Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Workplace gender-based violence and associated factors among university
women in Enugu, South-East Nigeria: an institutional-based cross-sectional
study
Version: 
2 
Date: 
10 Oct 2020
Reviewer's report:
Major comments:
Sampling:
1. There is a contradiction between these two sentences in the description of the
sample strategy : 
1) Line 223 : « Multistate random sampling was used to select participants in the
study »
2) Line 233 : « The participants were selected using convenience sampling »
If random sampling was used, it could not be convenient sampling.
Was replacement used to achieve the target of 339 women? 
If so, how many
women accepted to participate out of the total women approached? How does
the convenient 
sample of participants compared 
with the population of 
reference
(almost 5000 women employed at those universities) in terms of age, academic
qualification, employment status, salary grade, or whatever information is
available. This is needed to compare the study sample with 
the study population.
If the study sample is not representative of the study population in the examined
variables, the word "prevalence" should be replaced by "frequency in the study
sample" and the discussion should include the lack of representability 
and the
possible overestimation of violence in a sample of volunteers. The sentence on
lines 592-594 could be changed to a sentence of likely overestimation of
violence when using a convenient 
sample of volunteers.
2. Analytical strategy
The forced entry of all variables in the model produces important changes in the
coefficients that are difficult to explain. For instance the bivariate association OR
of 
"doctoral degree" for Workplace incivility is 8.23 (1.99;34.0) in Table 5 and it
becomes 1.17 (0.45;307) in the multivariate model in Table 6. A staggered entry
would produce more interpretable results. For instance, entering 
first 
the
demographic variable (age, academic qualification, marital status0, second, the
work related variables (employment, experience, salary) and third, the staff and
academic institution could help in interpreting what drives the changes in the
strength of the associations.
3. 
The discussion section is very long and rumbling. Some of the sentences are
not based on evidence although it may be difficult to document the description of
the work and organizational environment in Nigerian universities citing existing
research. However, it is difficult to imagine how this is different for men and
women. 
The incivility measurements and the bullying measurements do not
necessarily relate to gender and both incivility and bullying may be affecting
men as well as women. 
Many of the references (ex: 15,19, 22-24, 27-28) deal with incivility but these
refernces do not have a gender perspective. 
Maybe less could be said about
incivility at work and more about the gender power imbalance at work and the
values of exacerbated masculinity if a gender perspective is to be maintained. 
3. Some of the statements in the discussion are not clear. For instance: lines 640-
641. It is wrong to say that academic qualification is protective for work
incivility. According to Table 5 it is a strong risk factor and according to Table 6
is not associated with work incivility.
Minor comments:
1. 
The formula for sample size calculation used is a rough approximation since it
is the formula for random samples and a multi-stage stratified design has been
used. Although this is not a major threat to the validity of the study, a sentence
should be included to state that this is an approximation. There is no need to
include this very well-known formula in the document. 
2. In the marital status variable, the reference category should be "married". The
"single" category has few observations and its use as reference category will
increase the standard errors of the coefficients in the estimations. 
3. Table 2 is difficult to read. It could be shown horizontally with literal (not
numerical) column 
headings.
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.
I declare 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