Title: The lived experiences of intimate partner violence in Iranian women staying with their
abusive partners
Version: 3 Date: 03 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Nadia Oroomiei
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting manuscript that addresses the important topic of the lived experiences of
intimate partner violence among Iranian women who stay with their abusive partners. However,
there are some comments that may help improve the manuscript. You can find my comments
below.
Abstract:
The abstract is informative and well-written. However, there are some concerns:
In the background section, the authors state, 'There is no in-depth qualitative work on the
experiences of IPV among Iranian women who stay with their abusive partners.' This is a
significant claim. I suggest revising the sentence to something like, 'There is little in-depth
qualitative work…”
In the methods section, how did the research team identify or recruit interviewees?
Introduction:
The introduction section is well-written and informative. However, I suggest revising the
sentence, 'We found no in-depth qualitative work on the experiences of IPV among Iranian
women who stay with their abusive partners,' as it is a considerable claim.
Methods:
It would be helpful if the authors provided information on how the research team identified the
three women activists.
How did the research team determine that the interviewees had cognitive literacy?
How was the research team assured that the meaning of IPV was the same for both the
interviewer and the interviewees?
In the last line of the introduction, the authors mention, 'and identify their reasons for staying
with their abusive partners.' However, there is no question about identifying the reasons!
Using the term 'victim of IPV' is not suitable in question 3: 'Tell us about your experiences as
a victim of IPV.'
Where was the clinic where the interviews were conducted?
Did the research team provide any gifts or compensation for participating in the research?
How did the research team resolve any disagreements about themes, if they occurred?
There is no information provided regarding data validity and reliability.
Results:
The results section is well-organized and well-written. However, there are some concerns: some
quotations should be revised since the manuscript has been submitted to an international journal.
For example: 'My father is dead; my brothers are thirsty for my blood, and my mother doesn't
care what happens to me. I don't have anyone except my husband! It is the fear of loneliness that
prevents me from leaving him.' There should be a description of the meaning of 'my brothers
are thirsty for my blood' in brackets for the readers' understanding.
There are no findings regarding questions 2, 6, and 7!
Based on the findings, this is not a phenomenological study. The emergent themes are not
suitable, and there is a lack of coherence in the findings. How do community factors influence
the interviewee's experience of living with IPV? I strongly suggest that the authors revise the
findings based on the research questions.
Discussion:
The discussion section should be revised based on the changes in the results.
Conclusion:
It seems that a considerable part of the findings has been affected by the tolerance of IPV.
However, tolerance of IPV is just one aspect of the overall study. The research team may need
to revise the entire text in relation to the tolerance of IPV and consider changing the study type
and other sections.
The conclusion should be drawn from the study's findings. What should we conclude? For
example, policymakers and decision-makers should focus on empowering women, especially
those who are victims of IPV, and consider ways to develop policies that support them in all
areas.