Verbal and psychological violence against women in Turkey and its determinants

Ömer Alkan; Ceyhun Serçemeli; Kenan Özmen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275950

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 20, 2021
10 May 2022 Decision Letter - Joseph Donlan, Editor PONE-D-21-33583Verbal/Psychological Violence against Women in Turkey and its DeterminantsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alkan, 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. Your manuscript has been assessed by an expert reviewer, whose comments are appended below. As you will see, the reviewer raises several concerns regarding the contextualisation of the research within the existing literature, aspects of the methodology, and framing of the results and conclusions. Please ensure you respond to all of these points in your response to reviewers, and revise your manuscript accordingly. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 24 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: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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, Joseph Donlan Editorial Office 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: There was no funding for this study. At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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: No ****** 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 ****** 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: This article addresses an important topic, i.e., psychological violence against women, which has received less attention than other forms of violence. Specifically, the authors use secondary data to assess correlates of psychological violence in Turkey. Despite the relevance of the topic, there are a number of issues that limit the contribution of the article to the literature. I identify some of them below and provide recommendations on how to address them. 1) Literature review: In my view, this is one the weakest sections of the article. The review is quite general and does not offer a synthesis of previous research (e.g., what do we know about the prevalence of psychological violence in Turkey and other countries, how does it compare to other forms of violence, what factors are associated with it, what are the current gaps in the literature, etc.). Because of this, the contribution of the article is unclear, as is the selection of correlates to be included in the models, which seems to be driven more by availability than theory or previous research findings. I would encourage the authors to revisit this first section to make it more specific and link it to their analytical decisions (e.g., by justifying the inclusion of variables, and stating specific hypotheses to test). In addition to this, some assumptions are made, with statements not being backed by appropriate citations (e.g., first sentence “It is observed that violent acts are becoming increasingly widespread in today's social life”). The following book chapter, devoted to the topic of psychological violence against women, might be helpful to incorporate in your review: Aizpurua & O´Connell (2020). Men's psychological violence against women. The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence. Sage. 2) Methods: I understand that the authors are using secondary data, but much information is missing from this section to properly assess the methodology of the study. At a minimum, the article should include: response rates (given their potential impact on non-response error), language(s) in which the survey was administered, data collection dates, survey mode, and any incentives offered to participants. Because two rounds/waves of data are used, information on the consistency of data collection procedures and instruments is essential to ensure that the data from 2008 and 2014 are comparable. In addition to this, the authors should state how was missing data handled (e.g., multiple imputation, complete case analysis, in which case, it would be helpful to provide evidence that data was missing at random). Although the operationalisation of most variables is described in this section, I don´t think the authors explain how were other forms of violence measured, and what the timeframes were. Specifying the timeframe used in the question wording is also relevant for the main outcome (psychological violence), as it will influence estimates and the ability to compare estimates from this study with prior research. I do appreciate the authors using weights in their analysis, but I encourage them to specify what type of weights were used for transparency and replicability. 3) Results: Given the consistency of logit and probit models, it is unclear to me why the authors decided to report both. I wonder if presenting one of them and having the other models in the Appendix -and a note regarding consistency in the main text- would help streamline the findings, as the added value of having both sets of analysis in the main text is unclear at the moment. I also have questions regarding the model strategy, and the decision to estimate one model with the women´s variables and another model with the husbands´ variables. I would, instead, suggest estimating nested models (the first one including only women-related variables, and then the full model). This way, you control for all variables in the full model and can see how model specification influences the findings. There is one article that examined correlates of psychological violence against women in Spain using secondary data which included both sets of variables, which might be helpful: Aizpurua et al. (2018). Controlling Behaviors and Intimate Partner Violence Among Women in Spain: An Examination of Individual, Partner, and Relationship Risk Factors for Physical and Psychological Abuse. Journal of interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723744). A more minor question has to do with the selection of reference categories in your models. It would be helpful to choose a consistent criterion, such as the most frequent category. 4) Discussion: Although you acknowledge the limitations of the cross-sectional research design, sometimes causal language is used, which is not appropriate. I would encourage the authors to review the article to ensure that those references are removed. I would also suggest further discussing some limitations of the research, such as the few indicators used to measure psychological violence, or the exclusion of important age groups from the population (women 60 and over). More broadly, I think this section could be streamlined by providing less details about individual studies and situating the findings within the literature a bit more broadly (what is consistent, what is inconsistent), as well as linking the finding with theory, and not only empirical findings. I hope these comments are helpful and wish the authors the best as they move forward with this manuscript. ****** 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 [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950.r001
Revision 1
10 Jul 2022 Author Response Editor’s Evaluation 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. Your manuscript has been assessed by an expert reviewer, whose comments are appended below. As you will see, the reviewer raises several concerns regarding the contextualisation of the research within the existing literature, aspects of the methodology, and framing of the results and conclusions. Please ensure you respond to all of these points in your response to reviewers, and revise your manuscript accordingly. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 24 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: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. AUTHORS’ RESPONSE Thank you for the opportunity to revise our paper. We definitely took the feedback of the reviewers to heart and incorporated the suggested revisions. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: This article addresses an important topic, i.e., psychological violence against women, which has received less attention than other forms of violence. Specifically, the authors use secondary data to assess correlates of psychological violence in Turkey. Despite the relevance of the topic, there are a number of issues that limit the contribution of the article to the literature. I identify some of them below and provide recommendations on how to address them. Comment: Thank you for the comment. We definitely took the feedback of yours to heart and incorporated the suggested revisions. 1) Literature review: In my view, this is one the weakest sections of the article. The review is quite general and does not offer a synthesis of previous research (e.g., what do we know about the prevalence of psychological violence in Turkey and other countries, how does it compare to other forms of violence, what factors are associated with it, what are the current gaps in the literature, etc.). Because of this, the contribution of the article is unclear, as is the selection of correlates to be included in the models, which seems to be driven more by availability than theory or previous research findings. I would encourage the authors to revisit this first section to make it more specific and link it to their analytical decisions (e.g., by justifying the inclusion of variables, and stating specific hypotheses to test). Comment: Thank you for the comment. The introduction and literature review of the study was re-written in detail as per the comments of the Reviewer, explaining how the study contributes to the current literature. The Turkey literature of the study was rewritten in detail. In addition to this, some assumptions are made, with statements not being backed by appropriate citations (e.g., first sentence “It is observed that violent acts are becoming increasingly widespread in today's social life”). The following book chapter, devoted to the topic of psychological violence against women, might be helpful to incorporate in your review: Aizpurua & O´Connell (2020). Men's psychological violence against women. The SAGE Handbook of Domestic Violence. Sage. Comment: Thank you for the comment. The studies recommended by the Reviewer were reviewed in detail and the introduction and literature review section was rewritten to be used in the paper. 2) Methods: I understand that the authors are using secondary data, but much information is missing from this section to properly assess the methodology of the study. At a minimum, the article should include: response rates (given their potential impact on non-response error), language(s) in which the survey was administered, data collection dates, survey mode, and any incentives offered to participants. Because two rounds/waves of data are used, information on the consistency of data collection procedures and instruments is essential to ensure that the data from 2008 and 2014 are comparable. Comment: Thank you for the comment. The methods section of the study was re-written in detail as per the comments of the Reviewer. The required explanations about the sample and data were added to the method section in accordance with the criticism of the reviewer. In addition to this, the authors should state how was missing data handled (e.g., multiple imputation, complete case analysis, in which case, it would be helpful to provide evidence that data was missing at random). Comment: Thank you for the comment. The required explanations about the sample and data were added to the method section in accordance with the criticism of the reviewer. Although the operationalisation of most variables is described in this section, I don´t think the authors explain how were other forms of violence measured, and what the timeframes were. Specifying the timeframe used in the question wording is also relevant for the main outcome (psychological violence), as it will influence estimates and the ability to compare estimates from this study with prior research. Comment: Thank you for the comment. The required correction has been performed in accordance with the criticism of the reviewer. Considering the comments of the Reviewer, “…status of exposure to husband/partner's economic violence at any point in her life (no, yes), status of exposure to husband/partner's physical violence at any point in her life (no, yes), and status of exposure to husband/partner's sexual violence at any point in her life (no, yes).” statements have been incorporated into the article under the “Measures and variables” section. I do appreciate the authors using weights in their analysis, but I encourage them to specify what type of weights were used for transparency and replicability. Comment: Thank you for the comment. The required correction has been performed in accordance with the criticism of the reviewer. Considering the comments of the Reviewer, “The computed weights of women were added to these data sets in accordance with the with the sample design of the research. Each cluster was assigned a different weight; the reasons for this can be summarized as follows: 1) Differential selection probabilities at the cluster level; 2) Non-proportional distribution of the sample size; and 3) Differential response rates in each stratum” statements have been incorporated into the article under the “Study size” section. 3) Results: Given the consistency of logit and probit models, it is unclear to me why the authors decided to report both. I wonder if presenting one of them and having the other models in the Appendix -and a note regarding consistency in the main text- would help streamline the findings, as the added value of having both sets of analysis in the main text is unclear at the moment. Thank you for the comment. The result section of the study was re-written in detail as per the comments of the Reviewer. I also have questions regarding the model strategy, and the decision to estimate one model with the women´s variables and another model with the husbands´ variables. I would, instead, suggest estimating nested models (the first one including only women-related variables, and then the full model). This way, you control for all variables in the full model and can see how model specification influences the findings. There is one article that examined correlates of psychological violence against women in Spain using secondary data which included both sets of variables, which might be helpful: Aizpurua et al. (2018). Controlling Behaviors and Intimate Partner Violence Among Women in Spain: An Examination of Individual, Partner, and Relationship Risk Factors for Physical and Psychological Abuse. Journal of interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723744). Comment: Thank you for the comment. The studies recommended by the Reviewer were reviewed in detail. We actually estimated only one model. However, we have shown the estimation results in two separate tables. This was not appropriate. The required correction has been performed in accordance with the criticism of the reviewer. We have given all the estimation results in a single table. A more minor question has to do with the selection of reference categories in your models. It would be helpful to choose a consistent criterion, such as the most frequent category. Comment: Thank you for the comment. Considering the comments of the Reviewer, “The problem of multicollinearity in the models was taken into account while identifying the reference category for ordinal and nominal variables having more than two categories. In this regard, the best model was tried to be estimated. Therefore, a consistent criterion could not be selected” statements have been incorporated into the article under the “Measures and variables”. 4) Discussion: Although you acknowledge the limitations of the cross-sectional research design, sometimes causal language is used, which is not appropriate. I would encourage the authors to review the article to ensure that those references are removed. I would also suggest further discussing some limitations of the research, such as the few indicators used to measure psychological violence, or the exclusion of important age groups from the population (women 60 and over). More broadly, I think this section could be streamlined by providing less details about individual studies and situating the findings within the literature a bit more broadly (what is consistent, what is inconsistent), as well as linking the finding with theory, and not only empirical findings. Comment: Thank you for the comment. The discussion section was reorganized in accordance with the criticism of the Reviewer. Considering the comments of the Reviewer, “Finally, the data in the study consists of women between the ages of 15-59. Since a sample will be created across Turkey, women aged 60 and over were excluded from the study because the likelihood of women aged 15-59 in the visited houses was higher” statements have been incorporated into the article under the “Conclusions” section. I hope these comments are helpful and wish the authors the best as they move forward with this manuscript. Comment: Thank you for the comment. We definitely took the feedback of yours to heart and incorporated the suggested revisions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-05.07.2022.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950.r002
13 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Gbenga Olorunfemi, Editor PONE-D-21-33583R1Verbal/Psychological Violence against Women in Turkey and its DeterminantsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alkan, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Literature review: It is usually not expected to have a section designated as literature review in the introduction of a manuscript. However, a review of the literature would be done in the introduction section. I therefore suggest that the authors remove the subtitle "Literature review" from the introduction and further summarise the section. It is quite long. It is important for an English language editor to review and revise the manuscript Methodology: It should be stated that this present study was a secondary date analysis Statistical analysis: There are some data analysis that were done and reported in the result section but was not described in the statistical analysis section. e.g VIF. Authors should describe all the statistical analysis conducted. Please explain how the models were built. Results: Line 411: delete "chi-square tests" and replace with "bivariate analysis" Table one . change p-value = 0.0000 to p-value < 0.0001 Line 423: change "ratio" to "prevalence" Line 426: 78.6 should be 78.6% Line 426: Delete "great" Line 426: please delete "great" Table 2: please report odds ratio instead of beta. odds ratio is easily explained for logistic regression than beta. Then please interprete appropriately based on the odds ratio Conclusion is too long. Please shorten it to the essentials ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 28 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: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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, Gbenga Olorunfemi, MBBS,MSC,FMCOG,FWACS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950.r003
Revision 2
19 Sep 2022 Author Response Editor’s Evaluation, 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. AUTHORS’ RESPONSE Thank you for the opportunity to revise our paper. We definitely took the feedback of the academic editor to heart and incorporated the suggested revisions. ACADEMIC EDITOR: Comment: Literature review: It is usually not expected to have a section designated as literature review in the introduction of a manuscript. However, a review of the literature would be done in the introduction section. I therefore suggest that the authors remove the subtitle "Literature review" from the introduction and further summarise the section. It is quite long. Response: Thank you for the comment. We removed the subtitle "Literature review" from the introduction. The relevant section has been shortened. Comment: It is important for an English language editor to review and revise the manuscript. Response: Thank you for the comment. Language and grammatical errors were corrected during the “proofreading” made by the language editor of Scribendi. Comment: Methodology: It should be stated that this present study was a secondary date analysis Response: Thank you for the comment. Taking this criticism into account, we added relevant expression in the subtitle Data sources/measurement. Comment: Statistical analysis: There are some data analysis that were done and reported in the result section but was not described in the statistical analysis section. e.g VIF. Authors should describe all the statistical analysis conducted. Please explain how the models were built. Response: Thank you for the comment. Necessary amendments were made following the comments of the academic editor. Comment: Results: Line 411: delete "chi-square tests" and replace with "bivariate analysis" Table one . change p-value = 0.0000 to p-value < 0.0001 Line 423: change "ratio" to "prevalence" Line 426: 78.6 should be 78.6% Line 426: Delete "great" Line 426: please delete "great" Response: Thank you for the comment. Necessary amendments were made following the comments of the academic editor. Comment: Table 2: please report odds ratio instead of beta. odds ratio is easily explained for logistic regression than beta. Then please interprete appropriately based on the odds ratio. Response: Thank you for the comment. We revised Table 2. and reported odds ratio instead of beta. Comment: Conclusion is too long. Please shorten it to the Essentials Response: Thank you for the comment. The relevant section has been shortened. We added the subtitles Limitations of the study and Directions/suggestions for future research. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-19.09.2022.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950.r004
22 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Gbenga Olorunfemi, Editor PONE-D-21-33583R2Verbal/Psychological Violence against Women in Turkey and its DeterminantsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alkan, 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 Nov 06 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: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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, Gbenga Olorunfemi, MBBS,MSC,FMCOG,FWASC Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments:Introduction: Please reduce the length of the introduction. Introduction beyond 1000 words suggests a long introduction. Italic: Please avoid italics as much as possible. You have so many italics in the manuscript Interpretation of odds ratio. Authors should consult an experienced statistician to guide in the interpretation of odds ratio. Current odds ratio interpretations are not correct. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950.r005
Revision 3
23 Sep 2022 Author Response Additional Editor Comments: Comment: Introduction: Please reduce the length of the introduction. Introduction beyond 1000 words suggests a long introduction. Response: Thank you for the comment. The introduction section has been shortened. It was shortened from 2185 words to 1045 words. Comment: Italic: Please avoid italics as much as possible. You have so many italics in the manuscript Response: Thank you for the comment. Necessary amendments were made following the the comments of the academic editor. Comment: Interpretation of odds ratio. Authors should consult an experienced statistician to guide in the interpretation of odds ratio. Current odds ratio interpretations are not correct. Response: Thank you for the comment. We consulted an experienced statistician to guide in the interpretation of odds ratio. Necessary amendments were made following the comments of the academic editor. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-23.09.2022.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950.r006
28 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Gbenga Olorunfemi, Editor Verbal/Psychological Violence against Women in Turkey and its Determinants PONE-D-21-33583R3 Dear Dr. Alkan, 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, Gbenga Olorunfemi, MBBS,MSC,FMCOG,FWASC Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950.r007
Formally Accepted
29 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Gbenga Olorunfemi, Editor PONE-D-21-33583R3 Verbal and Psychological Violence Against Women in Turkey and Its Determinants Dear Dr. Alkan: 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. Gbenga Olorunfemi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275950.r008

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 .