Is There a Single Profile of a Victim of Workplace Bullying? The Prevalence of Workplace Bullying in the Educational Sector in Spain and Its Consequences for Teachers’ Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate your study on this important topic. However, I have a number of concerns with the piece itself that would require revision or new analysis altogether.

1. What is WB rate in Spain compared to other countries? What about Spains educational system makes it ripe for this type of behavior? What if any are the cultural influences? What do institutions do about it? What policies are in place to help educators?

2. Who are the workers at risk and why are they at risk?

3. Hypotheses are not explained or conceptualized by theory. What is the rationale for these associations? What is the rate of female teachers to male teachers in Spain?

4. Only hypothesis 1 is supported and the percentage is fairly low. Remaining hypotheses are not supported, which is problematic given that there is no clear rationale provided to begin with.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor/moderate revisions are needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This manuscript describes a study where three study groups: Teachers who are victims of WB, Violent behaviors and Null or low violence were sampled. The sampling was based on who responded, with a response rate of 60%. The sampling process is skewed in this study and the conclusions drawn should reflect this. 75 % of respondents were women and any relationship to sex and workplace bullying is not valid.

 

Altogether there are three main hypotheses in the study with sub hypothesis in hypothesis 2 and 3.

 

The survey questions categories are not described, authors need not provide all the questions, but some idea of what was asked. The scale is described, as Mobbing-UNIPSICO scale (20 items) (α = .90) (Figueiredo-Ferraz et al. 2012; Gil-Monte et al. 2024). Were the questions and category same as these references. Please provide some description on what was asked.

Results show that null or low violence is seen in 85% of the participants. Workplace bullying is seen in 12 % and violence behaviour in 1.8 % of the participants. However, in the results section only WB is analysed and violent behaviour is not analysed is there any reason for this?

Each hypothesis should be addressed individually in the results section with corresponding data. For example, hypothesis 1, the other studies which were compared, in what industry were they conducted. These can be given in the form of a table for  easy understanding. It appears that the only Hypothesis 3.5. is supported with the results generated with correlation between education level and WB. Authors have not elaborated on this at all, they need to add to this and drill down into this.

Results must be better written out leading back to each of the hypothesis mentioned and more tables or charts should be included to make reading easy. P values should be included in the tables and an indication on which statistical test provided a significant p value. It is not clear to what parameter the significant p value is related. Is it correlation or differences in groups (sax, education, etc)

Discussion should have clear tie back to the results and the hypothesis.

In discussion, why does this study only have 12% WB how does this relate to the statement:

 

“ Another relevant aspect in this regard is the high prevalence figures of WB found in

studies conducted in Spain, obtaining figures exceeding 40% (Medical College Organiza-

tion [OMC 2017]), 70% (Topa and Moriano 2013), and even 80% (Domínguez et al. 2012;

Sánchez 2017) in healthcare professionals and over 50% in local police (Segurado et al.

2008).”

 

 

In conclusions, the results do not actually give any clear indication of this:

 

suggesting that interventions on WB in educational centers should be focused towards the

development of appropriate coping strategies against WB behaviors, rather than focusing

on socio-demographic and socio-labor variables.

 

Authors have to revise the conclusions this can be done once the results are clearly written.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be assessed in the final manuscript, some changes will be required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for incorporating the feedback. The new iteration has much more clarity and I appreciate the contextual information that is now included.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Very minor errors (e.g., comma usage)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In the revised manuscript the authors have explained clearly instruments used so that it is clear to the reader. They have also explained how the Likert scale was derived.

 

The results have been neatly tied back to the hypothesis, and this makes easy reading and understanding. Finally in the conclusions they have also tied back to the support or lack of support for the hypothesis based on their data and have explained why the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Additionally, they have written what are the gaps in this research and how future research can be designed to address the gaps and how these surveys and research will help to address workplace bullying among teachers in the future. The newly added references are valuable to this study.