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: 
04 Sep 2020
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript addresses in an accurate and valuable way the implications for
gender violence prevention programmes and policies of young women´s
preferences for different types of sexual relationships. I would like to highlight
two reasons underlying the high quality of the manuscript. First, the contribution
goes beyond the current state of the art in the field of gender violence prevention,
introducing in an excellent way the concept of "dominant coercive discourse" to
better capture and understand the problematic of gender violence in young
women. Second, the need to analyze gender violence in sporadic relationships is
very well-formulated, justifying very precisely the need to investigate them to
advance knowledge in the field of study.
In what follows I provide comments and in some cases, suggestions to be
considered to strength some aspects of the manuscript, in particular in the
sections "background" and "conclusions" of the manuscript. 
Section "Background"
- The first paragraph (lines 59-70) presents data about gender violence according
to the World Health Organization (2013) and the European Agency for
Fundamental Rights (2014). Maybe a more updated and recent (if available) data
could be provided. 
- Line 82. The manuscript mentions that the coercive discourse leaves "no
option" to an egalitarian and passionate relationship. However, this would be in
contradiction with the existence of such relationships. The sentence could be
slightly modified by "less option" or something similar. 
- Lines 135-144. This paragraph is very relevant considering the scope of the
journal. It would be needed to introduce more women´s health related references
in this section and throughout the manuscript. 
Section "Methods". This section is very well described and the experimental
vignette-based methodology convincingly integrated, with strong explanation of
vignettes. 
Section "Results". The results are very clear, precisely specified and sound. 
Section "Discussion". 
- Public health is mentioned in line 469, maybe more details could be provided
in line with the previous comment of the background section. 
- Lines 513-515. I suggest the authors to delete this sentence, as the references
53 and 54 do not belong to scientific contributions. 
Section "Conclusions". 
- The incorporation of the health dimension is correct. According to the previous
comment concerning the background section, this dimension could be further
described and highlighted. 
General comment: it would be needed to unify the reference style and how to
mention the Free Teen Project throughout the manuscript. 
Thank you very much for the interesting and relevant work.
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
No
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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
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