Reviewer’s report
Title: 
INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY LEVEL RISK FACTORS OF
WOMEN'S ACCEPTANCE OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN
ETHIOPIA: MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS OF 2011 ETHIOPIAN
DEMOGRAPHIC HEALTH SURVEY
Version: 
3 
Date: 
31 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one
or several testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient
technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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 - Has the author addressed your
concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound
contribution? If not, can further revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: I am coming in as a late reviewer to assess the
revised paper and assess whether the author(s) have adequately responded to the
first review. 
The first review was very short. And in general the authors have responded to
the reviewer. I feel, however, that there still is a major language/grammar issue
that needs resolving before this paper could be published. I have also got some
additional issues with the paper.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
Can you have n's in weighted data? 
In the results section, could the model number be referred to.
In the statistics section, could the steps be more clearly spelt out, built 4 models,
first was the null, second was individual level variables, third was community
level variables, 4th was those in models 2 & 3 which were significant at p<0.05.
Would make the argument clearer.
Given that all states showed higher acceptance of IPV attitudes than Addis
Ababa, and the 95%CI were really quite wide, I wondered if it was worth
combing? It's pretty clear that the n's are really too small to include in models as
some have cell sizes of 2, 3, 5, 7, which are too small. I would suggest this, and
it can still be used to make the same point. 
In addition, it is rather unfair to pick out the Somali region as having particular
unequal attitudes, the 95%CI in the crude and adjusted models, overlap with lots
of other settings, and as such, it can't be said to be the 'worst'. Combing all the
states together (beyond Addis) would overcome this.
In general the discussion is very basic. It is not 'wrong' in anyway, as it merely
states what is seen (beyond the point about Somali region), and then compares to
other data and studies. But it does not really advance an argument clearly. But
for a very descriptive paper, I guess this is fine.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Minor: in abstract, acceptance of wife beating was both 68 & 69%
Abstract: community level risk factors, sentence not finished
Editing still needed: "This study showed that women who have higher
educational levels were associated with lower odds of accepting IPV". Should
be: "This study showed that women who have higher educational levels, had a
lower odds of accepting IPV." Lots of small issues like this throughout the
paper. 
Sentence: "Acceptance of IPV decreased with women's age increment." Is
unclear, should be: "In this study the likelihood of acceptance of IPV decreased
with women's increasing age." More importantly the social learning argument
does not make sense, unless more is explained. Is it that younger women are
closer to the house and it takes longer for them to see alternative viewpoints? Or
that they have less power in relationships, and are more accepting of violence
therefore?
I still feel more English language editing is required"
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?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes