Title: Rural-urban migration as a factor associated with physical and sexual intimate partner
violence Peru 2015-2017: a secondary analysis of a national study.
Version: 2 Date: 24 Jan 2022
Reviewer:  Sandra M. Stith
Reviewer's report:
Review of Rural-urban migration as a factor associated with physical and sexual intimate partner
violence: Peru 2015-2017: A secondary analysis of a national study.
First, I wanted to comment on how interesting the study was.  I was inspired to read some of the
articles cited in the paper to learn more about research on IPV in Peru.   I appreciate the hard
work and competence of the authors. I thought the statistical analysis and the overall writing
were very good.  I also have some suggestions for the authors to make the study more useful
for international scholars.
1.  I would encourage the authors to introduce the paper with more information about Peru.
What is the population?  What research has been conducted about IPV in Peru.  What is the
primary language people speak in Peru.   What is the overall rate of IPV?  A brief overview of
IPV research in Peru would be helpful.
2. In the abstract, the authors state that, “a change in residence from one sociocultural geographic
context to another influences gender relations and can influence IPV against women.”   I wasn’t
sure why a change in residence would influence gender relations.  I would encourage the authors
to make a better case for this statement.
3. On page 3, line 72, “include” should be “included”
4. On the same page, the authors indicate that “internal migration, led mainly by women”.   In
Peru do women’s jobs influence a couple’s decision to move, more than men’s jobs?   I think in
the US, migration is most often led by men’s decisions [but I don’t really know.]  Can you help
the readers understand why internal migration is led mainly by women in Peru?
5. Reference number 14 seems to be about Chinese data that suggests that moving from rural
to urban in China is related to more IPV.  I suggest you clarify a bit more about this research
which seemed to strongly influence your study.
6. I was very impressed with the large sample size and wondered how you were able to get such
a large sample.  Were participants paid for participating, etc?
7. On page 7, I did not understand why only 6.5% had a native Peruvian language, because
I thought Spanish was a native Peruvian language. If the authors began by describing Peru,
language, IPV, etc., they might not be confused. Why would only 6.5% speak a native language
if it is the native language?   Maybe you could explain this in the introduction.
8. On page 7, it is stated that IPV was higher among working women than among non-working
women.  Why might that be?  Since low SES is often related to more IPV, why would working
be related to more IPV?  Do you also know if their partners were employed?
9. I was curious that on page 7, 11.8% of women reported that their partner consumed alcohol
in the past 12 months and 7% did not report that their husband drank alcohol.  What about the
other 80%?   Did they leave the question blank?   What is the normal rate alcohol consumption
among men in Peru?  I would guess that the rate in the US was higher than 11.8%, but I’m not
sure. Do you have a link between alcohol use and IPV in your research?
10. I appreciated the clear explanations of limitations of the study.  I found them very helpful.