PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Um,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.

After careful consideration, we are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has merit and shows potential for publication. However, it requires major revision before it can be considered for acceptance. We therefore invite you to submit a revised version that comprehensively addresses the reviewers’ comments and the additional points outlined below.

The presentation of terms "violence types: physical, sexual, emotional, and intimate partner violence (IPV) " leads to ambiguity because the text often lists IPV as if it were a distinct form of domestic violence alongside the three specific forms of violence. For instance, the abstract states the study examined associations with "violence types: physical, sexual, emotional, and intimate partner violence (IPV) ". Similarly, the outcome variable section defines the outcome as experience of domestic violence, specified as "sexual violence, physical violence, emotional violence, and intimate partner violence (IPV) ". This simultaneous listing of the specific types and the composite term (IPV) makes the categories appear mutually exclusive or confusingly similar. IPV, child abuse, in-law abuse, etc., are nuances or types of domestic violence; this should not be mixed with physical, emotional and sexual abuse. Therefore, while the authors need to adjust their phrasing in the text (e.g., in the abstract and outcome variable description) to prevent the confusion that IPV is a fourth, separate form of violence, the definition provided confirms that IPV is the overarching term representing the experience of any of the three specific violence forms.

The manuscript does not explicitly name or detail a formal theoretical framework (such as the Ecological Model or Empowerment Theory) in a dedicated section. Although the study discusses conceptual pathways related to autonomy and resource access, it does not formalize these concepts within a recognized theory.

The manuscript explicitly states that in the adjusted models, motorcycle ownership and media exposure did not show statistically significant associations with IPV . The discussion of these null findings attributes the lack of association to the possibility that "mere access or exposure to these resources may not be sufficient to alter the underlying power dynamics that contribute to violence ". While this is a conceptual interpretation, the authors do not extensively debate why motorcycle ownership, which theoretically enhances mobility and economic participation, might fail to demonstrate a protective effect in Cambodia, apart from stating that physical mobility alone may not be enough without shifts in gender norms

The manuscript's policy suggestions, while present, are highly concentrated in the abstract and conclusion sections, and are often phrased as broad programmatic needs rather than specific policy mechanisms. For example, the conclusion suggests that programmes should prioritise "expanding safe and private digital access for women " and integrating "digital literacy and secure technology use training ". While these are necessary steps for implementation (programmatic outcomes), they require underlying policy decisions (e.g., national strategy for secure digital inclusion, mandated funding for literacy programmes) that are not explicitly detailed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 14 2025 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.

• 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,

Lanre Abdul-Rasheed Sulaiman, PhD

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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors made significant contribution to discourse on domestic violence. While the scholarship was cohesive and comprehensible, the authors did not clearly project policy implication of the study. I could deduce programmatic outcomes, but policies make these interventions more sustainable.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer’s comments

The article examined how digital access, media exposure, motorcycle ownership and partners' alcohol use are associated with violence types: physical, sexual, emotional, and intimate partner violence (IPV), while controlling for socio-demographic factors. This is timely and relevant perhaps with the rising cases of intimate partner violence in our contemporary society.

However, the authors need to clarify ‘violence types’ and ‘intimate partner violence (IPV)’. The way they are being currently used in the article are confusing or similar: violence types (physical, sexual and emotional) and intimate partner violence. There is the need for further clarifications.

Also, the authors have not provided clear and convincing evidence on the novelty of this study in Cambodia. I have seen a number of empirical studies on how digital access, media exposure and partners' alcohol affect intimate partner violence (IPV). The only novelty I could agree with is ‘motorcycle ownership’.

Also, the article lacks literature review where gaps ought to have emerged. Due to lack of literature, there are no conceptual, theoretical and empirical debates and engagements. Furthermore, the study does not have clear theoretical framework.

While methodology section contains important elements, it lacks justifications. The authors have not really justified most of their methodological choices. The article will benefit from proper and adequate justifications of each methodological choice made.

Generally, the analysis is good. Nonetheless, the authors need to improve their interpretations of key statistical results. In other words, the interpretations of key figures should be clear and explicit.

In addition, the authors need to improve on discussion of findings. For instance, novel findings should be incorporated with proper interpretations and justifications. This could be linked to dearth of conceptual, empirical and theoretical review. Also, implications to policies, practices and theories should be more explicit.

Overall, the article should be accepted for publication after the above issues have been attended to.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Moshood Issah

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Recommendation.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: My comments.docx

Determinants of Domestic Violence Against Women in Cambodia: How Digital Access, Media Exposure, Motorcycle Ownership, and Partners' Alcohol Use Matter

PONE-D-25-40112R1

Dear Dr. Um,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Russell Kabir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

**********