Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Is the likelihood of spousal violence lower or higher among childless women? Evidence 
from Nigeria Demographic and Health Surveys  
 
Version: 0 Date: 07 Dec 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Carol  Rivas  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Overall the rationale for the study is clearly explained and the decisions in the methods section 
carefully considered.  
 
This is a simple analysis but nonetheless interesting.  Therefore it is worth publishing once 
revisions have been made.  
 
Much of the context section seems redundant where it is but might work in the discussion 
section. I think the mat erial on p 6 should only be focused on the main research question.  
 
 
Some more detailed comments follow:  
 
The first sentences up to the words 'In Africa' belong in the methods, nonetheless a briefer 
version of the definition is needed for line 82.  
 
throughou t there are multiple small errors in English - often singular when it should be plural  
l 85-6 you need to specify the actual frequency, ie to go into the same detail as the preceding 
sentence.  
 
l 89 define 'early marriage'  
 
l 95-97 the definition of IPV is not complete and misses out the reference to coercion  
 
Regarding the data it took me a while to understand whether or not the source data was 
national,so you need to make it much more explicit early on that this is not nati onal data but 
rather nationally representative.  
 
By pooling the data from two years it is not clear whether or not this leads to oversampling (ie 
the same woman might fill it in on two different dates) and you need to deal with this either way.  
 
l 198 tell us more about the data source - were the IPV questions validated for the population 
because some studies have found a difference in response to these same questions depending on 
ethnicity.  
 
l212-217 could be slightly better worded - I would place l212 -215 a  lttle later after you have 
talked about the aggregation method, to make it clearer.  
 
You should report actual p values in line with recent convention rather than a p<9.05 level of 
significance ( l267)  
 
l 277 the % of childless is very small, you should dis cuss this in relation to the quality of your 
analysis.  
 
l319 and on, why not report the p values?  
 
l 326 -328 needs to be discussed  
 
l 410 say they may be unhappy or dustressed ie add may, and the sentence as it stands is 
judgmental in assuming all couples wou ld be unhappy  
 
l 462 it would be good to have more on implcations.  
 
l477 briefly state what the earlier results were  regarding the references on pregnancy and IPV the 
conclusions may be too categorical. You might mention Bacchus' work too 
(http://onlinelibr ary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471 -0528.2004.00108.x/full) , but also very recent 
work  
 
l118-119 you should clarify why the studies conflict  
 
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 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.  
 
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 
assessme nt 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 c ontent 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 pos ted on the website along with 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 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