The manuscript describes a study that aimed to present evidence of structural validity of the short version of the Big Five Inventory for Brazil. The study is relevant, as short versions of widely used personality scales are increasingly necessary for investigating nomological networks of psychological constructs. Nevertheless, some points of attention in the article need to be highlighted.
The literature cited is relatively old, considering an area of research that is quite active and productive. There are no articles from the past five years and few from the past ten years. Structural validity, reliability, and convergent validity articles from the 44-item version of BFI were included. However, psychometric studies with reduced versions of BFI for other countries were not cited, such as:
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of research in Personality, 41 (1), 203-212.
Engvik, H., & Clausen, S. E. (2011). Norsk kortversjon av big five inventory (BFI-20). Tidsskrift for norsk psykologforening, 48 (9), 869-872.
Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2012). Short measurements of personality – Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research in Personality, 46 (3), 355-359.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory – 2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69-81.
The inclusion of these studies would allow the comparison of the psychometric properties of the reduced version proposed by the authors with the other existing ones. This would bring more depth to discuss the results and more clear contributions of the present study to the field. In this sense, the contribution of the present study is not clear. Authors need to work better on this part of the manuscript, making it clear what gap the study fills.
In addition, the current trend in the area of psychometry is not to present only evidence of validity of the internal structure of the instruments, since the existing statistical methods and techniques are varied and there are rare cases in which the theoretical structure of the instrument is not confirmed . Therefore, the presentation of the relationship with external variables, other instruments measuring similar constructs or even evidence of temporal stability are highly recommended. Without this, the article drastically reduces its contributions to the field. 
It is not clear whether the data collection was in person or online and what procedures were adopted in the study. In addition, ethical procedures must be described. How did the authors deal with missing values to the scale? 
The authors need to quote a reference to support the statement: "The translation of the BFI from its English version to Portuguese-Brazilian was carried out by a panel of three bilingual psychologists." This statement is not clear. Did the authors of the present work carry out the translation? Was only the translation done? What other adaptation procedures recommended by AERA have been carried out? 
The authors need to explain the reasons why they chose not to use parallel analysis results for factor retention as a basis for their decision. On what references is this decision based? Parallel analysis provides much more reliable and insightful results when it comes to factor retention than eigenvalues (Kaiser criterion). [Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational research methods, 7(2), 191-205]. 
It would be important for the authors to justify the reason why they chose to use exploratory instead of confirmatory factor analysis or ESEM, since the structure of the instrument is widely known. 
Table 1 is unformatted. Check this out, please.
Caution is suggested when interpreting the internal consistency coefficients that were found for both versions of BFI as satisfactory.
In addition, Cronbach's alpha is influenced by the size of the instrument and does not consider the factor loadings of the items. Also, there is an ongoing debate about the use of alpha for Likert type rating response scales because alpha assumes that the item responses are continuous (Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. Journal of modern applied statistical methods, 6(1), 4; Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology). Why did the authors choose to use Cronbach's alpha? Additional explanations are needed considering the objectives of the study.
It was not clear whether the sample in study 2 was different from that in study 1.
Column 1 of each factor in Table 4 refers to what?
It is suggested that the correlations between the dimensions of the two versions of the instrument are presented as a convergent validity strategy.
The discussion should incorporate more studies with short versions and point out the real contribution of the present study. Can the reduced version of BFI presented be used as is?
How do the results found contribute to the literature?
References need to consider APA sixth or seventh edition standards.
