondents perception.
Behavioral, environmental and workplace section
Revise the grammar please
Associated factor section
Spelling error. Revise it please. E.g    “witnessing high crimes and other forms violence in the
community, educational status were significantly associated with WSV.”
Revise the gramma please. E.g “Moreover, those who were raised in a family who considered
their honour more critical than their children’s safety and health were more than two times
(AOR=2.07, 95%CI: 1.18, 3.64) higher odds of experiencing workplace sexual violence than
those who were raised in a family who prioritised child safety and health than their honour.”
Discussion
The second paragraph has grammar and sentence construction error issues. Therefore, revise it
Paragraph 9-revise it please. It has weak justification
Figure 2- it is less readable. Improve the readability or better to display using table
Table 4- please define terminologies
e.g alcohol drinking, sexual fantasy, impulsive and anti-societal tendency, sexually aggressive
and delinquent peers, poverty & few resources, emotionally supportive work environment etc
Table 5- where are the other factors?
Generally, the document has important improvements and comes with great edition
But it has the following issues
-Grammatical errors- therefore read line by line and address it or get language editor
Weak working definition- variables were not well measured
Spelling errors
Poor conjunction use in the manuscript
Title: Child marriage and risky health behaviors: An analysis of tobacco use among early adult
and early middle-aged women in India
Version: 2 Date: 31 Oct 2021
Reviewer:  Rohini Ruhil
Reviewer's report:
It has been stated in the manuscript that no studies to date have visited the relationship of child
marriage with tobacco use. Further, it has been stated that this is the first documented support
to the association between child marriage and tobacco use.
In my opinion, it is difficult to assess the validity of such statements. So I suggest rephrasing
these sentences.
Also, a brief conceptualization of the study needs to be mentioned that why the authors thought
that there might be such an association between child marriage and tobacco use.
Page 3, second paragraph, more clarity is required regarding participants at different stages of
the study. I suggest including a flowchart/ diagram showing participants at different stages of
the study.
Page 9, last paragraph, Limitations of the study could be put as separate heading.
Title: Inequalities in Overweight and Obesity among reproductive age group women in India:
an evidence from National Family Health Survey
Version: 2 Date: 06 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper used nationally representative data to estimate the trends in overweight and obesity
and to identify socio-demographic factors associated with overweight and obesity among women
of reproductive age in India. Now I provide my suggestions and comments:
1. The research in this paper is too simple. Author(s) validate many existing conclusions but
make few marginal contributions. In particular, the effect of socio-demographic factors on
overweight and obesity you focus has been well studied, and Indian sample in your study does
not show specificity. Beyond that, the research significance is very inadequate. The findings
in this paper do not enough to meet the current social puzzle even the research purpose in the
Introduction the author(s) mentioned. I suggest that the author(s) should provide more marginal
contributions and state them in the paper clearly.
2. Introduction is lack of logic, which needs to be strengthened. The literature review in the
Introduction is not enough detailed. The literature review is important, which enables us to
understand what has been done in the literature in order to identify literature gaps and obtain
literature support. So, the author(s) should do more work on it.
3. For outcome variable, in your paper, “Women having BMI #25 kg/m2 were coded “1”
overweight and obesity and “0” otherwise.” However, the cutoff of overweight and obesity
is different, the former is 25, while the latter is 30. The difference should be taken into
consideration
4. For your data, data on asset holdings and other HH characteristics were used to create the
wealth index, and then scores are assigned to households. However, it is not clear how to assign
a score to each usual (de jure) household member
5. For your results, Author(s) should do more robustness checks to make sure the conclusion
is robust.
Title: Inequalities in Overweight and Obesity among reproductive age group women in India:
an evidence from National Family Health Survey
Version: 6 Date: 29 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors analyzed the associations between some socio-economic factors and the prevalence
of overweight and obesity in the Indian context. Except for the sample in  the Indian context, I
do not find any other marginal contributions to the existing literature. Also, the effect of socio-
demographic factors on overweight and obesity you focus has been well studied, and the sample
in your study does not show specificity. Hence, I suggest again that the author(s) should show
more marginal contributions and state them in the paper clearly.
Title: Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a Facebook-
focused cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 22 Jun 2021
Reviewer's report:
As study is done among muslims. The study may add something to the literature. However,
the statistical analysis should be done again. In this case, I suggest modified Poisson regression
analysis. The entire manuscript should also be revised for language.
Title: Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a Facebook-
focused cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 21 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
1. The abstract can be improved.  Please brief about the data analysis
2.  P = 0.000 is there such finding? Please write numbers in sentence form while it come at the
beginning of the sentence.
3. In abstract, conclusion sub-section, It can possible to solve religious and cultural taboos by
dissemination of knowledge? How you disseminate knowledge?
4. Improve the conclusion. This should not be a repeat of the results.
Introduction
1. The introduction of the article should focus on the objectives of the study. And also more
discuss on the magnitude of the problem both in worldwide and in your country and the impact
of the problem on the healthcare system.
2. In paragraph two, Why you initiated to write others scholar conclusion?
3. Please incorporate reference for all literatures
4. Please delete the objective sections and re-write in the following way
There were no enough studies among Jordanian women about the use of long-acting and
permanent contraceptive methods and the factors that may affect the uptake. Therefore,
this study aimed to assess the factors associated to the use of long-acting and permanent
contraceptive methods.
5. Methods
1. Where is the study period and setting?
2.  It is not clear where the women eligible for the study. Source and study population?
3.  How you determine your sample size? Where is your sampling technique?
4.  Inclusion/exclusion criteria need revision.
How you see the selection bias and how solve it?
5. What about individuals who are not face book user?
6. To use fisher exact test, how you check whether the variables are independent or not? This
test is important while the sample size is small. So why you use it.
Results:
1.  In this session, it is so confuse. It is better to make succinct. How you see 44.8% response
rate as representative for the general population.
2. There are fingers which are not inline that mentioned in the sentence and in the table
Discussion:
1. Please re-write it Literature reviews are incomplete. Please compare with more previous
studies. Please write what is known about the problem and what this study added new to our
knowledge.
2. In discussion section, why you use both Harvard and Vancouver referencing style
Strength and Limitations:
1.   Please modify the strength
Conclusion:
1. Improve the conclusion. This should not be a repeat of the results. Please add recommendation
based on your finding.
General comment
1. Please give page and line number. The sentence should be double space
Title: Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a Facebook-
focused cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 12 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Please see again this manuscript to add your work in these scientific world. please try to address
the following area of concerns to consider future publication
1. line number 44, 63 & 64 please make it meaningful
2. Line 75-83 just a copy of single research as it is.
3. Line 99-108 dependency
4. line 121 not representative? selection bias
5. Study setting, population, unit?
6. Line 129 the author exclude already excluded women in the inclusion criteria and why 10
years residency to be mandatory?
7.  What is the maximum distribution capacity?
8. where is your sampling methods and sample size determination?
9. line 153-154 not feasible
10. Line 184 the response rate was 44.8% . this indicate that your study is not representative
regardless of your total number of participants.
11. line 303-327 irrelevant
12. line 430-434 not strength
13. please see in-depth especially your methods section
Title: Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a Facebook-
focused cross-sectional study
Version: 2 Date: 08 Nov 2021
Reviewer's report:
Abstract
Introduction:
• Show the problem and the knowledge gap clearly
Methods:
Provide more details. Example: sample size, sampling, data collection period, contents of the
questionnaire, the statistical analysis used,….……….
Statistical analysis: I still strongly recommend you to do modified Poisson regression with
robust estimation of variance (Reading material https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/stata/faq/how-can-
i-estimate-relative-risk-using-glm-for-common-outcomes-in-cohort-studies/ ) This is suitable
modelling approach when your outcome variable is dichotomous and the prevalence is low.
Results:
• Start with prevalence of contraceptive use, spell out abbreviations when they appear first in
text, and provide results of adjusted analysis. I do not think chi2 test is sufficient.
Introduction
1) “Unwanted pregnancy might occur with any kind of the contraceptive methods”….what are
you saying here? I think this is against your thesis.  Still the second sentence seems against your
thesis.
2) “On average women had heard of eight methods while men had heard of five methods, in
Jordan. The most commonly known methods among women were IUD followed by the pill and
withdrawal which all together represent (94%)” what is the relevance of including these ideas
here?
3) The third sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph are
against one another. Please revise them.
4) long term and permanent contraceptive methods is not defined either in the abstract or in the
introduction.
5) In general, I think the introduction should be rewritten. For instance, you can start with the
magnitute of unwanted pregnancy and its consequences like maternal mortality,……..
6) The is repetition of ideas between the rationale of our study and objectives.
Materials and Methods
1) Still the methods section lacks clarity. What was collected? How was the data collected? How
were the variables categorized? E.g. How was knowledge collected and categorized
2) How was the long term and permanent contraceptive use measured and categorized? Which
time was taken in to account? Ever use?
3) Also please consider merging some of the sub-topics because you do not have much to say.
Results
1) Please consider merging some of the sub-topics because you do not have much to say.
Discussion
1) Focus on the interpretation of the main findings only.
2) Limitation: I think the generalizability is still questionable. Please revise the limitation of
your study.
Title: Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a Facebook-
focused cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 20 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled "Factors Affecting the Use of Long-Term and Permanent
Contraceptive Methods: a Cross-Sectional Study."
General comment
I have assessed your manuscript thoroughly and I am disappointed by reviewing this paper,
which might not be considered for publication in its present form. The paper had many
grammatical and editorial problems and was revised again. I have listed my comments below,
and I hope the comments will improve the manuscript and may allow a revision to be reassessed.
The scope of the study is not described clearly. Please clarify the details and importance of
factors affecting the use of long-term and permanent contraceptive methods. I do not believe
this study adds anything interesting to the available knowledge. What do the authors wish to
add to their work?
1. The abstract part is a very poor description.
2. Line 58: Only 1.83% of women's partners underwent vasectomy due to the need for lifelong
contraception in 72.0%. What does 72.0% mean? It is not clear.
3. Line 123: you included women aged 16–49 who were married, non-pregnant, and had lived
in Jordan for the previous ten years. How do you deal with memory bias if the participant has
been present for the last ten years?
4. Why did you exclude the women who did not use Facebook? Why self-administered or face-
to-face interviews?
5. Your exclusion has lacked clarity. You should exclude the participants who meet the inclusion
criteria. Divorced or non-married women were not part of your study population, as you
mentioned.
6. The discussion part should be rewritten again. It is poor and not clear.
Title: Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a Facebook-
focused cross-sectional study
Version: 4 Date: 09 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear author, I believe that your research is an important study for your country and region.
Please consider the following suggestions.
best regards
1- Title: "Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a cross
sectional study''
-We used a community-based cross-sectional cohort study which adopted a pre-existing
questionnaire.
Observational studies are roughly classified into descriptive and analytical (cross-sectional,
case-control, and cohort). Therefore, a study cannot be both cross-sectional and cohort. The
word cohort should be omitted.
2- Since the data is collected in Facebook groups, it is more appropriate to have the title "Factors
affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a facebook-focused cross
sectional study". The opposite will cause bias.
3-Dependent variable: long term and permanent contraceptive methods. Hormonal and
hormonal should not be differentiated. This distinction makes it difficult to understand the
research.
-Hormonal and non-hormonal methods should be given in the descriptive table.
The factors affecting the use of the -long term and permanent contraceptive method should be
given in the cross (analytical) table.
Independent variables: woman's age, education, income, etc…
-The independent variables that are statistically significant in the cross (analytical) table are
included in the logistic regression analysis.
Bu kaynak metin hakk#nda daha fazla bilgiEk çeviri bilgileri için kaynak metin gerekli
Geri bildirim gönder
Yan paneller
Title: Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a Facebook-
focused cross-sectional study
Version: 6 Date: 01 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear author,
The research is important, but there are some methodological limitations. Therefore, the research
should be reconsidered in line with the recommendations.
respectfully
-The title should reflect the research in general. The title is enough.
