Gender-Based Violence Prevalence, Psychosocial Effects, and Coping Mechanisms Among Refugee Women in Kebribeyah Camp, Ethiopia: Baseline for Interventions to Prevent Psychosocial Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper was very hard to follow. The order of sentences and paragraphs does not make sense and there is a lack of referencing (and consistent referencing style), particularly for "big" statements. For example, there is an opening paragraph that discusses countries accounting for the most refugees, that then moves to Ethiopia and then referring explicitly to Kebribeyah camp, yet there is no discussion outlining how this is all (if at all) related. I appreciate you're offering context but this could be much clearer.

The research objectives don't really match what you have thus far outlined. Firstly, it seems inappropriate to refer to the practices of GBV in the context of victimization; secondly, you need to contextualize what 'serious' and 'intensity' means and why this is appropriate to study; thirdly, how does this relate to 'psychosocial effects'? You never actually explain what this means.

Perhaps, you should focus less on refugees in your opening paragraphs and more about GBV in this context and why it is necessary to understand whatever aspect you want to understand in this context. Yet, equally, though there may not be research from your specific location, or continent, you need to justify why the experiences of these refugee women might so distinct from other refugee women that your particular research adds scholarly value. What do we not understand about this phenomena from the Ethiopian context? To be very clear, I am not saying that your research does not add value, nor am I saying it is not necessary, I am saying that you have not made either of these points beyond saying such research has not been done/is not available.

You also refer to evaluating initiatives but this is not mentioned in your objectives.

I found your methods a bit hard to follow, there is a lot of detail that is sometimes unnecessary and then, in other areas, there is no detail whatsoever - who are the "key informants" and how were they selected? You state where they're from but not any of the process, nor how you chose those locations. Similarly, you need to explain your recruitment process, your sample calculation was well explained and justified but I don't know how you identified your participants. I would also be careful about using the term 'representative', I completely understand what you mean and I appreciate your justification but I'm not sure it's appropriate. 

There is no detail on the survey - what measures did you use? How were the validated? How were they distributed? How long did it take? Over a certain amount of time? Could participants select multiple options? etc etc. Can you explain some of the acts/terms you're using with respect to GBV? Some of them were a bit confusing - for example, "sexual violence prompting verbal threats", I don't really understand what this means. You also haven't explained how data was analysed.

From what you've said, it sounds like you managed the questionnaire personally - is this a potential limitation in the extent to which the participants felt comfortable explaining their experiences? Or, vice versa, pressure to say that had been victimized?

The qualitative quotes are quite confusing and the methods/design/analysis is not explained. You say that their purpose was to explain and elaborate on the data, were the aware of the results of the survey? What questions were they asked? If these quotes are to be included, they should add clear value. As it is, they seem like throwaway comments and are not positioned against any research. Equally, your interpretation of the second quote isn't quite clear and doesn't seem to fully align with what the participant is saying. You refer to the underreported nature of GBV and then not recognizing certain acts, though these can be related, there are many reasons people don't report and also reasons why certain acts are not recognized - explain this, with references.

You say the findings indicate that multiple forms occurred interconnectedly and your data may suggest that but the data you have presented does not suggest that. It merely shows that x happened and y happened not that, for some, x and y happened. It might be helpful for you to report those who reported one of any experience and then those who reported more than one (and those who reported none), you can then use this as a framing point for different patterns of polyvictimization.

You use the term 'significant' in the conclusion and this should be avoided because you have not offered any tests of statistical significance. I know you're not using it in this way but there is a risk of misinterpretation. You also refer to sexual violence as being "the most serious" - according to whom? What constitutes seriousness in this context?

I think you need to really consider your conclusions here, based on your research but also the wider scholarship. You make recommendations but offer no research to support this. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 comments one by one responses

Really appreciate your comments. Thank you very much for your constrictive and helpful comments and suggestions: based on the comments and suggestions, we have made a major revision almost on all parts of the manuscript following your comments, and described as below:

1. This paper was very hard to follow. The order of sentences and paragraphs does not make sense and there is a lack of referencing (and consistent referencing style), particularly for "big" statements. For example, there is an opening paragraph that discusses countries accounting for the most refugees, that then moves to Ethiopia and then referring explicitly to Kebribeyah camp, yet there is no discussion outlining how this is all (if at all) related. I appreciate you're offering context but this could be much clearer.

Authors response:

• We have revised the big sentences and cited, revised the consistency of arguments logical flow and made it sensing in the research contexts
• Relevant sources were searched and cited
• Please see introduction part

2. The research objectives don't really match what you have thus far outlined. Firstly, it seems inappropriate to refer to the practices of GBV in the context of victimization; secondly, you need to contextualize what 'serious' and 'intensity' means and why this is appropriate to study; thirdly, how does this relate to 'psychosocial effects'? You never actually explain what this means.

Authors response:

• The research objectives were revised aligned to the title of the research and research title is also adjusted as to address the research problem.
• Hence, based on your convincing insight and comments, we have made major revision to the title, objectives, mythology, and come up with good results and conclusion.
• Please see all parts related to objective and methodology revision

 

3. Perhaps, you should focus less on refugees in your opening paragraphs and more about GBV in this context and why it is necessary to understand whatever aspect you want to understand in this context. Yet, equally, though there may not be research from your specific location, or continent, you need to justify why the experiences of these refugee women might so distinct from other refugee women that your particular research adds scholarly value. What do we not understand about this phenomenon from the Ethiopian context? To be very clear, I am not saying that your research does not add value, nor am I saying it is not necessary, I am saying that you have not made either of these points beyond saying such research has not been done/is not available.

Authors response:

• As it has mention, as far as our efforts concerned, we have come across sufficient researches on the issue in my specific location, however, following your good insights, we have incorporated noteworthy literatures results help to understand “why the experiences of these refugee women (kebribeyah refugee camp) might so distinct from other refugee women that your particular research adds scholarly value.
• Please see the introduction parts paragraph 9 highlighted part

4. You also refer to evaluating initiatives but this is not mentioned in your objectives. I found your methods a bit hard to follow, there is a lot of detail that is sometimes unnecessary and then, in other areas, there is no detail whatsoever - who are the "key informants" and how were they selected? You state where they're from but not any of the process, nor how you chose those locations. Similarly, you need to explain your recruitment process, your sample calculation was well explained and justified but I don't know how you identified your participants. I would also be careful about using the term 'representative', I completely understand what you mean and I appreciate your justification but I'm not sure it's appropriate. 

Authors response:

• We have made a revision in methodology parts at all and sampling and sample size selection techniques and participant recruitment process also clarified.
• The issue of key informants was also clarified due to major revision on research design and approach.
• Please see methodology part sub title 2.2 (Sampling techniques and sample size of the study) the highlighted part

5. There is no detail on the survey - what measures did you use? How were the validated? How were they distributed? How long did it take? Over a certain amount of time? Could participants select multiple options? etc etc. Can you explain some of the acts/terms you're using with respect to GBV? Some of them were a bit confusing - for example, "sexual violence prompting verbal threats", I don't really understand what this means. You also haven't explained how data was analysed.

Authors response:

• We have clarified the Instruments and procedures of data collection (methodology sub title 2.6)
• We have made major revision in research design and approach aligned with the purpose of the study. we have described as o make it very clear and reasonable to use the preferred method and made clarity.
• The instrument of data collection was translated to Somali language and the questionnaire instruction was introduced. This procedure is described under data collection procedures parts
• Validation report of tools of data collection were described well, and explained. Reliability and validity measure are described
• Please see methodology section, and back matters part (sub title 2.1.-2.8, & 6-12}

6. From what you've said, it sounds like you managed the questionnaire personally - is this a potential limitation in the extent to which the participants felt comfortable explaining their experiences? Or, vice versa, pressure to say that had been victimized?

Authors response:

• Regarding reducing potential limitation in the extent to which the participants felt uncomfortable explaining their experiences during face to face questionnaire administration, first, direct face to face administration was made with illiterate participants who didn’t read and write, also female data collectors were used to minimize the limitation. But the problem is the statement we used to describe was not clear and this is clarified during revision.
• Please see the revised part in methodology section sub title 2.6.

7. The qualitative quotes are quite confusing and the methods/design/analysis is not explained. You say that their purpose was to explain and elaborate on the data, were the aware of the results of the survey? What questions were they asked? If these quotes are to be included, they should add clear value. As it is, they seem like throwaway comments and are not positioned against any research. Equally, your interpretation of the second quote isn't quite clear and doesn't seem to fully align with what the participant is saying. You refer to the underreported nature of GBV and then not recognizing certain acts, though these can be related, there are many reasons people don't report and also reasons why certain acts are not recognized - explain this, with references.

 

Authors response:

 

• Considering your constructive comments, and research problem, we have made major revision in analysis and added inferential statistical analysis aligned to the revised methodology and purpose of the study
• In revised manuscript, despite its limitation, we made additional detail analysis from the original data, focusing exclusively on quantitative method, the study ensures objectivity, replicability and statistical rigor due to GBV issue is sensitive topic.

8. You say the findings indicate that multiple forms occurred interconnectedly and your data may suggest that but the data you have presented does not suggest that. It merely shows that x happened and y happened not that, for some, x and y happened. It might be helpful for you to report those who reported one of any experience and then those who reported more than one (and those who reported none), you can then use this as a framing point for different patterns of polyvictimization.

Authors response:

• In revised manuscript, we made additional detail analysis from the original data, and detail analysis and sound conclusion was made.
• Really, we appreciated this comment, and automatically recalculated the results from the original data, added more discussion and analysis using further statistical tools for analysis. Hence, the conclusion become clearer, added new and surprising finding, become convincing and more coherent.
• Please see the result, discussion and conclusion part aligned with the revised method and research problem, based on your recommendation for major revision

9. You use the term 'significant' in the conclusion and this should be avoided because you have not offered any tests of statistical significance. I know you're not using it in this way but there is a risk of misinterpretation. You also refer to sexual violence as being "the most serious" - according to whom? What constitutes seriousness in this context?

Authors response:

• Language and terminology were clarified in revised manuscript
• From statistical explanation and interpretation, we made additional detail analysis from the original data, and detail analysis and sound conclusion was made also using inferential statistics.

10. I think you need to really consider your conclusions here, based on your research but also the wider scholarship. You make recommendations but offer no research to support this. 

Authors response:

• Great, thank you very much for your really unique academic insights and resource for us to improve our manuscript and see the detail and another angle of research science.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Context & Theoretical Background
The manuscript covers a highly relevant topic and refers to important sources, but the theoretical background feels fragmented. It would benefit from a clearer conceptual model (for example, an ecological or intersectional framework) to tie risk factors together and link findings more directly to existing research.

Research Design, Questions, Hypotheses & Methods
The study presents itself as explanatory sequential mixed-methods, but the description is not very precise. Objectives are repeated in different places, hypotheses are never clearly formulated, and the tools used are not fully explained (validation, recall period, etc.). There is also some confusion around the number of qualitative participants, and nothing is said about ethical approval or safeguards, which is a concern.

Arguments & Discussion of Findings
The discussion tries to interpret the results thoughtfully, but it leans on questionable prevalence figures and does not bring the quantitative and qualitative strands together in a convincing way. It would be stronger with corrected calculations, a clearer theoretical framing, and a more transparent treatment of the study’s limitations.

Results Presentation (Empirical Work)
The tables and figures help illustrate the data, but they are inconsistently labeled and in some cases the indicators (e.g., “prevalence”) are not calculated properly. Confidence intervals or basic tests of association would improve clarity and help readers interpret the results more accurately.

Referencing
The reference list is quite extensive, but formatting is uneven and some entries are incomplete or contain small errors. The manuscript would need a careful clean-up of citations, following the journal’s style, and engagement with more recent academic work.

Conclusions & Support
The conclusions raise important points but go further than the data actually allow. They should be scaled back and more clearly anchored either in the recalculated results or in the secondary literature.

Quality of English
The English is understandable, but the writing style could be much clearer. Some sentences are long and repetitive, and terminology is not always consistent. A careful language edit would really help the paper flow better.

Ethical Concerns
The absence of details on ethics is a major issue. There is no mention of approval by an ethics board, how consent was obtained, or how confidentiality and safety of participants were ensured. Given the sensitivity of the topic, this section needs to be developed thoroughly before the paper can move forward.

Originality – Average
The topic itself is important and not well studied in this setting, but the methodological approach and analysis are fairly standard.

Contribution to Scholarship – Average
The study is worthwhile, but weaknesses in design and theory limit its academic contribution. More analytical depth and clearer articulation of how it adds to existing work are needed.

Quality of Structure and Clarity – Average
The paper follows the usual scientific sections, but there are repetitions, some unclear passages, and inconsistencies in tables/figures. Structure is acceptable but not polished.

Logical Coherence / Strength of Argument / Academic Soundness – Average
The argument is relevant, but methodological flaws and weak integration of data reduce its strength. Some claims are not fully supported.

Engagement with Sources and Recent Scholarship – Average
Most citations are institutional reports and a few regional studies. There is little engagement with recent or more conceptually robust literature, and the referencing itself needs correction.

Overall Merit – Average
The paper deals with an urgent social problem and has potential value, but the current version is weakened by methodological, theoretical, and presentation issues. Substantial revision would be required for it to meet publication standards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is understandable overall, but the paper would really benefit from careful editing. Some sentences are too long and repetitive, terminology is not always consistent (for example, with place names and key terms), and there are a few grammatical slips. A thorough language revision would make the text much clearer and help communicate the research more effectively to an international audience.

Author Response

Reviewer (2) Constructive Comments and suggestion with my (author) point by point response

1. Context & Theoretical Background
   The manuscript covers a highly relevant topic and refers to important sources, but the theoretical background feels fragmented. It would benefit from a clearer conceptual model (for example, an ecological or intersectional framework) to tie risk factors together and link findings more directly to existing research.

 

Author’s Response:

Thank you for your constructive suggestions.  Based on your recommendation for major revision and authors thought that, all comments are very important and relevant, we have made major revision as described below:

• We have revised the background section with conceptual model (both ecological and intersectionality), and linked the findings with the model’s paradigm.
• Please see the highlighted parts in introduction section, discussion and conclusion {Sub title 1 & 4}

2. Research Design, Questions, Hypotheses & Methods
   The study presents itself as explanatory sequential mixed-methods, but the description is not very precise. Objectives are repeated in different places, hypotheses are never clearly formulated, and the tools used are not fully explained (validation, recall period, etc.). There is also some confusion around the number of qualitative participants, and nothing is said about ethical approval or safeguards, which is a concern.

    Authors response:

• We have made major revision in research design and approach aligned with the purpose of the study. we have described as o make it very clear and reasonable to use the preferred method.
• Research objectives (both general and specific objectives) were revised clearly based on the research problem or hypothesis.
• Validation report of tools of data collection were described well, and explained.
• Ethical approval and back matters were incorporated well
• Please see methodology section, and back matters part (sub title 2.1.-2.8, & 6-12}

3. Arguments & Discussion of Findings
   The discussion tries to interpret the results thoughtfully, but it leans on questionable prevalence figures and does not bring the quantitative and qualitative strands together in a convincing way. It would be stronger with corrected calculations, a clearer theoretical framing, and a more transparent treatment of the study’s limitations.

Authors response:

• We have revised the discussion part and added additional analysis based on the comments, aligned to the theoretical concepts and revised research objectives and research design.
• The calculation is corrected based on the original data. Discussion and its implication were clarified as to convincing reader.
• Please see [sub title 4] with the revised specific objectives, and research methods

4. Results Presentation (Empirical Work)
   The tables and figures help illustrate the data, but they are inconsistently labeled and in some cases the indicators (e.g., “prevalence”) are not calculated properly. Confidence intervals or basic tests of association would improve clarity and help readers interpret the results more accurately.

 

    Authors response:

• We have made major revision in analysis and added inferential statistical analysis including confidence interval and other relevant tests and measures asper the given comments, aligned to the revised methodology and purpose of the study
• Please see methodology part and results and discussion (sub title 3-4)

5. Referencing
   The reference list is quite extensive, but formatting is uneven and some entries are incomplete or contain small errors. The manuscript would need a careful clean-up of citations, following the journal’s style, and engagement with more recent academic work.

Authors response:

• We have revised the refence part including formatting according to the MDPI Socci guideline
• As far as the researcher efforts concerned, we have tried to use relatively more recent academic work, unfortunately due to the issue is under researched specially in the study area, not executively replaced by recent work.
• Please see reference part

6. Conclusions & Support
   The conclusions raise important points but go further than the data actually allow. They should be scaled back and more clearly anchored either in the recalculated results or in the secondary literature.

Authors response:

• Really, we appreciated this comment, and automatically recalculated the results from the original data, added more discussion and analysis using further statistical tools for analysis. Hence, the conclusion become clearer, added new and surprising finding, become convincing and more coherent.
• Please see the result, discussion and conclusion part aligned with the revised method and research problem, based on your recommendation for major revision

 

7. Quality of English
   The English is understandable, but the writing style could be much clearer. Some sentences are long and repetitive, and terminology is not always consistent. A careful language edit would really help the paper flow better.

Authors response:

• We have edited the language, made efforts to revise the terminologies made clearer and believed the paper is improved

8. Ethical Concerns
   The absence of details on ethics is a major issue. There is no mention of approval by an ethics board, how consent was obtained, or how confidentiality and safety of participants were ensured. Given the sensitivity of the topic, this section needs to be developed thoroughly before the paper can move forward.

 

Authors response:

• We have described ethical approval issues both approval of Jimma university ethics board, and the way confidentiality secured and informed consent were obtained from participants of the study.
• Please see sub title 12, and some formal evidences were attached or submitted to the journal editor as non-published material

 

9. Originality – Average
   The topic itself is important and not well studied in this setting, but the methodological approach and analysis are fairly standard.

 

Authors response:

• We have improved the methodology as to make it more rigor and we believed, the improved findings are introduced relatively new insights.
• Please see results and discussion and conclusion part in general and the last paragraph of discussion and conclusion part.

10. Contribution to Scholarship – Average
    The study is worthwhile, but weaknesses in design and theory limit its academic contribution. More analytical depth and clearer articulation of how it adds to existing work are needed.

Authors response:

 

• Based on your comments, we have made major revision on design and incorporated some theoretical views, the paper is improved as to clearer and provide depth insights to existing work and academia.
• Limitation and suggestions for further researchers were also described

11. Quality of Structure and Clarity – Average
    The paper follows the usual scientific sections, but there are repetitions, some unclear passages, and inconsistencies in tables/figures. Structure is acceptable but not polished.

Authors response:

• Repetition and unclear passage were clarified well
• Table and structure of writing are also polished, some repeated table were removed.

12. Logical Coherence / Strength of Argument / Academic Soundness – Average
    The argument is relevant, but methodological flaws and weak integration of data reduce its strength. Some claims are not fully supported.

Authors response:

• We have made major revision on method part including data analysis techniques. Hence the analysis supported by new results from added inferential analysis and strong results and conclusions were made,
• Please see the method part particularly data analysis techniques, and result, discussion and conclusion part [ sub title 2, 3 &4]

13. Engagement with Sources and Recent Scholarship – Average
    Most citations are institutional reports and a few regional studies. There is little engagement with recent or more conceptually robust literature, and the referencing itself needs correction.

Authors response:

• We have corrected reference part according to the journal style
• As far as the relevant sources were available, the citation parts were revised by relatively more recent literatures, unfortunately due to the issue is under researched specially in the study area, not executively replaced by recent work. Some critically important concepts were taken from relatively not recent literatures.

14. Overall Merit – Average
    The paper deals with an urgent social problem and has potential value, but the current version is weakened by methodological, theoretical, and presentation issues. Substantial revision would be required for it to meet publication standards.

Authors response:

Thank you very much!

• We have made major revision on almost all parts of your comments and suggestions

15. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is understandable overall, but the paper would really benefit from careful editing. Some sentences are too long and repetitive, terminology is not always consistent (for example, with place names and key terms), and there are a few grammatical slips. A thorough language revision would make the text much clearer and help communicate the research more effectively to an international audience.

Authors response:

• As far as our efforts concerned, and the standards required, we have made language edition and revision on almost all parts of your comments and suggestions

Thank you very Much again for depth and more helpful comments and suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revisions to this manuscript, I still think there are areas that require further development, as noted below.

Title

- These women do not practice GBV so please rephrase this in your title and anywhere else. This expression is used frequently in your paper so I suggest a thorough review to remove it.

Abstract

- Your abstract was quite hard to follow, you use phrasing that does not seem to be in keeping with the research and you've structured it in quite a confusing way; some sentences appear to refer to results from your study, others appear to be commentary. Try to be clear in what relates to the study and what represents reflections from the literature. I would also steer clear from emotive language like "alarming" when you are differentiating between different forms of GBV. Why, for example, is verbal and physical violence against women by non-intimate partner men an "alarming form of sexual violence"?
- Further, words such as uncommon and unreasonable should not be used because they're imprecise and not quantifications (or qualifications) have been offered.
- "... which is thought to be the least recognized form of GBV among women who are refugees.": what is? You have stated any specific forms of GBV in the preceding sentence so what form is least recognized?
- for clarity, I would remove "The researcher was motivated to study the issue and selected setting since..." and rephrase the sentence to "Owing to loss of social network and power, refugee women are the most vulnerable..."
- What is a 10.98% prevalence rate of GBV? Do you mean that 10.98% of your sample had been victimized at all? I think I know what you mean but the phrasing is a little confusing. 
- The sentence that follows is confusing - do you mean that your sample reported this (i.e., the most common forms) or this just what the research says? If the latter, it should be higher up in the abstract, if the former, rephrase so that is clear.
- What is "GBV influence"?

Introduction
- Line 37: "Nowadays", this is too vague. GBV has been a global concern for decades.
- Avoid language like "horrendous", it's accurate but not appropriate for this context.
- Line 78: Seems repetitive, I think you already referred to the ecological model in this way.
- Line 111: "One of the most violent forms of GBVs [sic] is rape": according to who? To be clear, I'm not disputing your statement but who supports your opinion? Violence is a relative construct so what have you determined makes rape the most violent? 

Material and Method
- Line 299: It is not appropriate for you/the researcher to "assume", this should be clearly justified by relevant literature. 
- Line 327: "the researcher believed that the instrument is compatible" - why? Using what justification?
- You mention that you have adapted a few instruments. On what basis and according to what guidance? You don't have to detail the changes in full (although it would be helpful to provide all adjustments in an appendix or supplementary materials for future research) but you should offer some examples.

Results
- Line 437: "According to ecological theory..." as currently phrased, this doesn't make sense, I think your grammar is wrong. Maybe perceive or position GBV rather than "by explaining".
- Why have you included authors in the results when earlier you were only numbering? I actually find the authors names more helpful but, either way, you need to be consistent in your referencing style.
- Aside from your abstract, where this is mentioned once, line 454 is the only time you refer to "non-intimate partner". Why did you take this focus as opposed to GBV as a whole or the comparison between IPV and non-intimate partner violence? If this is the true framing of your GBV survey, then you should make this clear in the introduction and throughout the paper.
- Lines 68-474 and lines 475-482 read as fairly repetitive. Same too for lines 502-524.

Discussion
- "Forced to witness physical assault": this is included with no context and then a sentence follows that is basically the same thing phrased in a different way.
- Please read through the paragraph from lines 688-694 because this is also repetitive.
- "... GBV is a deeply psychological issue": I think I know what you mean and I agree, on multiple levels, but I think you're referencing the impact of GBV rather than the construct of GBV (which is how it currently reads).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Though the manuscript is improved from the original version, significant proofreading is still required and I have concerns over some of the language used - for example, referring to acts of GBV as practices, this is not appropriate in this context. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf