https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6242-1236
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionFebruary 3, 2022 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-22-02976Bystanders of intimate partner violence against women and their willingness to intervene: an analysis of secondary data in Spain (2005-2020)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferrer-Perez, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alfonso Arteaga Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 4. Please include a copy of Table 11 which you refer to in your text on page 23. 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Additional Editor Comments: This paper addresses a matter of great interest: the prevention of violence against women in intimate partner relationships knowing the behavior and willingness to intervene of bystanders. The approach of the study, getting valuable information regarding IPVAW from macro-surveys, enriches the knowledge in this field. However, the manuscript presents important limitations that should be revised and amended. The paper advances knowledge very little, as it synthesizes what is already described in the reports of the surveys, without providing a theoretical analysis and hypotheses based on previous scientific literature. A deeper discussion based on existing knowledge is needed to make a real good contribution to this field of knowledge. The Introduction section lacks a complete revision of previous research. As pointed by reviewer 2, this section must show what we know about this topic, what is consistent and inconsistent in previous research, and how the current study contributes to addressing these gaps. The article does not have a strong theoretical foundation and lacks specific hypotheses (it is not well justified why it is not necessary to state hypotheses). The frame of the study must be elaborated and this whole section redone. Due to the multiple secondary studies used, the paper needs a reorganization of the information, which should be organized and synthetized in a clearer way (reviewer 2 recommends a summary table, what may be a good idea). The paper presents too many figures, so authors should revise them and reorganize the information. In addition, as reviewers agree, further information about the variables, the question format, etc., should be provided. The discussion section must be deeply revised. No strong interpretations of results are given based on existing knowledge in this field. Therefore, this section should consider and be based on the revised Introduction section that must be done. Several methodological changes must be introduced so that the paper may be suitable for publication. Authors must follow indications of reviewers, as a condition to reconsider the manuscript for revision and possible publication. A major revision must be carried out taking into account all reviewers’ comments. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled 'Bystanders of intimate partner violence against women and their willingness to intervene: an analysis of secondary data in Spain (2005-2020)' deals with the issue of prevention of violence against woman in intimate partner relationships taking into account the immediate environment of the victim, through the analysis of data obtained in various surveys conducted in Spain over 15 years. Given that encouraging the helping behavior of the victim's environment is a prevention strategy that has been considered essential, knowing the behavior and willingness to intervene of the bystanders is of great interest. However, there are some important limitations to note in the manuscript. First, the introduction does not provide an adequate background of previous scientific literature. In fact, what the authors do is a very detailed description of the legislative framework and the surveys carried out in Spain in a theoretical vacuum and a marked absence of previous literature on the subject. In short, they do not present an adequate 'state of the art' to understand the results of the study or how this study advances existing knowledge in this field. There are a significant number of previous studies in this area that are not mentioned or taken into account (e.g., Felson & Paré, 2005; Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Kim & Ferraresso, 2021; Lazarus & Signal, 2013). This section should be redone, framing the study appropriately and presenting the legislative and survey description in Spain in a much shorter way, in a sub-section reflecting the 'present study'. In the design section, the authors indicate that they will use a descriptive and associative analysis strategy. They also point out that for descriptive analyses it is not necessary to state hypotheses, but what happens with associative analyses? Based on previous scientific literature, the type of relationships expected to be found between variables and in which direction should be proposed. A more detailed description of how variables are measured should be given in the variables section. In general, the results described in the paper advance knowledge very little, as they lack a theoretical analysis and hypotheses based on previous scientific literature, beyond synthesizing what is already described in the reports of the surveys themselves and which the reader can find directly in these sources of information. Although some comparative analyses are made according to sex and age, no deeper interpretations of these results are given based on existing knowledge in this field. Felson, R. B., & Paré, P. P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3), 597-610. Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006). Public attitudes toward reporting partner violence against women and reporting behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 759-768. Kim, C., & Ferraresso, R. (2021). Factors associated with willingness to report intimate partner violence (IPV) to police in South Korea. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Doi: 0886260521990837. Lazarus, K., & Signal, T. (2013). Who will help in situations of intimate partner violence: Exploring personal attitudes and bystander behaviours. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 199-209. Reviewer #2: This article addresses an important topic and has the potential to make a strong contribution to the literature. There are, however, a number of issues that need to be addressed and ways in which the article could be strengthen. 1) Introduction: The authors do a very good job contextualising the study and providing information about IPV in Spain. They, however, do not appropriately discuss previous research (e.g., what do we know about this topic, what is consistent and inconsistent in previous research, and how the current study contributes to addressing these gaps). I think this is particularly important when it comes to justifying the selection of age and gender as key variables for the analysis (instead of education, income, or any other variable). The article at the moment does not have a strong theoretical foundation and lacks specific hypotheses. I encourage the authors to review the front-end of their manuscript to make it more theoretically driven and better justify their methodological decisions. In addition to this, please review this section to fix some typos/grammatical issues and amend the acronym used when referring to the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (as shown on their website, they maintain their Spanish name and acronym in English: https://www.cis.es/cis/opencms/EN/8_cis/quienessomos/). 2) Methods: This section is a bit hard to follow at the moment given the multiple secondary studies used. I would recommend creating a summary table that provides information for each study (organism in charge of data collection, population of interest, data collection dates, language(s) in which the survey was administered, mode(s) of data collection, achieved sample size, response rates, and any other relevant information). I would like to see a similar table with the question wording for each of the variables, and further information about the question format (at the moment it is hard to know whether some questions were closed- or open-ended, if they were exclusive or mark-all-that-apply, but these are the main variables of the study and clarity is paramount here). I am also concerned that there is no mention, in the "Data Analysis" section to the weights used in the analysis to account for the sampling design and nonresponse. To my knowledge, the CIS provides them and they should be used to generate figures/conduct analysis. Could the authors confirm that they used the weights, and if not, update their analyses to incorporate them when available? I would also encourage the authors to indicate the software that they used to conduct the analyses, as this is best practice for replicability. With regards to the files, I do not think that providing combined data for a 10-year period, and then separate data for 2020 is the best approach. I would report the data by year to identify any relevant patterns over time rather than combining the first 10 years. This would not only provide more granular information, but would also help to assess whether changes with respect to 2020 reflect previous patterns or point to something else. 3) Results: Were any corrections used to account for the multiple comparisons? Because of the many bivariate tests that you conduct, the risk of Type I error is high and it would be helpful to describe how this has been minimised. I would also like to see effect sizes in addition to p-values to better assess the magnitude of the differences. With X2, for example, you can use Cramer´s V. I also suggest proofreading this section to amend some typos. Currently there are too many figures. I would encourage the authors to consolidate their figures and find ways to combine the information. The results section is also a bit repetitive as the findings are disaggregated by sex, by age, and then by sex and age. In terms of the figures, I think they can be made more self-explanatory with a few tweaks. For example, it is unclear to me what the arrows represent and I could not find an explanation on the Figures themselves. The sample size should be specified, and the bars should be accompanied by confidence intervals, to reflect the uncertainty around the estimates. In the case of Figures 12 and 14, readability is quite poor, given that there is little differentiation across categories. I encourage the authors to explore other alternatives to present their data. With the youth study (2992), what is the rationale for the age grouping? 15-17 seems much more restricted that 18-29. Were the groups balanced in terms of sample size? Perhaps creating further groups (18-20, 21-23...) would be preferred here. When presenting the findings from the macro surveys, because you´re using sub-samples (e.g., only women who reported IPV, only women in current relationships) it is essential to provide the sample sizes in all cases. As currently worded, reporting percentages only, it is not always possible for readers to see how many cases were used to compute the figures provided. As shown in Table 1, some of the cells have very few cases (<20). Because of this, I would encourage the authors to be more cautious when interpreting the findings, reminding readers that some of the findings are based on very small sample sizes. This would be something helpful to discuss among the limitations of the study. As I suggested earlier, I would report the data for each year in Table 2, so that readers have access to all of the information and can better assess trends, rather than getting only three data points and assuming linearity in between. 4) Discussion: I am not convinced that the data used here allows you to estimate "the volume of bystanders in cases of IPVAW in Spain". In the case of the early studies, to the best of my knowledge, only a dichotomous question is used, so a person answering positively could be aware of one or multiple cases of IPVAW. In the case of the macro-surveys, they only account for cases in which the victims actively reported the cases to other people, but fail to account for other sources by which people could be aware of such cases (e.g., neighbours watching or hearing violent events). I think, at best, you have an estimate that underrepresents actual awareness, but I don't think this is properly discussed or addressed in your article. When discussing awareness differences across age groups, you attribute them to generational effects ("the data obtained underscore the existence of a certain generational effect"). However, I don't think the data used here allow you to disentangle ageing, period, and cohort effects. I encourage you to revise the wording to ensure that the interpretation is fully consistent with the analytical approach and the data used. In addition to this, I think some limitations of the study are not appropriately discussed. For example, some of the studies are quite old (>10 years) and attitudes, perceptions and behaviours might have changed since. I would also like to see further discussion of the implications of the study (how can these findings inform future research and practice?, how can we better measure this going forward?, what strategies can be used to mitigate social desirability biases in survey research?). I wish the authors all the best moving this article forward! Reviewer #3: This paper offers a macro-study with survey data on social perception of gender violence and the 2014 and 2019 macro-surveys). This research data analyzed that in the cases of IPVAW, there are individuals within the victim’s inner circle who are direct witnesses or have been informed by the victim of the existence of this type of violence, and, although these bystanders claim they would engage in a supportive response, this is not always the case. I would like to congratulate the authors for their work which approaches a very relevant topic nowadays and allows other researchers to have valuable information regarding IPVAW from macro-surveys, which undoubtedly, enriches our knowledge in this field. It would be a reference for subsequent researchers who publish future papers on this topic. In addition, the manuscript is very well-written and methodologically sound. Just some minor aspects to revise: Comment 1. In the introduction section, I suggest expanding the literature on the different helping reactions to IPVAW (e.g., informal helping reactions such as "emotional support to the victim" or formal helping responses such as “report to the police”) Comment 2. On page 9, related to the variables, give an example of each measure, for example, the knowledge of IPVAW and the type of helping behavior. Comment 3. In the discussion section, I suggest highlighting the recommendations that intervention programs should be incorporated to improve the bystander's reactions and contribute to developing helpful and efficient active responses. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-22-02976R1Bystanders of intimate partner violence against women and their willingness to intervene: an analysis of secondary data in Spain (2005-2020)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferrer-Perez, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Alfonso Arteaga Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The paper has improved considerably, as pointed out by the reviewers. Authors have taken into account most of the reviewers’ comments to improve the article. Therefore, the paper is close to being eligible for publication on PlosOne. However, there are a number of issues that need to be clarified or corrected in the paper. Reviewer 2 points out several errors, methodological and conceptual issues that must be reviewed and modified. If they are taken into account and incorporated in the last version of the manuscript, it will be suitable for publication. In summary, a major revision must be carried out taking into account the reviewer’s comments. Please, review and respond to each of them. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have made an important effort to incorporate the recommendations and suggestions I have made. I believe that the manuscript has improved considerably and can be accepted for publication. Reviewer #2: Overall: Throughout the manuscript, there continues to be issues with readability and clarity. I encourage the authors to proofread the paper to fix typos and improve readability. Although the article´s goal is “to estimate the volume of bystanders in cases of IPVAW in Spain between 2005 and 2020”, I continue to believe that this is not achieved. For this, one would ideally conduct a meta-analysis, pooling data from multiple studies (not only publicly available data sets, but also peer-reviewed articles and grey literature). I think being more precise on what the study achieves would provide clarity to the manuscript. Abstract & Introduction: In the abstract, and introduction, when justifying the period of time covered on the study, it is indicated that it spans from 2005 to the present. Because the sources only cover 2005-2020 (rather than 2022), I would suggest revising the wording for accuracy. I think at times the conclusions go beyond the findings. For example, in the abstract it is said that people close to the victims know of their victimisation, and that “although these bystanders claim they would engage in an active and supportive response, this is in fact not always the case.” The wording makes it sound like there is information from the same individuals on both fronts (their awareness of cases of IPV and their willingness to intervene). However, these are different samples and studies, and I think these type of generalisations should be tempered. Results: On Table 2 it is indicated that the first three surveys were conducted using face-to-face personal interviews, while the most recent Macro-encuesta used CAPI (which is also a form of personal interviewing). Did the first three studies used PAPI? I would encourage the authors the specify this, and to also include the website where the data can be downloaded, so that readers have all relevant information. In the “Data analysis” section, it is indicated that histograms were used, but they seem inappropriate given that all variables are nominal. In some of the figures (Figure 2, Figure 6…), the legend (women/men) seems to be missing. At times the findings are quite repetitive, as the results are disaggregated by sex, then by age, and then by sex and age (both). Since the results are consistent, I would move some of this information to the appendix (e.g., Figures 4 and 5, Figures 8 and 9) to avoid repetition and streamline this section (this would also help reduce the still high number of figures and tables in the main text). Also note that, throughout the paper, you refer to “sex” but the categories that you use (women, men) are characteristic of gender identity rather than sex (usually male female). You might want to review this to ensure internal coherence and consistency with the literature. Table 3, as currently drafted, can be misleading. Although the n reported in the table title is 1,579, the percentages reported in rows 2-7 are based on those who were aware, which is a much smaller number (n=864). Please, review this to avoid confusion. I would also suggest revising Tables 3 and 4 (which show very similar content) so that they are presented in the same way (the column headings in Table 3 are row headings in Table 4 at the moment, making the comparison between 2014 and 2019 data difficult). The authors classify responses encouraging the victim to remain with the perpetrator as “passive”. I understand that they are not active in a positive sense (advising to leave), but they are, indeed, active in a negative sense. For me, inaction or passivity would mean not doing anything, whereas encouragement to remain in the relationship would represent a negative active reaction. Perhaps some additional clarity on why the authors interpreted this as inaction would be helpful here. On page 36, when reporting estimates of IPVAW from the most recent Macro encuesta, the authors disaggregate the results by women who had previously had a partner and those who currently had it. However, for the latter, they report prevalence estimates for partners and ex-partners. Is the inclusion of ex-partner correct in this context? (e.g., Among women who had a partner at the time of the 381 interview (n = 6,506), 14.7% (n = 958) had suffered physical, sexual and/or psychological violence at the hands of their partner or ex-partner in the 12 months prior to the interview, 2.9% physical and/or sexual violence (n = 191), and 14.5% psychological violence (n = 943).). Similarly, on page 37, the number of women who reported physical, sexual or emotional violence or fear of their current partner is said to be 592, but in the next paragraph, when referring to the same group, the reported n is 520. Please, carefully review the manuscript to resolve inconsistencies. In Table 5, is the 89.8% for 2013 (victim) correct? Or should this be 8.9%? Discussion: When discussing why bystander responses in this study differ from other studies, the authors might want to mention that this is highly dependant on the responses provided in the surveys. While other studies have offered a wider variety of responses, potentially leading to more selections, the surveys used in this study only included three active responses. Another limitation that should be noted is the lack of control for potential confounders in the analysis (e.g., the relationship between age or sex and the variables of interest can be moderated by variables such as level of education, and this is something that the analytical approach cannot tell). Finally, I still feel that the discussion can be strengthen by more clearly stating the contribution of the article and its implications for both research and practice (e.g., the authors mention the limitations of the current variables, but it would be helpful to reflect on the ways forward). Reviewer #3: I think authors have been addressed all the comments and recommendations. Congratulations, the manuscript has improved. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 2 |
|
Bystanders of intimate partner violence against women and their willingness to intervene: an analysis of secondary data in Spain (2005-2020) PONE-D-22-02976R2 Dear Dr. Ferrer-Perez, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Alfonso Arteaga Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-22-02976R2 Bystanders of intimate partner violence against women and their willingness to intervene: an analysis of secondary data in Spain (2005-2020) Dear Dr. Ferrer-Perez: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Alfonso Arteaga Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .