Practices and Awareness of Disinformation for a Sustainable Education in European Secondary Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and relevant paper that tackles the urgent challenge of disinformation in educational contexts from a digital literacy perspective. One of its key strengths lies in the broad and diverse sample across six European countries, which allows for meaningful comparative insights. The study is methodologically solid, with appropriate use of nonparametric analyses and ethical safeguards clearly in place. The structure is clear and the findings are well-articulated. That said, I would suggest a few minor improvements that could enhance the manuscript further.

First, it would be helpful to include the specific period during which the data collection took place.

Second, I recommend clarifying how the sample was recruited—particularly the criteria or strategy used to select the participating schools and individuals—which would strengthen the methodological transparency of the study.

Third, the paper would benefit from including examples of the questionnaire items, either as an appendix or within the main text. Relatedly, it would be important to indicate whether the items used were adapted from validated instruments or developed ad hoc, and if any pilot testing or expert validation was conducted prior to data collection.

Fourth, the results section could be made more concise by summarizing repeated percentages through aggregated tables or figures.

Finally, the discussion might be enriched by engaging with more recent literature on algorithmic misinformation and deepfakes in educational environments.

These are all minor issues that do not undermine the overall quality of the paper, which I consider to be a valuable contribution.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, suggestions and feedback. You will find a response to each point you have highlighted below, along with the lines where you can locate the changes. You can also check all the improvements added in red in the final version of the article.

Comments 1: First, it would be helpful to include the specific period during which the data collection took place.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with this comment. The specific period has been added at the end of the section 2. Materials and Methods (lines 252-253). [Data were collected from July to October 2024, at the most convenient time for educational centers involved]

Comments 2: Second, I recommend clarifying how the sample was recruited—particularly the criteria or strategy used to select the participating schools and individuals—which would strengthen the methodological transparency of the study.

Response 2: We absolutely agree with this suggestion and it has been added in the section 2. Materials and Methods. Changes can be checked lines 199-205. [This research is part of the WISE-ME European project, which aims to promote the responsible use of social media in the fight against disinformation and fake news. The project is a collaboration between six countries: These are Spain, Greece, the Czech Republic, Austria, Denmark and Bulgaria. Students and teachers participating in the project were selected using a convenience sampling method. Each partner contacted one or two educational centers interested in participating, as the project's objective was commitment rather than representativeness. The only requirement was that they were secondary education centers interested in taking part in the initial planning and final piloting process. A total of 166 teachers and 1,186 students participated, with ages ranging from 12 to 18]

Comments 3: Third, the paper would benefit from including examples of the questionnaire items, either as an appendix or within the main text. Relatedly, it would be important to indicate whether the items used were adapted from validated instruments or developed ad hoc, and if any pilot testing or expert validation was conducted prior to data collection.

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate this insightful observation. The Materials and Methods section now more accurately describes the development and validation of the instrument, including the items from the questionnaire in Table 1 (in red). The double-step process (with an expert group and the statistical validation) has been added and explained in a more accurate manner. Changes can be checked lines 219-231.

Comments 4: Fourth, the results section could be made more concise by summarizing repeated percentages through aggregated tables or figures.

Response 4: We are particularly grateful for the reviewer's feedback. In this case, we are unsure what the reviewer means by 'summarising repeated percentages through aggregated tables or figures' to make the text more concise. In addition to the three tables and five figures included in the Results section, additional comments have been included to provide a more in-depth explanation of the results to make them easier to understand. The results section has been improved (lines 332–338, 346–349 and 331–33).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a relevant and timely contribution by examining the intersection of digital literacy and disinformation among secondary school teachers and students as part of a European project. The empirical design and sample size are extensive and valuable in providing an account of the views and behaviours of two important stakeholder groups in education. However, a few manuscript changes were recommended to improve its clarity, structure, and theoretical contributions.

To start, the numbering of the sections in the paper needs to be standardized. Specifically, the Introduction has sections that are inconsistently numbered, making the article even less formally readable. Next, the Introduction is overlong and all-encompassing; it intermingles contextual framing, theoretical ideas, and some methodological aspects. Given this, I would recommend that the Introduction be reduced and a new section solely focused on a literature review be included as a separate section. It would be worth noting that there is no literature review in the paper, and this lack of a literature review presents a weak theoretical basis for the research work. A coherent and critical literature review should be developed to set up the key constructs under investigation (e.g., disinformation, media literacy, digital competence) to contextualize the research in the larger academic conversation and show where the current study attempts to plug a gap.

Even though there are numerous references cited throughout the manuscript, they are not organized into a collective theoretical background. The article, could be improved with an explicit framework that organizes preceding turning studies' research hypotheses and conceptual models. This also allows the authors to justify the originality and add value to their research. The findings were informative and would have been more connected analytically to prior literature. Many findings, particularly the relatively higher level of awareness among minors, could be interpreted more critically about previous studies. Where do the findings conform with or differ from earlier research? What new knowledge does this paper add to digital education and the battle against disinformation?

Also, I feel the discussion and conclusion could be improved by more clearly emphasizing how this study has real-world relevance. The authors should explain better how the results can contribute to educational practice, curriculum design, and school policies. In particular, the brief reference to the Erasmus+ project platform and chatbot could be revealed more fully as the empirical data from the research has benefited and informed these outputs. Such a focus would provide further usefulness of the study to the author's intended audience, including educators, school leaders, digital literacy educators and policymakers.

From a stylistic perspective, the manuscript could deal with some fairly light copyediting. Generally speaking, English is fairly straightforward to understand, but the language features some unnecessarily complex sentence structure and redundant phrases in some places. Simplifying the language in some places would also improve readability and access to the paper for the reader. Similarly, the figures and tables should be labelled and formatted more clearly, and their captions should give a clear account of what is being shown to make the information easy for the reader to access. The referencing style should be examined for consistency in format, including DOIs when possible, and ensure that the in-text citations and final bibliography link correctly.

In sum, this is a worthwhile and promising study that engages a significant issue in education today. The suggested edits do not require a significant change in the research design or findings, but rather enhance the overall manuscript structure, theoretical integration, and messaging. With these enhancements to the article, the manuscript will contribute to the academic literature on sustainable education, digital competence, and combating misinformation in digitally mediated learning environments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is understandable and grammatically sound; however, some expressions are overly complex and may obscure meaning. A light language edit is recommended to enhance clarity and fluency.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, suggestions and feedback. You will find a response to each point you have highlighted below, along with the lines where you can locate the changes. You can also check all the improvements added in red in the final version of the article.

Comments 1: To start, the numbering of the sections in the paper needs to be standardized. Specifically, the Introduction has sections that are inconsistently numbered, making the article even less formally readable.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out; it was certainly confusing. The section now makes more sense with the correct numbering in place. Lines 83 (2. State of affairs), 84 (2.1. Disinformation and fake news), 126 (2.2. Minors and social media).

Comment 2: Next, the Introduction is overlong and all-encompassing; it intermingles contextual framing, theoretical ideas, and some methodological aspects. Given this, I would recommend that the Introduction be reduced and a new section solely focused on a literature review be included as a separate section. It would be worth noting that there is no literature review in the paper, and this lack of a literature review presents a weak theoretical basis for the research work. A coherent and critical literature review should be developed to set up the key constructs under investigation (e.g., disinformation, media literacy, digital competence) to contextualize the research in the larger academic conversation and show where the current study attempts to plug a gap. Even though there are numerous references cited throughout the manuscript, they are not organized into a collective theoretical background. The article, could be improved with an explicit framework that organizes preceding turning studies' research hypotheses and conceptual models. This also allows the authors to justify the originality and add value to their research.

Response 2: We are truly grateful for the constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. In accordance with the recommendations proffered by the reviewer, a new section has been incorporated (2. State of affairs (line 83)) with the objective of facilitating enhanced comprehension through the exclusive utilization of a literature review. As is evident from the following lines, the entire section has undergone a thorough review, with the key constructs being revised and clarified. The section has been restructured to facilitate a more profound contextual understanding among readers (Lines from 83 to 186).

Comments 3: The findings were informative and would have been more connected analytically to prior literature. Many findings, particularly the relatively higher level of awareness among minors, could be interpreted more critically about previous studies. Where do the findings conform with or differ from earlier research? What new knowledge does this paper add to digital education and the battle against disinformation?

Response 3: We concur with the perceptions and observations articulated by the reviewer. We have improved the Results section (lines 332-338; lines 346-349; lines 331-33) However, as it is customary in the appropriate structure of an academic paper, the critical interpretation of findings and their relation to earlier research have been incorporated into the discussion section. This approach is more convenient for an academic paper, and journal guidelines advise authors to do so.

Comment 4: Also, I feel the discussion and conclusion could be improved by more clearly emphasizing how this study has real-world relevance. The authors should explain better how the results can contribute to educational practice, curriculum design, and school policies. In particular, the brief reference to the Erasmus+ project platform and chatbot could be revealed more fully as the empirical data from the research has benefited and informed these outputs. Such a focus would provide further usefulness of the study to the author's intended audience, including educators, school leaders, digital literacy educators and policymakers.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate this insightful observation. The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been improved importantly (lines 405-425, 433–449 and 462-475). The results have been highlighted and discussed in relation to over fifteen previous works. The section now provides a more in-depth explanation of the soundness of the research.

Comment 5: From a stylistic perspective, the manuscript could deal with some fairly light copyediting. Generally speaking, English is fairly straightforward to understand, but the language features some unnecessarily complex sentence structure and redundant phrases in some places. Simplifying the language in some places would also improve readability and access to the paper for the reader. Similarly, the figures and tables should be labelled and formatted more clearly, and their captions should give a clear account of what is being shown to make the information easy for the reader to access. The referencing style should be examined for consistency in format, including DOIs when possible, and ensure that the in-text citations and final bibliography link correctly.

Response 5: We appreciate the valuable recommendations, suggestions and specific feedback from the reviewer. The manuscript has now been revised with fairly light copy-editing. The language has also been edited, and the structure and readability of the sentences have been enhanced by multiple changes, which can be seen throughout the manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in red for easier tracking of the improvements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find suggestions to improve the paper:

Title of the paper is too broad considering the limited research in the paper, so please revise the title to accurately capture its contents.

Please revise the introduction to clearly define the key concepts and explicitly identify the research problem and main questions, which the paper seeks to address. Additionally, please very clearly state the purpose and objectives of the paper. Finally, please include a brief outline of the paper’s structure at the end of the introduction, which would indicate the main topics that will be covered in the body of the text.

After the first section titled Introduction, two subsequent sections appear with the same number and title (3.1 - wrong numbers), though content differs and does not fall structurally in order. A section that would serve as a proper introduction to the main topic, which distinct from the general introduction to the paper, seems to be missing. This missing element is necessary to ensure a logical and coherent flow of the argument. As it stands, the paper feels disjointed and is difficult to follow. I strongly recommend revising the structure to ensure clarity, consistency in section numbering and titling, as well as the inclusion of a clear thematic introduction to the core subject matter.

Given that the paper focuses on disinformation specifically in the context of education, sections 3.1 which discuss disinformation in a broader but still insufficiently developed manner, appear largely irrelevant to the paper’s central theme.

To improve coherence and academic focus, I recommend revising all sections to ensure that only research directly relevant to the specific and narrow topic of the paper is included. The content should be clearly and logically connected to the core research question and objectives, and that general discussions that do not meaningfully contribute to the analysis at hand are avoided.

The fact that this paper represents a limited segment of a broader European research project is mentioned only briefly and not clearly integrated into the main text. To improve clarity and context, I recommend explicitly stating the name of the project and providing essential details, either in the abstract, the introduction or both. Additionally, it would strengthen the paper to include relevant references to the larger project within the body of the text, to help the reader understand how this contribution fits within the broader research framework. At present, the only mention of Erasmus+ appears in the funding section, which is not sufficient for contextualizing the scope of research in this paper. In connection with this, this paragraph lacks clarity: „The main purpose of our study is within this paradigm that the European project, in which this research is embedded, is situated. The primary objective of this project is to furnish teachers with  the necessary support to implement didactic designs in the classroom, utilizing specific materials that facilitate the utilization of social networks to combat misinformation“

The paper lacks a literature review section, including any explanation of the methodology used for selecting relevant sources. A focused review of prior research is essential to situate the current study within the existing academic discourse and to demonstrate how it builds upon or differs from earlier work. I recommend including a structured literature review that outlines key sources, explains their relevance and clarifies the criteria used for their selection.

Reference 20 (Standard Eurobarometer 98 – Winter 2022–2023) raises a red flag, as its content appears unrelated to the topic of the paper. Cited survey focuses on EU public opinion regarding the war in Ukraine, energy policy and inflation, with no clear connection to the subject of disinformation in the context of education.

I recommend very carefully reviewing and revising all references in the paper so as to ensure that they are directly relevant and accurately support the arguments made in the paper.  Furthermore, upon initial cursory checks, some references appear incomplete, some examples (e.g. title - ref. 45; names of authors –ref. 46)

Please revise the abstract, which should concisely present the key themes and objectives of the research, methodology used and main conclusions. Currently abstract lacks also a clear statement of the limitations of present research, which is essential to help readers immediately understand the scope and boundaries of the study, as well as its broader context within an ongoing European project.

