The Road Safety Education Program for Adolescents Using Social Media, Proving Increasing Knowledge, Beliefs, Attitudes, Intentions and Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately, the Zainafree program is not well known in the scientific community. The authors should better explain what it is by providing links that also allow to understand the nature of the material (brochures, questionnaires, multimedia material) provided to the students selected for the experimental survey.
The subsections of paragraph 2 are numbered incorrectly (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.1 again). They must be numbered as follows: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.
In the last column of Table 4, the parameter "ETA Squared" is incorrectly given as "ETA Square". Also in row 204, this parameter is referred to as R2. The authors should correct the errors and unify the names of the parameters used.
Why does the heading of the penultimate column of table 4 say "Multivariat"? What is meant by this?
In lines 208 to 228, the Zainafree program is once again described in an almost identical way as in paragraph 2. The aforementioned lines are therefore superfluous and should be deleted.
The conclusions are too meager, as they are limited to briefly describing the limitations of the research. In a research paper, the conclusions must summarize the study conducted and, if any, reaffirm the practical utility of the study itself and the interest for the scientific community. None of this is evident from the authors' very brief conclusions.
Author Response
Thank you for your review of our manuscript. Hereby our answer to each of your poits. Please see the attachment in the box.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with an interesting subject, dealing with evaluating the effectiveness of several variables of a road safety education scheme. The methodology is simple yet appropriately applied. The results look promising, and provide insights from a less researched country. There are some issues in the present form of the paper that must be addressed before publication, mainly to address a need for more clarifications for the readers.
- In the abstract and manuscript, why is R2 reported at the tens range?
- Judging by the Introduction, this could be a Covid-19 analysis paper, which is not the case. The authors are urged to set the scene more generally and mention Covid after this is complete, in a less focused manner.
- The RTA acronym should be defined at the first instance it is used in the Introduction, and then it should be used exclusively (e.g. lines 40, 42, 48).
- On lines 50-53, the claim that Covid-19 had no impact on the road safety levels of Semarang is unverifiable by the reader without also providing the data of earlier years, or, better yet, a graph depicting the annual records.
- On line 70, the authors should provide a brief outline of what the ‘Police Goes to School’ program involves.
- On lines 99-100, the term ‘receive socialization’ is unclear and needs clarification. Similarly, the process outlined on lines 112-118 is completely unclear for the reader. What was the assessment carried out? How was it conducted, and how were the criteria assessed?
- Again, on lines 141-142, what is the basis of this statement? How was this questionnaire tested? Are there any relevant references?
- On line 146 it is mentioned that “The independent variable is Zainafree program.” Does this refer to a binary format for this variable corresponding to before-after application, or something else? Please clarify.
- Regarding the results presented in Section 3.1, what were the demographics of the respondents? At the very least Age and Gender should be reported and verified before stating that the intervention and control groups are homogeneous.
- A short description of the Mann Whitney Test should be provided for the unfamiliar readers.
- The English language needs some revisions throughout the paper and in the abstract to avoid small mistakes and to make the text flow more naturally.
- The sub-headings of Section 2 need correction (e.g. 2.1…).
- After Conclusions, template text needs to be deleted.
Author Response
Thank you for your review of our manuscript. Hereby our answer to each of your points. Please see the attachment in the box.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Very interesting project, and how to engage with adolescents, congrats for that!
Please see below some comments in order to improve your paper.
1) Method section, please specify the Likert scale used. Also you should explain the dependent variables what they mean and why you choose those variables?
2)Also should be interesting to show some material examples applied to students, or images of the interventions with then, and the tik tok videos, for example.
3)Also add the questionnaire applied to students as a supplementary material.
4)Why in table 2 the scale of variables attitudes and behaviors are different from the other variables?
Kind Regards! :)
Author Response
Thank you for your review of our manuscript. Hereby our answer to each of your points. Please see the attachment in the box.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
...
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor revision completed
The authors have taken into account most of the previous comments and they have addressed them efficiently and satisfactorily. The only minor comment pending is the following:
On line 146 it is mentioned that “The independent variable is Zainafree program.” The reviewer is not asking what the Zainafree program is, but how it was treated mathematically in the models. Was it treated as having a binary format (0-1), more levels with an integer (e.g. 1-2-3) or something else? Please clarify.
If the above is clarified, the paper would be ready for publication and should therefore be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, I think you could have present the program examples with more images and that you could present your questionnaire, because this for sure would increase the possibility of your paper to have more citation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for responding to the previous comments. The paper appears to be ready for publication and can therefore be accepted.
