Analysis of Non-Marital Fertility in Nigeria and Implications for Intervention and Future Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article develops an interesting framework on non-marital fertility in Nigeria. To achieve the aim of their research, authors used data from the Nigeria Demographic and Survey 2008-2018 with a pooled sample size of 11,925 women and utilized econometric methodology to come closer to the interpretative variables of this phenomenon.
To improve the quality of the paper the authors are recommended to make some revisions:
Line 59. Please correct “non-martial”.
Lines 194-195: “The variables in this study have been selected based on important literature on non-martial fertility in sub-Saharan Africa.” I suggest that you connect that literature to every single variable.
Lines 195-199. Please explain better. It is not clear what is the dependent variable and how did you count it. Why do you write in line 196 “i.e. number…”? There are more than one dependent variables? Something is misleading me.
Study variables: I recommend that you explain analytically. Not just report them. What is the literature behind them, and what do they mean for your analysis?
In the model specification you should refer to the specific variables of your analysis, not just on the theoretical model specification.
Table 2. Where are the p-values? Are there statistically significant differences between the groups or the years? If you don’t present p values there is not a need to be so analytical on just describing the sample (lines280-298).
In general, it is an interesting article which raises significant and substantiated questions. Thus, I recommend to reconsider after major revision.
Author Response
Please see the atachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The word "marital" is spelled "martial" numerous times; please review carefully and correct 2. In many cases there is no open space between text and parentheses, such as doctor(Allis & Jones, 2000)when. That is, there should be a space after doctor and before when in this made up example. 3. Some words used are not scientific - p. 11 humongous; p. 16, tons of money; p. 17, dabble. 4. Line 67, "on no n-martial" ??? 5. Line 87, two periods, only one needed. 6. Line 102 what is the "=" doing? 7. Lines 115, 117, spell correlates correctly please 8. Line 278 The parenthesis needs to be relocated at the right side of the page at the top of the table. 9. Page 8. It is not clear - and this is a major potential flaw in the study's design - if the currently unwed had children from a previous marriage, which would be a different type of non-marital fertility. 10. Line 333. "for a an ideal"??? 11. Lines 370-372. I think this interpretation is incorrect; didn't cohabiting women have greater non-marital fertility? 12. Page 14 and previous literature review. Might it not be possible that rural, less educated women have more children out of wedlock because having a child, even without a husband, is a sign of adulthood and some degree of status? 13. Lines 487-489. Graphing the rates for the religions shows a slow change for the first two year groups for Catholics and Protestants, then a jump to 2018; for Muslims, the rate of change is large and constant across time. This should be discussed here. 14. Lines 581-591. Here divorce and separation is brought up but was it measured and controlled for? It's very important in theory but did the analyses here taken previous separation or divorce into account? 15. Line 671 Close up this material 16. Lines 679 and 686, close up this materialAuthor Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revisions made.
The paper is much improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
In line 2, there is a space in marital which should be closed. In lines 11 and 14, more spaces splitting words, need closure In line 147 too many words split with extra spaces. Otherwise, the paper is fine with a final editorial check for grammar and spelling. I recommend acceptance