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: 
1 
Date: 
22 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading
your report as an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated
versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of your
report which cannot be included in a text format.
This is a cross-sectional survey that evaluated the individual and community
level factors associated with women's accepting attitude of intimate partner
violence. The authors used data from the 2011 Ethiopia's Demographic and
Health Survey. 
The authors are addressing an important research topic. However,
I have some major and minor concerns the authors need to consider.
Major Concerns
1. My major concern relates to the analytic approach the authors followed. As it
is written, it is a little confusing. What is the reason for running automated
prediction models (backward modeling)? If so what was the criteria for retaining
factors? 
It seems to me that the authors just run four models; null model; model
with individual variables; community-level and both. These are not prediction
models. 
2. The authors mention they had assessed confounding and interaction but there
is no detail. The statistical section should be revised to include a more detailed
description on how confounders are identified and adjusted for and how models
were built. 
3. What is the interpretation of the OR in Table 2?
4. I suggest the authors take out the p-value asterisks from Table 3. They really
are not informative. One can look at 95% CI to determine if the association is
significant if needed
5. Given the cross-sectional nature of the study I suggest the authors avoid use of
the word determinants on the title as well as throughout the paper as it implies
causality. It is better to use the word risk factors. 
6. Related to above, prevalence and rate are used interchangeably throughout the
manuscript, Given the study design is cross-section and the authors are looking
at prevalence, I suggest the authors use prevalence. Prevalence is a percentage,
not a rate. 
7. It is not clear how the community-level variables were aggregated. First it says
mean values, then median values. The authors need to clarify their approach with
a justification. 
Minor Concerns
1. There are some inaccurate statements. The authors need to carefully check
their citations in their introduction section. For instance, the statement "A multi-
country study conducted in African countries" in the introduction needs to be
revised. The cited reference was not done in African countries. 
2. On page 8 line 14 "a given woman living in a given community have" needs
to be revised. 
3. On page 10, line 56 "compared to women who do not empowered" needs to be
re-written 
4. On page 11, line 49 " Women's education was significantly" need to be re-
written
5. I encourage authors to report decimal places consistently. In some places there
are two, other places one 
6. There are several typos and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. 
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?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes