Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Prevalence and correlates of sexual violence among adolescent girls and
young women: findings from a cross-sectional study in a South African
university
Version: 
0 
Date: 
10 May 2021
Reviewer's report:
This secondary analysis provides information about the magnitude of sexual
violence among students in a college in South Africa and explores factors that
may be associated with sexual violence. The paper is timely and is positioned to
provide data that can inform policy at a moment in which sexual violence in
South Africa has media attention and is increasingly a policy focus. 
In order to prepare this paper for publication, further work is needed to ensure
the writing is neutral and academic rather than journalistic. Words such as
"tragic" "brutal" "menace" "bedevilled" "odious" are judgement words that
detract from potential for this paper to be seen as evidence-based reporting of
data. Let the reader judge for themselves - the role of the paper is to present
balanced and accurate information. In addition, this paper needs a thorough copy
edit to ensure it is written with correct grammar and spelling. 
Some terms need clarification to ensure the reader has clarity about what the
authors are referring to:
-'Family support' could be interpreted as emotional - so please clarify 'financial
support from the family' or something along those lines. 
-"to deliver justice" and "justice is served" and "poor justice system" are quite
vague - and also relate to the comment above about avoiding journalistic words.
Please be clear what you mean when you describe justice. Is it metaphorical?
About a particular aspect of the justice system?
In addition, the findings do not discuss the justice or legal system. As such, it is
not clear to me how the authors come to the conclusion that "There is a need for
an improved justice system and for the establishment of an effective support
system that encourages victims to voice out without the fear of being penalised,
stigmatised or ostracised, and that protects the victims." That statement well may
be true, but this particular analysis and results do not lead to this statement.
Please be sure your conclusions are substantiated by and relate to the evidence
you present from your analysis. 
In the results section (and the statement of results in the abstract) the authors
report the percentages for one group without reporting on the percentages for
their comparator. "The lifetime and past year prevalence of sexual violence was
37.9% and 25.3%, respectively. A higher prevalence of sexual violence was
reported by heavy episodic drinkers of alcohol (lifetime 48.4% and past year
34.0%), those who received
insufficient financial support (lifetime 58.0% and past year 35.8%) compared to
non users of alcohol and those who received adequate financial support." Please
add the percent for those who were non users and received adequate support too.
[Page 7 line 50 and also in the abstract].
Page 4 line 20: The final sentence of this paragraph doesn't seem necessary. It
reads as if it is stating the problem statement for the paper, but it is not.
Page 4 line 58. The motivation statement sounds like a personal motivation. For
this academic paper, it would be better suited to state how "it responds to" the
recent attention. 
This comment also applies to the first sentence of the
discussion. 
Page 5 line 4 "conveniently selected" - Are you referring to a convenience
sample? Since the sample is just one university not sure that applies. 
Page 5 line 24 - "single" - do you mean unmarried? not in a relationship? what
about casual relationships? 
Page 5 line 36 - first mention of "the outcome variable" - please specify what is
the outcome variable? 
Page 6 line 48-50. In regards to the following statement, is this your opinion?
Can you substantiate this? Citation would be helpful. "After all, it is not so much
of how much money a young person gets that determines if money could be used
to influence their behaviour,
but whether they consider the money sufficient."
Page 9 line 6 - Are there other examples in the literature beyond Norway? Why
did you include data from Norway in particular here? It might be helpful to
couch this more broadly, for example 'elsewhere, such as in a recent study in
Norway' - and add more examples if there are any.
Page 9 line 13 "unacceptably" is a judgement call. Is 1% acceptable? I would
remove this word and go with more neutral/academic language.
Similarly Page 9 line 29 - unpleasant is a judgement word as well. 
Same with "at the mercy of influential men who often lure" on page 9 line 57.
Page 9 line 25 - can you define "lose their agency" - and is agency the term used
in the two cited papers? 
Page 9 line 37-40 - The final statement of this paragraph about the need for
policies around alcohol goes beyond your findings. The recommendation could
be balanced. We don't know if there is a need or if it would work... Maybe
instead say that one avenue that could be explored is stricter policies... 
Page 10 line 11-12 - the first sentence of the paragraph and the second sentence
say the same thing. I'd delete the first sentence as the second one says more. 
Page 10 line 27 - not sure "culprits" is the correct word.
Page 10 line 31-34. I don't understand the statement about the me Too movement
- can you please clarify the message of those sentences? 
And a few lines down, I'm not sure I agree that it is one of the greatest
challenges [in reference to "one of the greatest challenges of dealing with the
burden of sexual violence is the silence around it[25]." This seems like a bold
statement. Perhaps tone it down - you could for example say the silence
exacerbates the burden...
Your conclusion paragraph in general, as well as the statements about the justice
system at the end of page 10, do not flow entirely from your results. Please make
sure that what is included in the discussion and conclusion have a clear path
from your set up (intro/methods) through the results to the discussion.
Table 1 
for drinking and tobacco - please format table the way the others are,
with one total row and the sub categories below.
Table 2 - what is the purpose of the p value? Is the p value needed here? are you
testing if past year is different from lifetime? 
Table 3 - could the order be arranged in terms of people you know vs. strangers? 
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
Yes
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.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
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?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes