Reviewer’s report
Title:  A full Brazilian or All Natural: Understanding the influences on Young Women ’s decision to
remove their pubic hair
Version: 0 Date: 23 Sep 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses  a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence
in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION  -  Is  the  current  interpretation/discussion  of  the  results  reasonable  and  not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If
not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: 
The study is very interesting and novel. Further, it is theoretically motivated and informed, making it an
interesting perspective on an understudied topic. 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
Abstract
* There are a few typos in the abstract (spacing issue around the age of the people in the sample).
* The abstract should potentially contain a bit more information about the specific research question
and/or hypotheses. 
Introduction / Lit Review
* Page 3, line 5, missing a comma after electrolysis 
* Page 3, line 7, missing a word for clarity — perhaps, including from the more intimate parts (from
would be the missing word) 
* Page 3, line 15, change which to that
* Perhaps report some of the specific findings from past studies on the % of women who remove pubic
hair 
* Page 3, lines 43-45 - the first sentence of this paragraph is awkwardly worded —  perhaps change
which to that, or consider comma usage. 
* Page 3, missing comma after "unsightly" ? 
    * I'm not sure which citation method you're using, but do you need a specific page number when
using direct quotes? 
* Page 4, line 28, to which instead of in which 
* Page 4, line 30 - unclear sentence - re-word for clarity. Do you mean slowly instead of slowing? 
*  Page 4, line 31-32, missing comma after Hope 
* In general, please look up proper comma usage around the word "which" and when to use which vs.
that. 
* Page 4, line 48, missing a space after the citations and the next sentence. 
* The sentence "the current research includes an expiration of the influence of feminism on young
……" - should be factored into the abstract early on so that the reader knows that this is what the paper
is about. 
* Page 4, last line, missing comma after date
* Page 5, line 4, should decision after young women's be plural (given that women is plural)? 
* Theory of planned behaviour can be repeated - adding TPB just adds to the reader's cognitive load 
* Same for PBC - in general, avoid acronyms unless the acronym itself has interpretable meaning 
* Same for PWM (which you sometimes write as PMW)
Current Research
* Perhaps use a bullet point / numbered list to make the hypotheses easier to read (and to avoid them
reading like a long run-on sentence. 
Method
* Page 7, line 11, missing spaces "$20,000ayear" 
Procedure
* Change , to . After word "pages on line 28 of Page 7
* Are you able to tell how many participants came from the "Girls Advice" facebook page? This seems
like a group that could somewhat lead to a skewed sample. 
Measures 
* Last paragraph on Page 7, missing commas 
* Some of the characteristics listed for those who do not remove pubic hair seem contradictory (e.g.,
conservative and independent/alternative thinker?) 
* Please provide more information than "based on established scales" and then the citations - provide
the names and psychometrics of the established scales. 
* The wording in the indirect beliefs measure seems confusing - or at least how it is written about. Was
it clear to the participants that they were being asked to report who else would have an opinion about
the participant's pubic hair removal, or who else would have an opinion about their Own pubic hair
removal. As it is written in the paper, it's hard to distinguish between these two possible interpretations.
* Page 8, subjective norm - there is a space and then a . And then a missing space before Perceived. 
* I question the face validity of the sample item for subjective norms 
* Spacing issues on page 9, line 2 
* Privately visible seems like odd phrasing. Why was this used instead of pubic hair? Was the purpose
to distinguish between bikini line and Brazilian areas? 
* It seems that on line 17 of page 9, her would be a better word than their - technically, the sentence, as
structured, implies how the participant feels about a woman who is removing the participant's pubic
hair (i.e., a professional waxer) 
    * What was the precise wording of the question presented too participants? 
* For Behavioural intention and hair removal behaviour, were the two items from each merged into a
single item, hence the reporting of an r value? Perhaps be more explicit in describing this. 
Results
* Page 10, line 8, spacing issue
* The use of "than" on page 10 in the second paragraph of descriptives is confusing. Do you mean
then? This happens both times - than is a comparison, then is an order or list. "Then I went to the store
and then I went to the movies." 
* The use of acronyms makes it difficult to interpret the results without scrolling back to see what they
mean. 
* Page 12, missing comma before which on line 17
* IT seems the critical beliefs section might make more sense after the regression predicting attention
and then move on to the follow up data about behaviour? 
* Are you able to do a mediation model given that you have the predictors of intention, and then
intention is the strongest predictor of behaviour? Perhaps your other variables do predict behaviour, but
are fully mediated through intention. 
Discussion
* In the abstract and discussion section, when mentioning the association between feminist values and
behaviour, I think it's important to keep noting the direction of the association. 
* As a future research question, I wonder how beliefs about hair removal being painful would interact
with desires to be attractive and comfortable? In other words, what is the threshold of motivation
necessary, or what beliefs are crucial, to override the belief that hair removal is painful? How many
women would like to remove but don't due to the pain, and how many want to so strongly that they
accept the pain? How many simply don't experience pain or irritation, thereby making it irrelevant to
their decision making process? 
* Would partner's beliefs vs. Normative beliefs have potentially been a better predictor to use? It would
seem that partner's beliefs and/or desires would be a more proximal predictor of hair removal behaviour
than general societal beliefs about hair removal norms. 
* I think more justification is needed to explain why you think that the remover traits were considered
normal  while  the  non-remover  traits  were  not  considered  normal.  Are  you  arguing  that  "self-
confidence" is abnormal in women? 
* Given that your sample was 23% non-heterosexual, did you consider any group analyses to compare
by sexual identity? 
Strengths and Limitations
* Page 15, line 30, missing spaces 13yearsorless 
* You may also wish to add limitations noted above in your limitations section, such as the role of
partners beliefs or how these behaviours may differ by sexual identity or relationship type 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal