Bartenders and Customers’ Interactions. Influence on Sexual Assaults in Nightlife

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have attached my comments. There are some issues with the use of English that I have tried to address. What is more concerning is the narrowness of the study. There were no female bartenders interviewed, only male bartenders. The study was very narrow, with only 26 people participating. The use of "girls" to refer to women was offensive. There were no women interviewed. There were no examples of male bartenders who did not break the law and conspire to make women very drunk so that they would consent to being raped. There was no real assessment of the kinds of bars where this took place. There was little reference to the scholarship. I think this study needs to be expanded and clarified. What bars and group of bartenders were studied? How many were from other countries besides Spain/Catelan? Were any differences observed in other countries?

This is an interesting study that is way too narrow, and sounds more like gossip and hearsay than it does an actual study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of MS# Sustainability-861805, "Bartenders and customers’ interactions. Influence on sexual assaults in nightlife."

Overview: The present study qualitatively examines the role of bartender-customer interactions in sexual assaults.

Review:

The introduction takes a while to get going. Not until the last sentence of the intro is the goal of the study introduced. I would suggest discussing the purpose and importance of the paper early on, in the first paragraph (in sort of an "intro to the intro")

It is unclear as to what it means to have first-hand knowledge of "dynamics of sexual interactions" with respect to the sample. Was this expanded upon with participants? Please clarify for the reader.

Was there any kind of thematic analysis that was done, or was the grouping based on rater perceptions? Were there multiple raters examining responses? Is there a thematic grouping of concepts raised in the participants' responses?

I'd suggest a more formal use of "men" and "women." Avoid colloquial terms like "guys" and "girls" unless in direct quotation of participants

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have clarified this study, cited their models and used appropriate language. I would suggest proofreading for English one more time.