Analyzing the abstract, I consider it well constructed and organized. The authors began by succinctly defining "vengeance". After this definition, the authors started to clarify the purpose of this article - to validate the Vengeance Scale in the Italian context (instrument created by Stuckless and Goranson, in 1992), which allows to measure vengeance, following the same steps as the original authors and showing the psychological implications of vengeful behavior.

Subsequently, they began to enumerate the methods used - Big Five Questionnaire, State Trait Anger Expression Inventory and an Italian version of the Vengeance Scale - and the sample used (377 under-graduate students). Afterwards, the authors briefly presented the results obtained, leaving the discussion of the implications and usefulness of this Italian version of the vengeance scale in future studies open to the end, in order to captivate readers to read the full article.

That said, I consider the methodology well outlined and that the results and conclusions of the abstract are in line with the initial objective of the study. I consider the title of the article quite clear and well constructed, although a little long. It contains the main characteristics to be portrayed throughout the article - revenge; psychological aspects and the validation of the Vengeance Scale in the Italian context. It seems to be an interesting title by itself - this is a topic that has not yet been studied a lot, and the scale has not been applied in many countries yet -, and it is undoubtedly a good representation of the article. Finally, the references are correctly listed and well placed throughout the text. They are effectively relevant, both for the literature review and for the empirical research. It is natural that less than half of the references are more recent - that is, from works created since 2000 -, since the subject of vengeance, although ancient, started to be explored relatively recently, keeping in mind that this article dates from 2012.

The contextualization of the study by the authors seems correct. They begin by explaining what the main focus of the study is - the study of vengeance - and explain what their starting point was - operationalization of the revenge construct in the Italian context, from a questionnaire (Vengeance Scale). In addition, they look to confirm the measurability of the revenge construct and provide a psychological interpretation of vengeful behavior. Since this article is from 2012, it is normal that the references used date a few years back - there are now more recent articles and reviews about vengeance. For example, recently, smaller versions of the Vengeance Scale have been created and the concept of Vengeance has been increasingly scrutinized and studied (see Jackson, Choi & Gelfand, 2019 and Coelho, Monteiro, Hanel, Vilar, Gouveia & Maio, 2018). However, I do not take merit from the authors, as they managed to collect some of the works of the most well-known authors in the area of vengeance and made a brief review of this concept in its introduction. Throughout the introduction, various concepts about revenge are listed, as well as other associated factors (aggressiveness, neuroticism, agreeableness, anger, environment, guilt, among others). The concepts are universally known and perceived, written in a clear and simple way. Although the authors do not stipulate the population involved in this part, they do so in the methods. To me, this seems to be an interesting topic, still relatively unstudied, therefore relevant to scientific research. It is important due to the use and validation of a scale in a different country, the study of revenge in a different country, as well as the psychological aspects mentioned by the authors in the introduction, which ends with the objective of this work. In my opinion, there is a logical progression throughout the introduction. They show the importance of the theme and what is known about it. The study group will be analyzed more thoroughly in the methods; however, it seems appropriate to me (similar to the one used by the authors on the original vengeance scale in Canada). The objectives proposed in the introduction appear later in the conclusions (there is corroboration) and there are no new concepts in that part. The references throughout the introduction are all referenced. In general, to me, it seems very clear, concise and easy to understand. The conceptualization is well constructed and derives from several - but relevant - factors associated with vengeance.

The subjects in this study were recruited from different university courses (Psychology, Engineering, Law and Sociology), consisting of 133 males and 244 females, therefore representing a population of university students - similar to the sample in the original study by Stuckless and Goranson (1992). This sample can hardly be generalized to other groups, but it can be compared between university students. The subjects that are part of the sample were all counted in the study, and 70 of them were part of a re-test later on. The authors ensured the validity of the analysis due to the sample being “wide enough”. In order to validate the instrument, the authors chose instruments that measure similar variables, which in fact may be useful for convergent validity (Vengeance Scale, State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory and the Big Five Questionnaire). In addition, they measured social desirability to measure the tendency of individuals to give a distorted image of themselves. As I said, a re-test was carried out after 2 months and in addition to the anonymity of the participants (to obtain sincere answers), the reliability of the data was also ensured. The study is likely to be replicated, but it would also be interesting to generalize the sample, not only focusing on university students.

At first glance, the results section in this article seems well organized and clear. The authors started by exposing the mean of the scale and the standard deviation. Subsequently, they tested the instrument's reliability. Regarding to validity, the authors have placed some tables that are relevant, with appropriate units. For all of them, they put succinct explanatory titles, and correctly labeled columns and rows. They used complete words and not abbreviations, and all tables are understandable when isolated. The order in which the tables appear seems logical to me too. Throughout the text, the authors refer (according to the results in the tables) which are the statistically significant results in each of the tables (correlations, regressions, etc.). This makes the interpretation of the results easier and leaves no room for doubt. Finally, they proceeded to confirmatory factor analysis. In this section, I don't feel so comfortable commenting, it is not something I have done in previous works. The fact that they changed the items for the second model to fit the necessary requirements is a little controversial, but I can't gauge anything else. However, the use of figures in this part is positive and, once again, the authors explained very well what they wanted. Finally, they performed a test-retest of reliability after two months, with a sample of 70 students, as they had already stated in the methods.

In this section, the authors began by describing the purpose of the work proposed in the introduction, followed by the result of that objective. After this first approach, they enumerated a variety of authors (already mentioned in the introduction) whose investigations converged in some way with the results obtained in this work - mainly the psychoanalytic ones. Thus, the discussion coincided with the data obtained by the authors and also with the bibliography collected by them. The fact that this is an implementation of a scale in a different country, seems to be a very relevant and important study. The authors managed to obtain important results and, even in a different country, they managed to reach similar conclusions from other investigations. There are limitations evidenced in this study and that the authors were also able to perceive. Right from the start, the sample - made up only of university students. However, I understood the authors wanted to follow the same line as the authors responsible for creating the Vengeance Scale. In addition to this, as the authors also reported, the evidence of concurrent validity is based on correlations made up of data based on hypothetical and self-reported situations. However, this limitation is also perceived due to the complexity of revenge. The authors mentioned several ideas for future research in the last part of the conclusions - linking revenge with other dimensions, such as temperament, fear of punishment or depression. In addition to these interesting ideas, I found it very pertinent to have a work similar to this one, but whose sample is generalized. Motivations for people to get revenge also seem to be an interesting topic, as is the relationship with other personality traits, such as psychopathy and narcissism. It is undoubtedly a very enriching and useful work for future research, especially a theme that is increasingly being developed and studied. It is another validation for the use of this scale. In my opinion, the conclusion follows a logical order, well written, very clear, and without exaggeration. The authors went through the results succinctly, connected with the existing literature (present in the introduction), presented limitations of the work and, finally, spoke about some very interesting topics to be studied in the future.