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: 2 Date: 21 Nov 2018  
 
Reviewer: Ashley Hazel  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The vast majority of my original concerns were addressed, and I think that, if the editor agrees, 
this paper is ready for publication, with some minor issues to consider still.  
I found one critical oversight: the authors did address my concerns about  Figure 2 being 
confusing to read by editing text about the figure in the manuscript and in the figure legend; 
however, the figure itself was not updated. For example, they now refer to persons C and D in 
the figure but there are still only persons A and B  in the figure.  
One new suggestion I have for the authors before publishing is to re -run their model at larger 
population sizes. 250 people is a very small population and, with high connectivity, transmission 
can occur at a very accelerated rate. Most peo ple's pool of potential sex partners is not this small 
and a more realistically larger network might allow for more dilution of the concurrency effect. I 
think just checking this in a few runs with larger population sizes would further strengthen the 
autho rs' claims from the model.  
Also, I'm not sure if I was reading the track changes correctly, but there may be some typos in 
the manuscript where the model outputs were described --e.g., I think you have some reports of 
554% or 154%, as written.  
 
Finally, I still think the short embedding of a major model result within an otherwise review 
paper is awkward. The model doesn't even get its own paragraph, let alone a subheading! I 
strongly recommend reconsidering how you structure your narrative to mov e the reader from a 
review of previous evidence to a model that answers questions motivated by that evidence. I'm 
not saying that these two pieces --a lit review and an original model --cannot go together; I just 
think a stronger narrative bridge is needed t o introduce the model and highlight your original 
work. Also, I can no longer see the original draft that I reviewed but I believe the model featured 
more prominently in the first draft, so I'm wondering why its role in the manuscript was 
diminished, if in deed it was.  
 
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 that I have not 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