Trauma-Informed School Strategies for SEL and ACE Concerns during COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting review and very important conclusions and strategies (plan of action) to be applied in schools

But:

1. Metodology is not well explained. How was the BB review conducted? Obviously that it was not exhaustive but how was defined which studies to chose? which key words were used? This is important to be clarified in order to be sure that there are no bias
2. Each study reviewed is presented one by one what means a patchwork. It will be enriching to identify crucial issues (that are key to build the strategies) and then discuss them together comparing before and after pandemics 
3. the abstract should be more informative with results and most important strategies

Author Response

• COMMENT: “Met[h]odology is not well explained. How was the BB review conducted? Obviously that it was not exhaustive but how was defined which studies to cho[o]se? which key words were used? This is important to be clarified in order to be sure that there are no bias”

•    RESPONSE: We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for the recommendation to share details pertaining to how the review was conducted. To address this comment, we have outlined which keywords and databases were searched. These changes may be viewed in lines 38–44 of the manuscript.

 

• COMMENT: “Each study reviewed is presented one by one what means a patchwork. It will be enriching to identify crucial issues (that are key to build the strategies) and then discuss them together comparing before and after pandemics”
• RESPONSE: We appreciate this constructive feedback. The logic for presenting some of the research findings in this fashion was to organize results in chronological order of when data was collected during the pandemic. In response to this recommendation, we identified key issues discussed in the reviewed articles and added a summarizing sentence to help blend the reviewed findings. These revisions may be reviewed in lines 174–176 of the manuscript.

 

• COMMENT: “[T]he abstract should be more informative with results and most important strategies”
• RESPONSE: We agree with the recommendation to add more information concerning the results and specific trauma-informed strategies in the abstract. These edits are reflected in lines 16–19 of the manuscript. Additionally, we would like to note that the revised version of the abstract is within the journal’s specified word limit.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “Trauma-Informed School Strategies for SEL and ACE Concerns 2 during COVID-19”

I believe that this article addresses an educational problem of interest to the scientific community. Therefore, I consider the topic selected as novel.

The research topic is important and findings have potentially implications for both research and psychological practice. Likewise, the theoretical framework is very well structured.

Searching is a critical part of conducting a systematic review and in this study, I consider that the keywords have been used correctly.

After closely reviewing this manuscript I find that only minor clarifications are required.

 

1. Abstract should include all conclusions indicated in the paper.
2. Please, review the format tables according normative.
3. I recommend to broaden the future research line, for instance, indicating why this proposal could be interesting and what contributions would provide.

 

Author Response

• COMMENT: “Abstract should include all conclusions indicated in the paper.”
• RESPONSE: We appreciate and agree with this suggestion to indicate specific conclusions and trauma-informed strategies in the abstract. A similar comment was recommended by Reviewer 1. Changes to the abstract may be viewed in lines 16–19 of the manuscript.

• COMMENT: “Please, review the format tables according normative.”
• RESPONSE: For this comment, we wish to ask Reviewer 2 for clarification as there are not any tables in the manuscript.
• COMMENT: “I recommend to broaden the future research line, for instance, indicating why this proposal could be interesting and what contributions would provide.”
• RESPONSE: We appreciate the suggestion to expand the future directions section of the manuscript. These revisions may be reviewed in lines 169–172 of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your article. 

Author Response

• COMMENT: [No revisions requested]
• RESPONSE: We thank Reviewer 3 for reviewing our manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I feel that the corrections are enough to publish