Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Differential sexual network connectivity offers a parsimonious explanation for population -
level variations in the prevalence of bacterial vaginosis: a data -driven, model -supported 
hypothesis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 25 Jul 2018  
 
Reviewer: James Moody  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects o f your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
This is a very nice review of the role of network structure and dynamics on STI and potential BV 
variation across populations. I've only one minor quibble, which is that I think the notion of 
connectivity you end up using (partner degree and concurrency) a re all local and not really 
getting at the level of global network connectivity necessary to assess spread.  You'd be better 
off, in my opinion, looking at things like size of the largest connected component, bicomponent, 
or forward -reachable -path (in the dynamic case).  All of these are of course difficult to measure 
without global network data, but can be estimated in the simulation tools.  That is, use the local 
collected degree and concurrency data to estimate/simulate global networks, allowing you to 
assess connectivity per se, rather than these local features by themselves.  
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 sp ecify 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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  
financi ally 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 organiz ation 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 th e above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be in cluded  
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 under an O pen 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 included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal