Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Female University Students’ Preferences for Different Types of Sexual
Relationships.  Implications for Gender-Based Violence Prevention Programs
and Policies.
Version: 
1 
Date: 
11 Sep 2020
Reviewer's report:
I found the argument provided by this paper to be compelling and its
methodological design ground-breaking. Regarding the first aspect, it provides
quantitative -although non-representative- data that illustrates the existence of a
social reality which if not analyzed, would just be anecdotal, neglecting all its
implications. Results regarding the different % between those boys who are
chosen for stable relationships, and those who are chosen for hooking up, as well
as the variation in % among respondents themselves, friends, and "other girls"
are striking. Related to this, the second aspect, the methodological design
followed by the investigation and its usage of vignettes & narratives as a way to
capture gender violence victimization among youth is original and allows
observing trends that would be quite complex to observe by means of for
instance qualitative interviews (e.g..: I'm thinking in how to capture the
differences in responses between participants themselves, and their friends) or
other methods. I have not seen the usage of vignette survey in this specific field
before. 
From here, a myriad of questions was opened to me while reading the paper, and
not of them answered.
That said, although I consider this article to be worth of publication and of
potential high interest to the BMC audience due to its focus on prevention of
gender violence specially among youth and young adults, there are context,
methodological and data related to the findings interpreted at the light of the
main argument (especially in the discussion) that can be further re-fined and
explained to guide the reader in 'connecting the dots' in the argument that the
authors are making. Let me explain these issues: 
1. Context/State of the Art: 
It seems to me that the article denounces the lack of relation between scientific
evidence and mainstem prevention campaigns - "these campaigns have as a main
goal to dismantle the conception of searching for the ideal love": 
- Why it is so? I get lost in understanding this. Is this something contextual to
Spain? 
- It would help here that the authors be clear about what do they think that the
main emphasis of these campaigns should be; and why specifically the
campaigns fail. 
- In doing so, finish up the Introduction explicating Which is the specific topic
with which this specific study engages: is it gender violence victimization in
Spain? Is is the problem of attributing gender violence to ideal love in Spain? I
would really help to mention done upfront at the very beginning of the article. 
2. Study/Methods
As mentioned, the methodological design of this study is one of the aspects I
found more striking and relevant, specially the clarity how the model is defined,
and how the narratives of the boys are defined. In line 188, when explaining
about the study authors explain that "this article solely discusses data about
participants' respondents for men with violent attitudes and behaviors". This is
just mentioned but no further explanation is provided, so the reader is kept with
the question of why this methodological decision is adopted. 
- Authors should provide detail about why this is done - and this will help the
reader to understand the line of argument followed. 
In line 194 it is provided specific information about the situation of the Gender
Violence act in Spain. I have not clearly understood if eventually the act
changed, or if it is still under debate - ongoing towards including hooking-up in
the definition of gender violence. I found this note of particular relevance,
specially in the context of the #MeTooCampaign, and the case of the La Manada
rape case in Spain, which had an international impact. I suggest the author to
clarify this. 
3. Discussion of results
I have no comments for the "results section", as I read them eager to move
quickly to discover what interpretation authors made about them. 
Till the first three paragraphs of the discussion I saw the line of argument of the
authors, but then I had some trouble in following the focus of the discussion. 
It is clear that the focus lays on two aspects: First, the misinterpretation of
placing gender violence victimization as something that occurs solely in the
realm of stable relationships. And second, the fact that gender violence
prevention programs and campaign place in the "ideal love" the cause of
violence victimization. 
Regarding the first issue: Authors show that this is not actually the case - data
provided is clear. However, it would really help to put even more emphasis on
this. As I read it, this main argument is provided in line 489 - 491. However, this
statement is somehow vaguely linked with what has been said in the three
previous paragraphs, and what it is said later. How does this relate to the idea
mentioned when opening the discussion: "hook up becomes a relational context
which is potential for violent victimization"? Is hooking up literature pointing up
at the idea of the dominant coercive discourse? How does it operate? 
In relation to the second issue: the questioning of the "ideal love" - it stands clear
to the reader that the argument provided by some prevention programs
emphasizing that ideal love is the place where gender violence can occur, is
erratic. This is an important part of the argumentation thread in relation to the
Spanish context. However, this can be better linked to the previous point.
Authors link this idea of Ideal Love, with the previous one (hooking up vs stable
relationship), but somehow take for granted assumptions that a reader unfamiliar
with the Spanish context can get lost. Is in Spain much more present this idea
that Ideal Love is dangerous? 
Overall, I strongly suggest reading the discussion and improve it at the light of
these points - better connecting the two main ideas - and being much explicit
about the argument provided.
That said, I do consider that this article is of high scientific and social relevance,
and will be welcomed by the BMC readership - within scientific literature in the
field of violence victimization, youth, and health, when treating "hook up
culture" focus is most of the times put on the contextual aspects that lead young
adults or adolescents to be victims of gender violence. This investigation is
going a step beyond, clearly adding a sociological layer to issue, and brining into
the discussion social processes shaping socialization in attractiveness. Regarding
its social relevance, indeed, prevention programs and policies should better guide
young adults and teenagers on how to identify those potential perpetrators of
gender violence who have violent behaviors and attitudes - unlinking this from
the type of relationships /stable-sporadic.
Good luck with the process! 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registered at
Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you
will receive an email from them asking you to register in order for them to be
able to recognize your review on your new profile page. Publons may use the
Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit of Publons and you
as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. For
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile
published on its webservice if you have registered for such service or help
editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in
Publons’ privacy policy 
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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.
no
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes