Reviewer’s report
Title: 
The effect of rural-urban residence and education on Intimate Partner
Violence among women in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis of Health
Survey Data
Version: 
1 
Date: 
17 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:
It is difficult to follow the exact changes made, since the place in the revised text
where these were made, are not identified in the author's answers. Do these
correspond to the text in red throughout the manuscript? Then, many additions
are not marked (e.g. urban-rural definitions, text and table deleted?). It would be
useful to have the exact description of changes added (e.g. pages, paragraphs). 
Besides, some changes happened that are not explained: the results section from
the original version seemed more complete: e.g. mentioned a total of 286,079
women sampled and Table 1 was quite informative. And now, it is only
mentioned in the methods that the study used IPV data reported by "over
300,000" ever married women. And Table 1 is not mentioned in the results
section. The authors should be precise. 
I still find some issues worth mentioning/improving.
In the abstract, methods section - what is "geographic type" in the context of the
analysis (specific if it is rural/urban)? It could be NUTS? Education also added
for stratification, should be mentioned (implied in the results). In the original
submission the number was "more than 280,000" and now is "300,000" (and
discussion section goes back to 280,000)? A precise figure should be mentioned.
In the abstract, results section - Adding comparator would make sense: "Less
than secondary, compared to…, rural vs. urban?". In the abstract, conclusions
section - English needs to be revised. "Access" to education might be only one
component of the solution, and "access" in itself was not actually assessed in this
study. 
Some of the previous comments were not answered quite satisfactorily. Example
of answers: "the findings are further discussed". What was exactly added?
"Poverty increases the risk of IPV". This is still not explained - what
mechanisms? "Confusing picture" of previous studies. This has been removed -
however, it should have stayed since it constitutes a main argument why this
study is relevant to add to the previous knowledge in the field.
Definition of urban-rural, is from the authors (no reference) but countries (e.g.
nationals statistics institutes) usually have detailed definitions. What can be
considered "low population density", for e.g.? This is important, for example, to
known how many schools and (access to school) might be expected from one
country to another.
Also, focus in victimization (vs perpetration) and possibility of different
schooling years composing educational level categories, should be mentioned in
the limitation sections. 
Although slightly improved, the English still needs major revision throughout.
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 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?
No
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