Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Spatial distribution and determinants of intimate partner violence among
reproductive-age women in Ethiopia: Spatial and Multilevel analysis
Version: 
0 
Date: 
03 Dec 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.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
This manuscript looks at spatial distribution and determinants of intimate partner
violence among women of reproductive age in Ethiopia: Spatial and Multilevel
analysis.
It is 
a very interesting 
paper addressing IPV issues
The manuscript is scientifically sounds, the authors present and discuss their
findings clearly, by placing them in broader IPV literature.
I have identified the following minor issues
1. This manuscript will benefit from editing
2. Line 19. Background: The first statement does not appear anyway in
manuscript. "where did you get such statement?
3. Line 108 and Line 109, you have used mother and women interchangeably " It
think all women are not mothers" . It is confusing.
4. Line 118 and Line 119. 
Check the variable "media exposure" is a community
level variable and individual level
5. Line 173, PCV=…write correctly the formula on the right side, I think it is a
fraction.
6. Line239-240. A total of four models were fitted and the final model was the
best fitted model since it had the lower deviance. It is confusing or incomplete
try rewrite it and include the missing information ( may be include the model)
7. I think the authors know the difference between Odds ratio and Odds.
E.g.Line 248. ….higher odds but in Table 5 I think you have reported Odds ratio.
Also the labelling is confusing in table5 , it is not clear whether you have
reported Odds or Odds ratio. Please be careful in your interpretations.
8. Line 252 -253. " …the household with a family size of greater than 10"
reformulate it
9. Line 263-264"This could be due….belief towards violence" which type of
violence?
10. Line 265 to 266. 
As intimate 
partner.... to information and maternal health
programme[ref]
11. Line 276. "Besides, the age of women were?? …."
12. The variable "husband education has 10234 instead of 15682; number of
unions has 11397 instead of 15682. Please check these variables and other
variables which I did not list in this report. I am warried with these missing
values. If someone can handle these missing values surely the results can change
enormously. Please check your variables.
13. In table5 what does it mean *, may a footnote is needed
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 upon publication of the manuscript. 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?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes