Title: Global prevalence of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic among
women: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 01 Sep 2023
Reviewer:  Natnael Atnafu Gebeyehu
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I seek to say thank you for my contribution as a reviewer of this title. The title that you
select is good for the scientific community. However, there are major issues that could prevent
you from publishing the paper it. After I had explored your paper, I found that the entire work is
under question and pushes me to put at major revision, rewrite, and then should be publishable
if you strictly revised all questions raised.  The reasons are as follows:
Generally, the paper needs serious English language editing. Since there are grammatical errors
throughout the manuscript.
Abstract section:
Under methods ……there is a term explaining from 31 December 2019 to May 15, 2022.
# Does you study bounded with time?
# What is the search period?
# The missing access to large databases such as SCOPUS and EMBSE has limited the included
studies. How could you manage it?
Under the result section: What is the number of study participants included in the study?
The sub-group analysis has not been done yet. It should be explanatory to different classifications
of the world since the study was at a global level.  Therefore, what is the prevalence of the
higher-income, lower and middle-income, and lowest-income countries?
What is the prevalence of IPV in different classifications of WHO and the World Bank?
IPV should be written in full form from the manuscript.
Why do you prefer to report country prevalence in a global-based study than regional
prevalence?
Under conclusion: What is the recommendation of your finding? Rewrite it as per the findings.
Introduction: it is written well. However, there are some issues.
1. Para1: The introduction should be specific to intimate partner violence and written in that way.
2. Para.2: lines 67-68: What is the prevalence of those shown as high?
3. Para3: line 71: Write the word ‘IPV’ in full form.
4. Para4 should be entirely revised to show the gap and rationally of the study.
Methods section: it is entirely poor and need re-write
1. Your study mainly focused on including published articles. Why you did not use gray
literature?
2. Large databases were not used such as SCOPUAS and EMBASE which limits the search
methods.  Why?
3. What is the search period?
4. Each form of violence should be operationalized under the method section and cited
5. Why you did not list the JBI components under quality appraisal and express the score of
the included studies?
6. Under the data extraction section:  Is their automation tool used?
Result section: The overall finding and reporting of results is poor especially the way to do sub-
group analysis. Re-analysis and rewrite accordingly unless the finding and the reporting is not
valid as to the scientific community.
1. Under study selection: cite the number of articles included in your study
2. Line 232 ……….in reporting pooled prevalence of IPV….the I2 showed the presence of
significant heterogeneity which is high. This finding showed that the variation across the paper
is high which suggests doing a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis. Therefore, how
could you pool these studies to have pooled findings?
3. Under sub-group analysis: What are the prevalence of different worldwide classification /
regional and continental findings of IPV?
4. What is the prevalence of IPV based on population?
Discussion section: It is shallow, and it needs to be written and incorporate several literature
1. Properly explain your key findings: What are the key findings?
2. Para 2; line 297; you make comparisons with the existing literature’s ref.59 & 60.  If there is
a finding during the pandemic. What your study adds to the existing knowledge?
3.  Para 2: line 302: China and France ………..Why do you compare your findings with a single
study rather than including these studies in your meta-analysis?
4. What is the implication of your study in a clinical setting, theory, and research
5. What does your finding add to the existing literature?
Conclusion section: The overall approach of your conclusion is poor
1. It should be based on your finding
2. It should show pertinent findings and their interpretation in context-wise.
3. It should be supported with strong recommendations. What do you recommend?
Limitation of the study: poor as similar to the above and it should show the limitation of the
paper throughout the manuscript in each body of the ideas.