JerMa88/BMC_Womens_Health_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Title: Validation of the Thai Version of the Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS)
Version: 1 Date: 03 Mar 2022
Reviewer:  Hadi Tehrani
Reviewer's report:
I applaud the authors for conducting an interesting article. After thorough review, I am
recommending some revisions. In this regard, kindly address the following comments and
suggestions to further improve your manuscript
1. Please write the sample size, sampling strategy and date and country of study in abstract
2. was better if you wrote some of main finding as quantitative or mean ±SD within the abstract.
The result section in the abstract is poor and immature!!
3. The Introduction is so weak. Please discuss more about necessity, previous study. Write about
the problems, the novelty of your study, and your study goals within the introduction
4. The materials & methods section is relatively immature. You could expand it a bit more clearly
for readers. For example, write about the sample size. How did you calculate sample size for
this survey? Where have you collected samples? Write the year and the name of place in which
you had done this survey. Furthermore, write about all applied exclusion and inclusion criteria
a bit more clearly by which you selected samples for this survey.
5. What was your sample size formula? What is your expected power? please mention in main
text
6. Discuss more about your sampling strategy? The structure of your sampling is so vague and
understandable. Did you have sampling frame? how did you access to this frame
7. the discussion section I would like to see a more profound discussion about the findings. What
is the meaning of your results in light of earlier studies. The discussion should be more than only
a repetition of the results accompanied by some arbitrary studies
8. There are some spelling and grammatical errors in the text. Please correct them
Title: Validation of the Thai Version of the Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS)
Version: 1 Date: 27 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The manuscript reports on psychometric
properties of the Thai version of  Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS).   It reports
translation procedures and then provided some  properties including face validity, content
validity, construct validity, and reliability analysis. However,  there are problems with this
submission.
1. Introduction would benefit from addressing the validity of the instrument in other languages.
2. Cognitive debriefing is different from face validity.
3. Face validity should be reported after content validity.
4. Measure for content validity seems inaccurate. Either provide a valid reference or please
correct this.
5. The sample size is small for explanatory factor analysis. However, it is recommended that not
perform EFA and confirmatory factor analysis with one sample. Thus please remove the EFA
through out the manuscript.
6. The correlation between FSF and FGSIS is not construct validity. This is convergent validity
that is one procedure that could be perform to assess construct validity. please correct this.
7. There is need to address in statistical  analysis  indexes and thresholds thought for model fit.
8. Strengths and limitations needs revision. Forward-backward translation is necessary requisite
and not an strength.
9. Please revise the manuscript based on the above recommendations.
Title: Validation of the Thai Version of the Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS)
Version: 4 Date: 05 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for sending this revised version for my evaluation. Overall the manuscript is
improved and authors responded well to my earlier comments. However, still there is  problems
with the submission. I recommend authors consult the COSMIN for face validity and interpret
ability . I think ease of completion or missing data  are part of measurement error and not face
validity.  Please  revise based on COSMIN.
Title: Partner support and women contraceptive use: Insight from urban poor communities in
Accra, Ghana.
Version: 5 Date: 25 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors---
Good work! You have sufficiently addressed my concerns and this revision was a pleasure to
read. This is an important topic and the manuscript is much improved, however, after a second
read, I do have a few notes that I hope will strengthen this paper.
I’m not sure why you excluded women who reported “don’t know” if their partner supports their
contraceptive choices?? 11% in your original manuscript is a considerable proportion to drop
from the analysis and warrants interpretations and contextualization. Similarly, why remove
covert use from the analysis? This is potentially an important contribution to the literature;
however, I defer to the authors here.
I’ve made a few minor suggestions below.
MINOR SUGGESTIONS
-Abstract Methods: can just say “women in union…”
-suggest indicating your sample includes non-pregnant women in the abstract
-Line 179: please include number of women pregnant or trying to be pregnant excluded from
the analysis. It seems to be n=402 based on the sample size differences between your original
manuscript and this revision?
-Minor comment: For flow, I suggest moving discussion of your analytic sample (Lines 175-180)
up, before ethical considerations, and right after you discuss the parent study sample size. If
you do this, you can delete the sentence beginning on line 176 (“The sample size for the larger
study was 4,184”).
-Minor comment: For flow, I suggest moving the description of your results starting at Line 331
to the beginning of the discussion section.
-This study adapts the theory of Gender and Power…” this is unclear to me and seems out of
place given this is the only place where you discuss this. Additionally, the inclusion of lines
60-71 don’t seem to fit. Seems to come out of nowhere and makes the introduction quite long
(~1140 words).  I defer to the Editor here.
-Double-check table 1 title; “socio-d”
-Line 265: should be “emergency contraceptives”?
Good luck with revisions!
Title: Female homicides and femicides in Ecuador: A nationwide ecological analysis from
2001-2017
Version: 2 Date: 14 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
I was asked to review the manuscript entitled "Female homicides and femicides in Ecuador:
A nationwide ecological analysis from 2001-2017". The article addresses an important public
health topic (gender-based violence against women) and it's of interest for the readership of
the journal. The study utilizes extant data sources to describe the magnitude of femicides in
Ecuador during the period 2001-2017 (descriptive study). The introduction was well described
and methods sufficiently explained to allow for replication. Regression methods or other types
of inferential statistics were not used. Yet, the value of the study lies in the comprehensive
national description for over a long period of time, which included YLL and economic burden.
The implications for their findings were addressed. The paper was well written (pending some
minor grammatical issues) and it can be accepted for publication if revisions are addressed.
Details of my assessment are below.
Introduction:
The authors did not refer to previous studies published on this topic. There is a wealth of
qualitative studies that span decades on this topic. However, quantitative studies are scare, but
there are a few including:
Fonseca-Rodríguez, O., San Sebastián, M. “The devil is in the detail”: geographical inequalities
of femicides in Ecuador. Int J Equity Health 20, 115 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12939-021-01454-x
San Sebastián, M., Vives-Cases, C., & Goicolea, I. (2019). “Closer to the Unfair Reality”:
Magnitude and Spatial Analysis of Femicides in Ecuador. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Methods:
The paper is a descriptive analysis, but it could have been an analytic study if the adequate
modeling technique would have been implemented. For instance, data used to build Table 2
lends itself well for generalized linear modeling (GLM). Another possibility could be trends
analysis. However, any additional methods are optional. The authors may decide to keep their
paper descriptive as it adds value to the field. However, recommendations for studies of this
kind must be made in the discussion.
Discussion:
Because some previous studies were not included in the introduction, the authors did not place
their study in the context of previous studies. This issue also has implications for the discussion.
Specifically, it can inform future studies by providing estimates of incidence and economic
burden. Future studies should conduct analysis of factors that contribute to differential rates by
provinces as well as predictors of YLL and economic losses (as they seem to be increasing. from
US$ 13,903,903 in 2001 to 50,143,307 in 2017).
Tables and figures: Adequate.
Grammar:
There are a few typos such as the decimal separators (57·9% vs 57.9%) or extra spaces or
missing commas (e.g., data analysis paragraph), or the use of "a" when "an" is appropriate (e.g.,
page 8: a incidence risk of 18.1...instead of "an incidence...". These are repeated throughout the
manuscript and must be addressed.
Title: Female homicides and femicides in Ecuador: A nationwide ecological analysis from
2001-2017
Version: 2 Date: 28 Nov 2021
Reviewer:  Beyene Meressa Adhena
Reviewer's report:
Thanks dear Authors! It is interesting paper. it is well written. However, i have the following
3 points to be reconsidered or explained.
1. On ethical approval and consent to participate : Although it is secondary data, the data has
owner. A permission to analyze/ use the data for research is mandatory. And any research work
should pass though an institutional  review for technical and ethical issues. Hence, i suggest the
authors to mention how the get a permission to access the data.
2. On the methods section: What is the study design used? why ecological analysis?  The authors
used a secondary data that consists  both homicide and femicide, and relevant variables. So,  why
not cross sectional study be a study design. Why not trend analysis of homicide and femicide?
I need justification why an  ecological analysis is boldly mentioned in the title.
3. The reader must understand the nature and method of data collection used. Since you used
a secondary data, you need to describe how homicide and femicide data are collected by
the  National Institute of Census and Statistics  of Ecuador so that the quality of the data or
methodological issues can be associated with it
Title: Female homicides and femicides in Ecuador: A nationwide ecological analysis from
2001-2017
Version: 5 Date: 23 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  J. Firmino De Sousa Filho
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors, congratulations on your work. This paper deals with a relevant topic and is very
well written and well structured.
I have only minor suggestions before the paper is published.
1. Please pay attention to the difference between the minus symbol “-” and the hyphen “–”
throughout the text, especially in the tables. I strongly advise authors to place the hyphen where
appropriate.
