Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse against Nigerian Women Resident in England, UK: 
A Cross - sectional Qualitative Stud y 
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Catherine Cerulli  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a great article that will be an important contribution to the field. I offer the 
recommendations below in the hopes of helping you to fine -tune the article, increase its 
readership, and help you make your mark on the field.  
Overall Comments: Please think about removing extraneous words, such as: that, in order to, etc. 
You can shorten your paper if you remove extra words, which don't lend to the science or 
readability. Also, please read once over for extra spaces, etc. Lastly , you use acronyms, but then 
you don't stick to them. Try to be sure you use them once noted. Please use the active voice. For 
instance: We recruited 16 women who self identify as Nigerian from Nigerian community 
groups and faith -based organizations. In th is way, you will need less words and be more directed 
in your speaking.  
Title: I would recommend changing the title of the paper to Intimate Partner Abuse. …It was not 
until the middle of the article that I realized this was about intimate partner violenc e and abuse, 
not domestic violence. As you may be aware, domestic violence is more broadly defined and can 
include: child abuse, sibling abuse, elder abuse, and abuse between cousins and in -laws. Your 
inclusion criteria were the participant has been abused  by an intimate partner, a husband, 
boyfriend, etc. As such - it is intimate partner violence and abuse. At one point, you use the 
acronym DVA - please use IPA to capture violence and abuse.  
Abstract: Well done - you include the who, what, where and when.  Good definition - violence 
and abuse included. You can thereafter just call it abuse, letting the reader know that it includes 
violence.  
Key words - Consider using different words that are in the title. This will enhance the 
searchability of your article . 
Introduction: Nice introduction and summary of the articles on international violence against 
women. Please flesh out the discussion on IPV homicide.  
Regarding you use of the term "Women with lived experience of abuse". Can you not simply 
state that th ose are your participants and use the word participants or women. I appreciate you 
may not want to use the term victim. However, Women… is a bulky long phrase that gets hard to 
keep reading after a while.  
I love the discussion of problemization  - a sense  of otherness. It helps us think about how others 
treat violence victims who are different from their own culture or class. It is the perfect 
contextual framework for this particular paper.  
Methods: Please be sure to flesh the methods section more. Not al l of your readers will 
understand thematic analysis. It would be important to understand how many people read the 
transcripts. We learn later that they were transcribed etc. Please move all that up sooner. You 
essentially have methods in two different sect ions. If only the solo author read and coded this 
work - that is a limitation. Is it possible to have someone else read/validate your decision -
making? What was the professional role of the author and what qualitative experience did he/she 
have? Were there any people who addressed the inter coder reliability? Was there an age 
requirement?  
Please also put the standard deviation of the ages of the 16 participants. Was there a time frame 
for the DVA experiences? Your note says current or previous, but it's unc lear how far previous 
was. I'm also wondering given your sample inclusion that the abuse had to have happened at the 
hands of the male partner or husband. As noted earlier, I'm curious that you didn't think about 
using the caption intimate partner violence . Up until page 11, I assumed that these participants 
would have abuse at the hands of their parents or simply others in addition to partners.  
Findings: Please consider only noting in the findings section what the data says. On page 14, the 
first paragra ph, you start to discuss your interpretation of the quotations above. Try instead to 
only include what the women actually said, with modest linkages and connecting sentences. This 
is an opportunity for the reader to 'hear' the voice of the survivors - please tell us more about 
what they have to say.  
Please consider moving the values of familialism to the end of the document in the discussion. It 
is unclear whether it belongs in the finding section given that you have no data, or quotes, 
regarding this topi c. While it seems connected to one's social unit, it is not necessarily that your 
subjects mention it directly. It is more an interpretation of the discussion among the participants.  
Please move the section on page 16 line 35 to the end of paragraph to yo ur discussion. This is 
your interpretation of immigration status. It would be better to have this in the discussion and not 
in the middle of the finding section. It would be helpful in the finding section had more quotes. 
You have very long interviews with  16 women, yet there a few quotes included in the article. It 
seems like your discussion can be cut down significantly if you merge the discussion sections in 
the findings down to the findings section. You can get rid of some of the duplication in the pape r, 
thus enhancing the opportunity to hear the voice of the women.  
Discussion: Specifically, I like how in the discussion that you proposed a theory of help seeking 
adapted from Liang. It would be helpful if you discussed Liang's model a little bit more, a nd how 
you adapted that model for Nigerian women.  
Best of luck with the paper - I look forward to seeing it in print.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work in clude 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.  
 
No 
 
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 interest s, 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 fut ure? 
 
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 cont ent 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 hav e 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 have no conflicts  
 
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 wi th the authors'  
responses.  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/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do  not wish to be included in my named report ca n be included as confidential comments 
to the  editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal