Cyberbullying: Education Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comment 1: New topic article, in addition to having delved into the magazines where you can find better information on the problem of cyberbullying.

 

Comment 2: A clearer conclusion of the analysis is missing. For future research, a section of conclusions is recommended to the authors.

 

Comment 3: The use of other databases is recommended, as well argued by the authors, for future research. Personally, I would recommend a crossover study between several databases in order to better refine the results, since, in the way which they are being treated, it is reduced to a single database such as Scopus, which greatly restricts the information

Author Response

Consulte el archivo adjunto

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I find it a very interesting work, very careful in the whole procedure and in the discussions. A well written and organised article with very strong bibliographical support. Easy to read and understand addressing a very important topic in the field. However, there are some aspects that I must highlight that I hope will improve your manuscript.

Title: 

I would recommend the authors to rephrase the title, as it is not clear what they are researching and to make it clearer for the reader. 

Theoretical framework:

The theoretical framework presented by the authors is supported by a current bibliography, however, I would recommend the authors to structure the theoretical framework in different sub-sections, this would help to give more sense to the theoretical framework and better access to the public-reader, since a general reading is ambiguous and it is not well understood what they analyse. In addition to making the sub-sections, it would complete with greater support from the literature. On the other hand, the authors describe the objective of the work, but it would be interesting for the authors to apply the hypothesis of the study at the end of the theoretical framework. 

Methodologically:

The authors have developed a bibliometric and content analysis analysis, in which they consider themselves correct in their procedure, as it is structured and complete. 

Discussion:

The conclusions correlate with the results obtained through the PRISMA methodology, and are well written. However, it would be interesting to structure it by extending the literature review of the theoretical framework, as it is interesting to compare the results obtained with the previous literature of their study. 

Conclusions and limitations:

The authors have not added a section on conclusions and limitations and prospective of this work/research, it would be interesting to include these sections in the study that would give a higher scientific quality to their study. 

Finally, I would like to thank the authors for their work, and I encourage them to make these changes that will make their study more scientific.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Consulte el archivo adjunto

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the paper does not represent the content of the study. Therefore I recommend author(s) to consider changing the topic of the paper at first. 

Secondly, the abstract must definitely be revised, and should include concrete results of the research. Introduction section can be enriched if author(s) can associate the concept of  cyberbullying with the field of education since the paper is submitted in the Education Sciences Journal. In addition to this the paper hardly claims  anything related to education and cyberbullying. 

The paper gives scientific information in a coherent manner and is suitable for academic publishing since the methodology is well enough to clarify the aims of the research. However, there should be a conclusion section which discusses the output of the research and gives concrete results of both bibliometric and content analysis instead of the discussion section of the paper. Author(s) may claim about the results of their research of cyberbullying in relation with educational science. 

Overall, the paper is quite interesting and could easly be revised to get published. Congrats for your valuable work!

Cyberbullying is written as "Ciberbulliying" in the topic of the article. There are very long sentences in the manuscript that makes it harder to read and comprehend for the average reader. Especially the aim of the study is defined in a six line sentence which should be revised and shortened. 

Other than that, there are many misuses of passive voice in the manuscript which makes the reading harder than usual. This brings into mind that the original manuscript was written in another language (maybe Spanish) and translated to English afterwards. I strongly recommend author(s) to get an English editorial service which might help to fix all language issues, including punctiation etc. , for the manuscript. 

As this research is a part of Secundri@ Digit@l project, author(s) may give reference to the project for any reader who wants to explore more about the study. 

 

Author Response

Consulte el archivo adjunto

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

With the development of the Internet, the number of cyberbullying is increasing, governments are constantly trying to reduce cyberbullying. From this perspective, the manuscript is of great practical significance. In addition, the author did a lot of work for the completion of the manuscript which can be found from the number of literature cited by the author. However, there are still some problems which need to be modified by the author.

1. The result section is not concise enough. Many figures and tables do not provide more useful information than the corresponding text section in this section. Therefore, it is suggested that the author carefully check this part and delete some pictures and tables. For example, I suggest authors directly put the contents of Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and figure 4 and figure 5 into the text section above;

2. Overall, the article is not deep enough. Of course, the author can discuss the characteristics of the current research on cyberbullying, but the author should not stop here, and should further explore other characteristics, contributions, and shortcomings of these research. Based on this, the author should also propose the future research direction in this field;

3.Authors should consider the role of socioeconomic status and psychological factors in cyberbullying.

4. Although the purpose of this manuscript is to analyze the existing relevant literature, it should not be the whole of the article. The author should also make more of his own voice, which is the value of the article.

5. There is an extra number in the first part of 49 to the last reference, and it is suggested that the author delete it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I think the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Education Sciences.