Dialogic Model of Prevention and Resolution of Conflicts: Evidence of the Success of Cyberbullying Prevention in a Primary School in Catalonia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Line 26&27 "There is an abundant scientific literature...." . After such a straight statement, it would be great to provide some references.
2. It is still unclear (from results), what exactly methods or action plans, or algorithms and etc. were established and provided in Educational center for preventing cyberbullying and its consequences?
3. Discussion part could be more relevant to results. There is a lack of interpretation and should be extended by comparing with other similar researches.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 | Comments addressed |
1. Line 26&27 "There is an abundant scientific literature....". After such a straight statement, it would be great to provide some references. | We have added references as suggested: Athanasiou K, Melegkovits E, Andrie EK, Magoulas C, Tzavara CK, Richardson C, Greydanus D, Tsolia M, Tsitsika AK. Cross-national aspects of cyberbullying victimization among 14–17-year-old adolescents across seven European countries. BMC public health. 2018 Dec;18(1):800. Baldry AC, Farrington DP, Sorrentino A, Blaya C. Cyberbullying and cybervictimization. InInternational Perspectives on Cyberbullying 2018 (pp. 3-23). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Palladino BE, Menesini E, Nocentini A, Luik P, Naruskov K, Ucanok Z, Dogan A, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Hess M, Scheithauer H. Perceived severity of cyberbullying: differences and similarities across four countries. Frontiers in psychology. 2017 Sep 20;8:1524. |
2. It is still unclear (from results), what exactly methods or action plans, or algorithms and etc. were established and provided in Educational center for preventing cyberbullying and its consequences? | The dialogic model of prevention and resolution of conflicts is explained in more detail. See 214-225 |
3. Discussion part could be more relevant to results. There is a lack of interpretation and should be extended by comparing with other similar researches. | We have addressed this comment improving the discussion section. See 370-413 |
Reviewer 2 Report
Article Review Journal: IJERPH Dialogic Model of Prevention:….
Feedback: The article addresses an important issue about tackling cyberbullying in the school system with a methodology that involves participants at the time of the events.
Areas that need improvement 1. The paper needs to be checked for grammar and flow. 2. Material and Methods section: The first paragraph is confusing. This needs to be rewritten. 3. Authors need to be clear when they shift from the term cyberbullying to harassment and back. See lines 185, 186, 188 199. Is it that the school looks at harassment in general and the study on cyberbullying? Is it the way the school policy is written? Several sentences explaining why these terms are being used interchangeably needs to be provided. 4. Methods section: For the reader the methods need to be explained further. How were the three techniques actualized? Provide more detail. 5. Discussion and Conclusion section: This section is a conclusion. It is not a discussion section. The discussion section should link the findings (which are very interesting) back to the greater body of literature on cyberbullying.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 | Comments addressed |
Feedback: The article addresses an important issue about tackling cyberbullying in the school system with a methodology that involves participants at the time of the events. | Thank you for your comment. |
1. The paper needs to be checked for grammar and flow. | Done. |
2. Material and Methods section: The first paragraph is confusing. This needs to be rewritten. | We have improved this section. See lines 207-2013 |
3. Authors need to be clear when they shift from the term cyberbullying to harassment and back. See lines 185, 186, 188 199. Is it that the school looks at harassment in general and the study on cyberbullying? Is it the way the school policy is written? Several sentences explaining why these terms are being used interchangeably needs to be provided. | We have improved the manuscript considering this comment. We have introduced a clarification in the line 98-106. We have reviewed the coherence of the terms used and unified. |
4. Methods section: For the reader the methods need to be explained further. How were the three techniques actualized? Provide more detail. | We have provided more detail on the techniques used as suggested. See 241-254. |
5. Discussion and Conclusion section: This section is a conclusion. It is not a discussion section. The discussion section should link the findings (which are very interesting) back to the greater body of literature on cyberbullying. | We have created two sections: discussion and conclusion. We have improved the discussion one considering comments received. See 370-413. |
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. While the research study focuses on an extremely important topic: preventing cyberbullying among adolescents; there were areas where the manuscript could have been improved considerably before resubmission. As a result, I have recommended I have noted some of these issues below, along with general recommendations that might further strengthen the contribution and quality of this manuscript, either within this journal or elsewhere. Please feel free to incorporate these suggestions on board, as you see fit.
There were minor issues with grammar throughout, and sentence structure in some areas could be improved for clarity (see lines: 18; 26-27; 55-57; 96-98; 119-120)
Ideally the review of literature in the introduction could have been structured more clearly, and drawn upon a more comprehensive range of references to support ideas. In particular, the theoretical frameworks around 'socialisation of attractiveness to violence' along with the 'dialogic model of prevention' required more substantial elaboration, given that these were key elements of the present study
The key research objectives could be justified more strongly and clearly. In particular, lines 125-126 contradict lines 33-34 about the lack of community-focused prevention programs. Suggest rewording this, and more strongly emphasising the specific unique contributions of the present study, given that other similar research exists within this sphere
Likewise, further information is required in the methods section, particularly on key concepts such as 'the communicative method'. For instance, it would be good to distinguish how this is different from the regular interview design, and what the benefits or justifications are for using this specific method. Further description around the specific sample and data analysis procedures is also required here.
A sub-section on the ethical considerations and approval for this project is needed
The findings themselves are very brief and discussed in a somewhat shallow and limited manner. Quotations do not provide strong support for some of the claims being made (for instance, lines 217-219 - what does this mean and how is it supporting the previous claim?). Ideally, this section requires more work in terms of elaborating clearly on the key findings, and distinguishing findings from each other (there is some overlap of content).
Likewise, the discussion itself is very brief and does not link back to the main theoretical models (dialogical model; socialisation of attractiveness to violence) in any meaningful way
Suggest reconsidering 'limitation' around qualitative research (line 286). Qualitative research alone is not a limitation and can provide valuable insight into phenomena that may not always be possible using quantitative methods alone. The authors' view suggests that perhaps alternate methods should have been considered or a stronger justification presented for choosing the current methodological approach
Cyberbullying and (sexual) harassment used interchangeably throughout manuscripts, although they are conceptually (and legally) very different. Suggest rewording for clarity
Conflict of interest statement is missing and particularly important with funded research
All the best with your manuscript and future research endeavours!
Author Response
Reviewer 3 | Comments addressed |
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. While the research study focuses on an extremely important topic: preventing cyberbullying among adolescents; there were areas where the manuscript could have been improved considerably before resubmission. As a result, I have recommended I have noted some of these issues below, along with general recommendations that might further strengthen the contribution and quality of this manuscript, either within this journal or elsewhere. Please feel free to incorporate these suggestions on board, as you see fit. There were minor issues with grammar throughout, and sentence structure in some areas could be improved for clarity (see lines: 18; 26-27; 55-57; 96-98; 119-120) | Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the sentence structure and grammar issues pointed. |
Ideally the review of literature in the introduction could have been structured more clearly, and drawn upon a more comprehensive range of references to support ideas. In particular, the theoretical frameworks around 'socialisation of attractiveness to violence' along with the 'dialogic model of prevention' required more substantial elaboration, given that these were key elements of the present study | We have improved the structure of this section and explaining with more detail the two key concepts suggested. |
The key research objectives could be justified more strongly and clearly. In particular, lines 125-126 contradict lines 33-34 about the lack of community-focused prevention programs. Suggest rewording this, and more strongly emphasising the specific unique contributions of the present study, given that other similar research exists within this sphere. | We have corrected this sentence and we have added our three research questions to clarify our research objectives. See line 200-204.
|
Likewise, further information is required in the methods section, particularly on key concepts such as 'the communicative method'. For instance, it would be good to distinguish how this is different from the regular interview design, and what the benefits or justifications are for using this specific method. Further description around the specific sample and data analysis procedures is also required here. | We have improved the methods section considering comments suggested. |
A sub-section on the ethical considerations and approval for this project is needed | We have added a sub-section including the ethical criteria followed. See line 264-267 |
The findings themselves are very brief and discussed in a somewhat shallow and limited manner. Quotations do not provide strong support for some of the claims being made (for instance, lines 217-219 - what does this mean and how is it supporting the previous claim?). Ideally, this section requires more work in terms of elaborating clearly on the key findings, and distinguishing findings from each other (there is some overlap of content). | We have improved the results section considering the comments suggested. |
Likewise, the discussion itself is very brief and does not link back to the main theoretical models (dialogical model; socialisation of attractiveness to violence) in any meaningful way | We have improved the discussion one considering comments received. See 370-413. |
Suggest reconsidering 'limitation' around qualitative research (line 286). Qualitative research alone is not a limitation and can provide valuable insight into phenomena that may not always be possible using quantitative methods alone. The authors' view suggests that perhaps alternate methods should have been considered or a stronger justification presented for choosing the current methodological approach | We have modified this sentence considering this comment. See line 408-413. |
Cyberbullying and (sexual) harassment used interchangeably throughout manuscripts, although they are conceptually (and legally) very different. Suggest rewording for clarity | We have improved the manuscript considering this comment. We have introduced a clarification in the line 98-106. We have reviewed the coherence of the terms used and unified. |
Conflict of interest statement is missing and particularly important with funded research. All the best with your manuscript and future research endeavours!
| We have added this statement. Thank you. |
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your response and changes made to the manuscript, which have strengthened the overall contribution of this research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First, thank you for your comment, effort and collaboration. Regarding the comment:
"Thank you for your response and changes made to the manuscript, which have strengthened the overall contribution of this research. There are still some minor issues with grammar and syntax that will need to be addressed before the manuscript is accepted."
We have addressed these some minor issues with grammar and syntax in the new manuscript updated.
Best regards.