Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Effectively engaging stakeholders and the public in developing violence prevention  
messages  
 
Version: 0 Date: 02 Nov 2015  
 
Reviewer: Katrina Milaney  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Reviewer Comments: Effectively Engagi ng Stakeholders and the Public in Developing Violence 
Prevention Strategies  
 
 
 
Manuscript number: BMWH -D-00076  
 
General Comments:  
 
Overall this paper highlights an important issue - the need to create evidence based strategies for 
engaging stakeholders in disc ussions of violence.  I think the paper could be strengthened with 
the addition of some references and a bit more detail on the 'research process' (method) that was 
taken up to get to their conclusions.  
 
 
 
Specific comments:  
 
Line 67 - the word 'messages' i n used when I think the authors are talking about strategies… 
Messages leads me to one of their recommendations related to clear and consistent messaging. 
However they also discuss the need for using appropriate lessons and evidence informed 
approaches. It  isn't clear from the abstract and introduction if the authors are focusing primarily 
on 'messaging and communication' or if they are discussing broader strategies of which 
messaging and communication is one.  
 
 
Background section - I think there would be va lue is discussing the PreVAiL and their process a 
bit more. This may need a bit more context. For example, how did they assess the information 
and come to their conclusions?  
 
 
Discussion section - do the authors have any previous research (references) that would help 
substantiate the arguments related to each of their considerations? e.g. "alarming gaps between 
high, middle and low income communities - do they have an example of what they mean by a 
'gap' and what does this mean for this paper on strategies?.  "while there is emerging 
acknowledgement that addressing system -level policy…" some clarity with a reference and/or 
discussing a bit about 'who' is acknowledging this. "While there is often agreement about 
extreme acts…" this would also have stronger impa ct if there was some evidence provided.  
 
 
Line 111 - 'othering' in social science research often refers to separating or excluding persons' 
because of perceived differences - it may be useful to discuss a bit how backlash (which typically 
assumes some type of action) is related to othering - as it is worded here it sounds like the 
backlash leads to apathy…  
 
 
Lines 121 -124 - what do the authors mean by "there may be a strong backlash to certain 
messages… two examples are anything regarding violence against wom en…" they then give the 
example of anti -feminist campaigns and the issue of corporal punishment… it is not clear what 
they are arguing here - is there a particular example of a 'backlash' campaign?  
 
 
Line 127 - it is not clear how these components emerged - are these the informed opinion from 
PreVAiL - or was there a research process (scan of other campaigns and their 'success') that led 
to these…  
 
 
Lines 132 -138 - these are the types of evidence -based arguments that may be helpful to move 
higher up in the pap er - it is important for the reader to see that the arguments being made are 
linked to research.  
 
 
Line 143 - what is the link between online campaigns and 'risky behaviors' what is meant by 
risky?  
 
 
Line 145 -146 - the sentence sounds a bit contradictory - the authors are proposing that other 
campaigns may be adopted - then they argue that taking these up in discussions of family 
violence may be ineffective.  
 
 
Lines 147 -150 - I think the authors are arguing here that communication strategies should be 
evidence based and then evaluated for effectiveness… if so - that would help clarify what is 
being argued in lines 145 -146 - however it is not clear if these two paragraphs (arguments are 
linked)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Does the work inclu de the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 fr om 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 o f 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 app lied 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  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of th e journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agre e for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential com ments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal