The Characteristics of Teacher Training with Social Impact to Overcome School Violence: A Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented work conducts a study on previous research related to teacher training and its impact on improving school climate and other socio-educational outcomes. Only studies published entirely in English are included, a criterion that reduces the sample size and could be reconsidered, as only 13 studies were examined based on the criteria established by the researchers. The consistency and thoroughness of the review process are not explicitly stated.
The CHIP framework was employed, and during the selection process using Covidence, a PRISMA flow diagram was created. It would have been beneficial to display the percentages of selected and excluded studies according to the criteria.
It would be interesting to provide more details regarding the specifics of teacher training and its duration, as well as the teachers' acceptance of diversity and its potential consequences on the school climate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, “The Characteristics of Teacher Training with Social Impact to Overcome School Violence: A Literature Review”. This work reviews an important topic and offers valuable knowledge regarding teachers’ training on school violence.
The manuscript is well-written and does not need improvements to meet academic standards. I strongly recommend the publication of this article, and I have no substantial concerns regarding the manuscript in general. The following are some minor suggestions that the authors could consider.
The introduction is quite short and, in my opinion, fails to show readers the importance of the subject area. Also, much of the discussion is about bullying whereas school violence is beyond that.
The Discussion is “ok” but should be expanded by adding more information and comments. Given its importance, it should include more personal remarks by the Authors.
Overall, this is a very nice work - thank you again for the opportunity to review it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your work.
This is a topic that is always of great interest. I have tried to make some considerations that I hope you will find helpful.
Some of them, such as the percentage relationship between the number of results obtained in the search and the number of papers that have finally been selected, can be considered for future works.
Others, such as the review of the objective of the research with clear reference to the dimensions of analysis or the inclusion of literature reviews on the topic in the introduction section (state of the art). I believe can improve your work.
I think it may be necessary to unify the discussion and conclusion sections in a single section.
The research question should be answered explicitly in this section, and limitations and proposals for future lines of research that derive directly from this work should be included.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, I appreciate that you have been able to take the proposed changes into consideration.
In my opinion, there has been an increase in the coherence of the work. The research questions are answered in the discussion and conclusion sections.
They have classified the works according to typologies. Thank you for considering this aspect (systematic reviews, quantitative and qualitative works). Identifying effect size for quantitative data and analysis categories for qualitative data remains for future work.
