Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Determination of the Factors Affecting Sexual Violence against Women in
Turkey: A Population-Based Analysis
Version: 
0 
Date: 
16 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a
testable research question(s) (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?
Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with 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?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work
technically sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: 
It's an interesting topic with a large sample, but more detailed information about
the methods is required, the writing needs improvement, and the results need
more clarity. The discussion does a good job of placing the findings within the
broader context of research on sexual violence against women.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
* Missing the word "is" between Violence and defined in the first sentence of the
introduction. Overall, this sentence is rather cumbersome as an intro sentence to
the paper. 
* The second sentence lists 3 adjectives (physical sexual psychological) so these
need to be followed by something else, and then two nouns - deprivation and
negligence. Perhaps, violence can be physical, sexual, or psychological in nature
and can also include acts of deprivation or negligence. 
* 2nd paragraph of the intro is a little bit repetitive (e.g., all around the world)
* Need "and" before "forced intercourse that can… "
* When starting a sentence with a number, spell the number out - or re-word so
that the number isn't the first word of the sentence. 
* What is meant by "micro data set"? 
Method
* Given that the outcome variable relates only to sexual violence from known
partners, perhaps the introduction/lit review should focus more specifically on
this form of sexual violence. 
* This sentence is unclear "as obligation to establish Development Agencies is
present" - should as be an? 
* Avoid saying "to obtain more significant results from the analysis" - taken
literally, this sounds like p-hacking (i.e., altering your use of the data to increase
the likelihood of a p value below .05.) If you mean more meaningful results, then
you should say meaningful, and if the issue is one of power, then you should
speak in terms of power (e.g., regions with smaller sample sizes were combined
to increase the power of the analysis). 
Results 
* Perhaps use the word provided instead of demonstrated at the end of the first
paragraph of the results section 
* P values cannot = 0, so it should say < .001 or .01, etc. 
* The description of the demographics of the sample should be placed in a
participant section within the method section. 
* The chi-square analyses in Table 2 should be separated away from the
demographic variables, as these are more your results, while demographics of
where people are from, age, when they did the survey, etc. should be put in the
methods section under a participants heading 
* Much of the information provided in the 2 paragraphs following Table 2 could
likely be presented in a table format. 
* The paragraph before Table 3 is not needed - it's not necessary to list all the
variables that will show up in the table - they can be read in the table. Instead,
describe what the table shows in terms of results - interpret the table. 
* When you say "had a 26.47% and 34.45% lower risk" this is confusing - which
is it? You then say respectively, but it sounds like you're comparing the risks of
those from 2008 vs. 2014 - 
please clarify the sentence. 
* Same issue for the next sentence — so I think you are providing the risk
factors for the two groups being compared, but when you say "a higher
likelihood of facing sexual violence by 21.72% AND 29.05% - then you're
attaching both percentage points to the degree to which the risk is LOWERED or
RAISED. I think you mean to say "a higher likelihood of facing sexual violence,
with women in TR5/TR7 reporting a 29.05% risk and women in the TR1 region
reporting a lower risk of 21.72% (although I'm not sure that's exactly what you
mean, because your use of respectively would imply that the percentages go the
other way around). 
* The above seems to be an issue throughout the results section. 
* In general, the results section requires clarification - mostly a writing issue.
* Are confidence intervals being used to determine significant findings? 
Discussion 
* Women living in urban (word missing after urban) - regions? 
* How did the illiterate women complete the survey? More information is
needed in the methods section on how the survey was conducted 
* At the binary level, the chi square for employment status was not significant (p
= .89) - but you're reporting that it is a significant predictor within the model
overall — based on the confidence interval not crossing 0, I assume?
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Improved clarity of writing will make it easier to assess the findings. Much more
detail is needed to properly explain the methods of the study, which should
include a proper participants section and a procedure section.
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 after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. 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
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.
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 has 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.
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)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes