Title: Lethal and intentional violent crimes against Women in Alagoas, Northeast Brazil: a
comparative study before and during the Covid-19 pandemic
Version: 5 Date: 19 Mar 2024
Reviewer:  Monica Caicedo-Roa
Reviewer's report:
Review Comments
I thank the editors of BMC Open Journal for allowing me to be part of the peer review process
for the article "Silenced Voices: Violent Crimes Against Women in Northeast Brazil during the
COVID-19 Pandemic". Here are my comments:
Title
• I consider that the title can be modified, "silenced voices" in research in which no type of in-
depth qualitative research was carried out, it does not seem to me that it reflects the content of
the work carried out.
• In the same way, in the methodology, a pre- and post-pandemic purchase is proposed, that
does not appear in the title either.
Summary
• This sentence is not clear: "The mortality rate in 2020 (5.33/100,000) was higher than the
average for the period (4.54/100,000)", I suggest describing specifically the period to which
they refer.
• I suggest always referring to female homicides and not just homicides, as these include the
male population.
Introduction
• I recommend a broader discussion of the terms femicide and female homicide in the Brazilian
contact. This reference can be very useful. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9584-2022v30n383829
Methods
• The authors have to clarify the study requests to which they refer, sometimes it is the entire
period (4 years), sometimes pre and post-pandemic, sometimes first and second year of the
pandemic. That way, when they refer to both periods, it is confusing to know which two periods
they are referring to. This consideration should be taken into account for the reporting of the
results and the discussion.
Results
• I suggest adding the average mortality rate information to Figure 1 in a way that can be more
easily differentiated, as well as the number of deaths per year in each vertical bar.
• The authors mention that the most affected groups were those aged 18-39, however, in the
30-39 group there was a decrease in the number of deaths, while in the 40-5 or older groups
there was an increase.
• In Table 1 I suggest:
o Rearrange the columns by placing the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods first and the total
last.
o Place the percentages in parentheses next to the number and not below it to decrease the size
of the table.
o Add the totals of the number of deaths in the front row
• I suggest adding to Figure 3 an additional line with the trend in femicide cases.
Discussion and conclusions
• The discussion needs more analytical work, not only in terms of comparing with other studies
but also in relation to the reality of the registration and classification of cases in Alagoas. Why
do other states report an increase in femicide cases and not in Alagoas?
• The authors briefly mention that the difference in the report is due to the way in which the
cases were classified by the police authority. This has major implications for epidemiological
surveillance and registration systems in the country. An expanded discussion should be made
focusing on this fact.
• Although the authors talk about the impact of the pandemic on women in terms of greater
exposure to violence by their partners, the increase in cases is reflected in the victims of female
homicide and not femicide. This contradiction needs to be discussed in depth.
• Personally, I consider that it is a secondary data investigation that does not merit the
participation of 9 authors. I suggest that the authorship criteria be revised and the number of
people who contributed significantly to the work be reduced.