2. In the tables' header, insert [CI 95%], not just [CI]. Also, I don't think it is necessary to report
the p-value, but that may be the researcher's choice...
3. In table 1, please correct categories 15-19, the last column "relative risk compared to male
homicides at same age group". If I'm right, the asterisk indicates significance at 0.001. However,
the confidence interval of the estimate is [0.12-1.16], which indicates a loss of significance once
the confidence interval exceeds 1.0
4. I would prefer to start table 4 from the year 2001.
5. Finally, for future papers, it would be important to perform an aggregate regression with all
ages. It could be a negative binomial or Poisson model with age-adjusted estimates.
Title: “Why don’t I look like her?”: How adolescent girls view social media and its connection
to body image
Version: 2 Date: 21 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Candice Groenewald
Reviewer's report:
To the authors
Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. The paper offers valuable insights into the
role of social media in shaping construction of girls body image. The paper is well written and
detailed and covers the literature well. Some thoughts below to further strengthen your paper
and future work.
The methodology applied seemed to have worked well with the participants. It does seem to
fit the profile of photo elicitation and I am curious as to why you have not framed it through
those lenses as it is an established visual and participatory methodology. It would also be good
to know if the method applied well for the in-person and telephone interview group as I would
expect discussing an image would be more challenging on the phone than in person. Also, could
you include the images in the paper that you used to elicit participants' responses? This will
allow for better and more informed engagement with the content.
It would be good to know why third party disclosures were favored over subjective experiences
or thoughts. I know that this is sensitive research, but subjective experiences will offer insider
perspectives and informed directions on how to address the psychosocial impacts of social media
on gendered identify formation and body image.
Did you observe any age differences? I know the sample sizes are small in terms of your age split,
but I wonder if younger adolescents had different experiences or thoughts to older adolescents?
And perhaps for future work, whether adolescent who had been on social media longer or shorter,
have different experiences and perceptions.
In all, the paper was well written and offers valuable contributions to the literature.
Title: “Why don’t I look like her?”: How adolescent girls view social media and its connection
to body image
Version: 2 Date: 18 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed the reviewer´s comments in a very accurate way, responding
effectively to the questions raised and clarifying the underlying aspects of the manuscript. It is
relevant to mention how the authors explain the positive and negative effects, and the potential
benefits and risks for adolescents. This work results in an interesting and socially relevant topic
to improve the wellbeing of future generations.
Title: “Why don’t I look like her?”: How adolescent girls view social media and its connection
to body image
Version: 4 Date: 17 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Candice Groenewald
Reviewer's report:
To the authors
Thank you for the changes you have made to your paper. It is such a valuable piece of work and
I look forward to any future work you will produce. The authors have adequately addressed my
previous queries and I recommend that the paper be considered for publication.
Title: Effect of parental attitudes on the practice and medicalization of female genital mutilation.
A secondary analysis of Egypt Health Issues Survey, 2015.
Version: 2 Date: 04 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
Overall, this is an informative paper on an important issue.  I have a few suggestions that might
help streamline the paper.
1. Spell out FGM in the title and abstract when it's mentioned for the first time.
2. I think the methodology is described in adequate detail, especially the description and
sampling of EHIS. For readers not familiar with EHIS, it might be worthwhile to include
examples of a few questions included in the survey.
3. In terms of writing and coherence, I think the article could benefit from a round or two of
copy editing to help with better sentence structures and grammar. I have flagged sentences that
are wordy or confusing.
4. The information under Statistical Analysis is helpful but would it be possible to present that
in a table so it's easier to comprehend?
I have included additional edits in track changes in a separate document.
Title: Effect of parental attitudes on the practice and medicalization of female genital mutilation.
A secondary analysis of Egypt Health Issues Survey, 2015.
Version: 2 Date: 29 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
-What is the type of study? Please write in the abstract method.
Please, write the terms for sampling method.
- Summarize the results.
-The results in the abstract is not clear mentioning a symbol without saying what does it mean
Example “#=0.44”
- In the conclusion of the abstract you should link it to the findings in your results and show how
these results were important to reach this conclusion.
- In the Introduction, Line 53 Statistics of FGM are old. Please use newer statistics.
- Your introduction dose not provided information about role of attitudes and consequences of
FGM. Please provide a paragraph about the consequences of FGM and role of attitudes in doing
or not doing it.
- Inclusion criteria: must be stated clearly, language; reading or writing fluency;
- The measures section is not standard; without instrument explanation and its resources and
how to build it, the study cannot be understood.
- Ethical considerations, etc. should be written.
- Have you diagnosed the assumptions for your t- test, bivariate analysis, logistic regression
model and Chi-Square analyses?
- The P-value is not enough in medical research for statistically significance; please report
95%CI, effect size.
- Discussion can be improved by providing some clear practical policy recommendation from
the findings, that is the main demand of health system.
Title: The association between early marriage and mental disorder among young migrant and
non-migrant women: A Norwegian register-based study.
Version: 1 Date: 04 Apr 2022
Reviewer:  Elsebeth Stenager
Reviewer's report:
The association between early marriage and mental disorders among young migrant and non-
migrant women: A Norwegian register-based study.
This study is in general interesting and well written. However, I have a number of comment
to the study.
The background section is very long, even though it has been divided in sections with headlines;
it is difficult to read, and to find the red thread.
There is a number of repetitions. The description of hypothesis and purposes seems unclear and
unsystematic.
I would suggest this section to be shortened, and rewritten with a more clear focus. The purposes
and hypotheses must be written more clearly, and not be mixed with references to the literature.
Data sources
I wonder why the authors have used OPHM only. Are information about in and out patient
hospital contacts and acute ward, contacts not available. These are important proxies’ for more
severe psychiatric disorders. At least the authors have to explain which contact OPHM cover,
and discuss the limitations in the choices.
The statistical analyses are described appropriate and seems relevant. Unfortunately, there are no
data for other proxies for mental health before marriage i.e. previous medication, minor mental
health problem, contact to psychologist and GP, information about traumatic experiences as a
refugee, and status as either refugee or migrant. All these aspect could be of importance for
psychic sensibility before marriage. These aspects ought to be discussed under limitations of
the study.
The results
In general, the tables include a lot of information, and they are difficult to overview.
Maybe the relevant  results from this part could be described in the text only. Other information
could be presented in a supplementum.
The discussion
The discussion consider the three hypotheses in an appropriate way. Compared to the
background section the discussion is much better disposed and relevant. A few point to mention.
P16, l388-390
I wonder, whether it is fully true that postponement of marriage to a later age must be beneficial
with regard to gaining more education and thus lowering the risk of mental health. However
many other aspects are important for the development of mental disorder, not only education
and should be discussed. Education is not a causal reason for a good mental health alone.
P 17 l 391-395.
Maybe person who develop mental health problems have more difficulties to find a spouse.
Mental problem are often present a long time before contact to mental health services. The
reason for the increased number of mental disorders among unmarried could also be explained
this way round.
Limitation section
Other risk factors for mental health problems should be included under limitation.
Title: The association between early marriage and mental disorder among young migrant and
non-migrant women: A Norwegian register-based study.
Version: 1 Date: 19 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
In introduction section line 175 second words do edit to ' evidences' instead of evidence.
In  line 208, appreciate if you can write few words to make easy to understand to word 'dynamic'.
In study population, I encourage author to write how you manage selecting population to test
your 3rd hypothesis.
I really appreciate for the hard work of authors to bring very good article with enough evidences,
sound statistical analysis and interpretation. It merits for publication as result will give important
information and impact in the development of program to address mental health risk group.
Title: Factors associated with uptake of contraceptives among HIV positive women on
dolutegravir based anti-retroviral treatment-a crossectional survey in urban Uganda.
Version: 2 Date: 07 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The paper is relevant by examining factors that may influence  family planning uptake by HIV
positive mothers on dolutegravir given the teratogenicity  reports. However the authors need to
consider the following before their paper is publishable :
1. Need for comparison group to assess whether uptake of FP differs significantly between those
on DTG and those on other regimens. Given that  previous studies  show different findings on
uptake of modern FP among persons living with  HIV in Uganda  even when they are not on
DTG (Namasivayam et al. predictors of FP use ...in Uganda. BMJ 2020, Ekorinyang. Utilisation
of contraceptives by persons living with HIV in eastern uganda. BMC reproductive health 2015,
Wanyenze  et al. Uptake of family panning methods ..among HIV infected indiv.  JIAS, 2011)
2. The context of the study was teratogenicity of dolutegravir and one would have expected the
authors to have investigated whether mothers were aware about adverse effects associated with
DTG and how this may have influenced uptake of modern FP.