- The reader should understand the importance of the research being conducted in a Muslim
country and in a non-Muslim country. For example, Jordan is a Muslim country, the reader
knows this.
-Introduction in research: explains to the reader why the research was done. For example, the
importance of birth control methods is explained. The importance of the long and safe-time
method is mentioned. Causality is given in the discussion section. It is discussed.
-The purpose of the study: every study has a purpose. The aim of this research is to determine
the level of long-term and permanent methods and related factors as it is understood.
-Material and method:
-Type of study: a cross-sectional study
-Universe: the number of facebook groups and the number of registered people are determined.
A very difficult but rough information can be given. It is determined what percent of the universe
has been reached. Representing the universe is important. Otherwise, it will be biased.
-Sample: All those who agreed to participate in the study were included. There is no sample.
-Dependent variable: long-term and permanent method use. (those who use this method and
those who do not)
-Independent variables: sociodemographic, biodemographic etc. variables.
Fundamental question: do independent variables affect the dependent variable? The answer to
this question is sought in binary analysis. For example, age groups are categorized (World Health
Organization uses): women aged 19 and under, women aged 20-34, women aged 35 and over. Or
working non-working women etc. The main purpose here is to increase the power of statistics.
In the second stage, the variables that are statistically significant are included in the logistic
regression. In this analysis, it is determined how many times the objective independent variable
affects the dependent variable.
Tables: too many and unnecessary. Descriptive tables can be given as a single table. Binary
analyzes can also be given in a table. Logistic regression analysis is performed and a table is
included in them.
Title: Factors affecting the use of long term and permanent contraceptive methods; a Facebook-
focused cross-sectional study
Version: 7 Date: 19 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Most of the comments I gave in the first round of the review process are not considered. Please
check them again.
Abstract
1. Introduction: show the problem and gap briefly
2. Methods and data analysis: where? when? on how many participants? How were the
participants selected? How was the data analyzed?
Introduction
1. Show the problem behind not using LAPM like maternal mortality? Maternal morbidity?
What is the current utilization status in Jourdan? How large is the unmet need?,
………………….
Methods and Materials:
1. First introduce your study area and the context including the access to internet.
2. What do you mean by “validated?” questionnaire. When? Where? By whom? (cite the
reference)
3. Please revise the following sentence “We studied the influence of women's age, level of
education, place of residence, duration of marriage, number of children, women's employment
status and family's monthly income on the use and acceptance of long-term and permanent
contraceptives”
4. Still it is unclear how knowledge is measured and categorized
5. The sample size calculation is totally unclear
6. The statistical analysis is not adequate to address your objective. It is totally descriptive.
Again, I suggest modified Poisson regression analysis
Discussion
This section can be shortened and focus on the most important findings
Language
This manuscript needs extensive language revision.
Title: Exploration factors on smoking among female adolescents based on the viewpoints of
Iranian adolescent girls
Version: 0 Date: 24 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Review of MS entitled: Title: The personality factors influencing cigarette smoking in Iranian
female adolescents based on the qualitative content analysis
As I am reviewing the revised version of this manuscript, I suggest the following comments.
- As Iran country is located in the Middle East and is Moslem, I suggest adding some
explanations about the context of Iran where smoking among women may consider taboo.
- I believe that interviewing with  20 participants in this study makes it hard to analyze. Explain
it in the limitation section.
- The title of this paper should be changed. Because the findings and aim of the study are
irrelevant to the title. Actually, this paper did not investigate personality factors.  So, I am
suggesting the following title:
Influencing factors on smoking among female adolescents based on the viewpoints of Iranian
young girls
- I suggest studying the paper which it may be informative:
Modeling the Underlying Predicting Factors of Tobacco Smoking among Adolescents Iranian.
Iranian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 41, No.5, May 2012, pp.46-57
- There are numerous grammatical and typos errors that need to be revised.