Additionally, while the Data Availability Statement at the end of the paper notes that data is (“are”) unavailable due to privacy and ethical restrictions imposed by the project, this important limitation (one of the limitations of this research) should also be explicitly mentioned within the main text of the paper (ideally methodology section).

Final section of the paper (Discussion and Conclusions) is difficult to follow and lacks clarity in both content and structure. Despite best efforts, meaning and implications of the paragraph are not fully understandable, particularly because the limitations of the study are not clearly defined earlier in the paper. Additionally, the claim that findings are already being utilized (eg in the design of materials supported by a chatbot), raises questions, as there are no prior references or explanations of such applications in the main body of the paper. Without this context, the statements appear unsupported and disconnected.

I strongly recommend rewriting the conclusion to ensure it clearly and concisely restates the purpose of the research, summarizes the main arguments and key findings presented in the paper, explains the significance of those findings in relation to the original research question, acknowledges limitations of the study in a transparent manner. It should also outline next steps in the research (especially if this paper is part of a broader European project), which would help the reader understand how the current findings contribute to the larger context and future activities. Finally, claims regarding practical application, transferability and alignment with concepts such as "sustainable education" must be better supported by evidence and clearly connected to the rest of the paper. Vague or overly generalized statements should be avoided or rephrased for precision and relevance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be significantly improved throughout the paper for readability purposes. Also there is a limited number of grammatical errors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments, suggestions and feedback. You will find a response to each point you have highlighted below, along with the lines where you can locate the changes. You can also check all the improvements added in red in the final version of the article.

Comment 1: Title of the paper is too broad considering the limited research in the paper, so please revise the title to accurately capture its contents.

Response 1: We appreciate the insight. The title has been shortened in line with the suggestion. In addition, the new formulation reflects the paper's focus.

Comment 2: Please revise the introduction to clearly define the key concepts and explicitly identify the research problem and main questions, which the paper seeks to address. Additionally, please very clearly state the purpose and objectives of the paper. Finally, please include a brief outline of the paper’s structure at the end of the introduction, which would indicate the main topics that will be covered in the body of the text. After the first section titled Introduction, two subsequent sections appear with the same number and title (3.1 - wrong numbers), though content differs and does not fall structurally in order. A section that would serve as a proper introduction to the main topic, which distinct from the general introduction to the paper, seems to be missing. This missing element is necessary to ensure a logical and coherent flow of the argument. As it stands, the paper feels disjointed and is difficult to follow. I strongly recommend revising the structure to ensure clarity, consistency in section numbering and titling, as well as the inclusion of a clear thematic introduction to the core subject matter. Given that the paper focuses on disinformation specifically in the context of education, sections 3.1 which discuss disinformation in a broader but still insufficiently developed manner, appear largely irrelevant to the paper’s central theme.

Response 2: We are truly grateful for the constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. In accordance with the recommendations proffered by the reviewer the complete section has been improved and re written (lines 26-82).

Comment 4: To improve coherence and academic focus, I recommend revising all sections to ensure that only research directly relevant to the specific and narrow topic of the paper is included. The content should be clearly and logically connected to the core research question and objectives, and that general discussions that do not meaningfully contribute to the analysis at hand are avoided. The fact that this paper represents a limited segment of a broader European research project is mentioned only briefly and not clearly integrated into the main text. To improve clarity and context, I recommend explicitly stating the name of the project and providing essential details, either in the abstract, the introduction or both.

Response 4: We appreciate the valuable recommendations, suggestions and specific feedback provided by the reviewer. All sections have now been reviewed, as can be seen in the final version uploaded, where all added text can be found in red.

Comment 5: The paper lacks a literature review section, including any explanation of the methodology used for selecting relevant sources. A focused review of prior research is essential to situate the current study within the existing academic discourse and to demonstrate how it builds upon or differs from earlier work. I recommend including a structured literature review that outlines key sources, explains their relevance and clarifies the criteria used for their selection.

Response 5: We are pleased to follow reviewer suggestions. A new section has been incorporated (2. State of affairs) with the objective of facilitating enhanced comprehension through the exclusive utilisation of a literature review. As is evident from the following lines (lines 84-186), the entire section has undergone a thorough review, with the key constructs being revised and clarified. The section has been restructured to facilitate a more profound contextual understanding among readers.

Comment 6: Reference 20 (Standard Eurobarometer 98 – Winter 2022–2023) raises a red flag, as its content appears unrelated to the topic of the paper. Cited survey focuses on EU public opinion regarding the war in Ukraine, energy policy and inflation, with no clear connection to the subject of disinformation in the context of education.

Response 6: We appreciate the exhaustive revision by the reviewer. This was an error; the correct reference is now available: European Commission. Standard Eurobarometer 98. March 2023. Published in December 2023. Theme: Politics and the European Union: democracy. Available online: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2966 (accessed on 13 April 2025).

Comment 7: I recommend very carefully reviewing and revising all references in the paper so as to ensure that they are directly relevant and accurately support the arguments made in the paper.  Furthermore, upon initial cursory checks, some references appear incomplete, some examples (e.g. title - ref. 45; names of authors –ref. 46)

Response 7: We are truly grateful for the constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. All references have been carefully revised according to the guidelines of the journal.

Comment 8: Please revise the abstract, which should concisely present the key themes and objectives of the research, methodology used and main conclusions. Currently abstract lacks also a clear statement of the limitations of present research, which is essential to help readers immediately understand the scope and boundaries of the study, as well as its broader context within an ongoing European project.

Response 8: Comments are much appreciated in this regard. The abstract has been revised and completed, taking the reviewer's suggestions into consideration. As can be observed in the final version of the article many changes has been applied.

Comments 9: Final section of the paper (Discussion and Conclusions) is difficult to follow and lacks clarity in both content and structure. Despite best efforts, meaning and implications of the paragraph are not fully understandable, particularly because the limitations of the study are not clearly defined earlier in the paper. Additionally, the claim that findings are already being utilized (eg in the design of materials supported by a chatbot), raises questions, as there are no prior references or explanations of such applications in the main body of the paper. Without this context, the statements appear unsupported and disconnected.

Response 9: The receipt of reviewer feedback on this matter is greatly appreciated. In order to circumvent any potential ambiguity in the Discussion and Conclusions section, new content has been incorporated to provide enhanced elucidations of the findings and conclusions in the context of preceding studies (lines 404-450). Furthermore, the structure of the section has been organised according to the results section, as recommended by the reviewer. In addition, the assertion that the findings are already being utilised has been elucidated in a more precise manner, thereby providing the appropriate explanation, in response to the recommendations. This information has been derived from the study under consideration, with due consideration given to its limitations (see lines 462-475).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Teachers and Learners Facing Disinformation: Digital Literacy Challenges for a Sustainable Education with Technology.”

The paper presents a timely and engaging exploration of how secondary school students and teachers perceive and engage with digital disinformation, an increasingly critical issue today.

The study takes a novel approach by examining students’ awareness and capacity to recognize fake news, as well as their habits surrounding the consumption and dissemination of online content. With a robust sample, the study provides valuable insights. The use of an ad hoc questionnaire addressing three key dimensions (perceptions, emotions and practices, and knowledge/management of disinformation) offers depth and relevance to the findings.

The research goal is accurate. In the context of growing global concern about digital misinformation and its impact on education and democratic engagement, this work addresses a significant research gap. The inclusion of participants from multiple European countries strengthens the generalizability and relevance of the study. The aim aligns well with international educational priorities, such as those promoted by UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy framework.

The manuscript is of high quality and it is worthy of publication. Only a few minor revisions are suggested:

Recommendations:

Abstract: 
- Clarify the core findings more concisely in a line. If possible, include key numerical results to enhance precision and provide a clearer summary of outcomes.

Introduction:
- Consider condensing the historical background  to focus more on contemporary relevance. Also, note that Sections 3.1 and 3.2 currently have identical titles, please revise for clarity. 

Methods: 
- Summarize the structure of the questionnaire or consider moving it to an appendix. 
-The use of convenience sampling should be acknowledged more explicitly as a limitation.

Results: 
- Improve the use of visual elements: Figures 2 and 3 could display better the analysis and interpretation.

- Some textual descriptions could be replaced with charts or condensed tables to enhance readability and impact.

 Discussion: 
- Strengthen the discussion of what is novel in your findings. Consider triangulating with similar studies on social media use among teenagers, critical media literacy, and attitudes toward fake news.

Conclusion: 
- While the conclusion is sharped, it would benefit from a more critical reflection on the study's limitations and potential avenues for future research.

Thank you again for sharing this interesting work. I am looking forward to reading it in its final version.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments, suggestions and feedback. You will find a response to each point you have highlighted below, along with the lines where you can locate the changes. You can also check all the improvements added in red in the final version of the article.

Comment 1: Abstract: - Clarify the core findings more concisely in a line. If possible, include key numerical results to enhance precision and provide a clearer summary of outcomes.

Response 1: We fully agree with the reviewer´s recommendation and have now added this information. The abstract has been rewritten according to suggestions and comments.

Comments 2: Consider condensing the historical background to focus more on contemporary relevance. Also, note that Sections 3.1 and 3.2 currently have identical titles, please revise for clarity. 

Response 2: Thank you for this constructive comment. We have revised the entire introduction, making important changes to provide a more insightful understanding of the context and theoretical framework. The section has been divided into 'Introduction' and 'State of Affairs'. The structure is now more accurate.

Comments 3: - Summarize the structure of the questionnaire or consider moving it to an appendix. -The use of convenience sampling should be acknowledged more explicitly as a limitation.

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate this insightful observation. The Materials and Methods section now more accurately describes the development and validation of the instrument, including the items from the questionnaire in Table 1 (in red). The double-step process (with an expert group and the statistical validation) has been added and explained in a more accurate manner. Changes can be checked lines: 199-203; and 219-231.

Comments 4: Improve the use of visual elements: Figures 2 and 3 could display better the analysis and interpretation- Some textual descriptions could be replaced with charts or condensed tables to enhance readability and impact.

Response 4: We appreciate the valuable recommendations, suggestions and specific feedback provided by the reviewer. For a better readability of the impact of the data provided by figures 2 and 3, explanatory comments have been added to help to better understand the results provided. Added lines: 333-339 and 346-349.

Comments 5: Strengthen the discussion of what is novel in your findings. Consider triangulating with similar studies on social media use among teenagers, critical media literacy, and attitudes toward fake news. - While the conclusion is sharped, it would benefit from a more critical reflection on the study's limitations and potential avenues for future research.

Response 5: We are truly grateful for the constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. According to reviewer´s comments we have triangulated with similar studies on social media use among teenagers and young people and their attitudes towards disinformation. In fact, several new references related has been added. In addition, more critical reflection on the study's limitations and potential avenues for future research has been implemented (lines 404-425; lines 433-448; lines 462-475).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for revising the manuscript in line with the previous comments.  Please find below a few remaining remarks, which are important to address to ensure the overall quality and clarity of your paper.

Please correct the title to accurately reflect contents (findings) of this paper. There is a grammatical error (“threaten” is a verb) – same issue is present in the Discussion and Conclusions section. Currently the new title is unclear (what is a threat?). Title is also still too vague and broad (unspecific) in relation to actual contents of this study/paper.

Your abstract should briefly state the research problem, objectives, methods, key findings and main conclusions. It should help readers quickly understand the relevance and contribution of your work. A strong abstract is essential for guiding readers, reviewers and indexers in deciding whether to engage with your full article.

While a brief reference to limitations of your study appears in the Discussion and Conclusions section, for methodological transparency please include a more detailed (though not necessarily lengthy) dedicated section or sub-section on study limitations. This will help the readers to clarify the scope and applicability of your findings.

Please re-check and correct numbering of all sub-sections in the paper. For example, all sub-sections under title 4 (Results), such as 3.1. (Perceptions of disinformation in terms of creation, associations and distribution, must be corrected (to 4.1).

It is recommended that after addressing these new reviewer remarks, the authors also re-check the entire paper in light of all earlier comments. This is to ensure that all improvements are consistently applied throughout the paper.

Please carry out a thorough review of the paper for clarity, grammar and overall English language quality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please carry out a thorough review of the paper for clarity, grammar and overall English language quality

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments, suggestions and feedback. You will find a response to each point you have highlighted below. You can also check all the improvements added in red in the final version of the article.

Comments 1: Please correct the title to accurately reflect contents (findings) of this paper. There is a grammatical error (“threaten” is a verb) – same issue is present in the Discussion and Conclusions section. Currently the new title is unclear (what is a threat?). Title is also still too vague and broad (unspecific) in relation to actual contents of this study/paper.

Response 1: We really appreciate the suggestion we certainly tried a new version more closed to the study presented.

Comments 2: Your abstract should briefly state the research problem, objectives, methods, key findings and main conclusions. It should help readers quickly understand the relevance and contribution of your work. A strong abstract is essential for guiding readers, reviewers and indexers in deciding whether to engage with your full article.

Response 2: We totally agree with reviewer´s suggestion. Indeed, the abstract now follows the reviewer suggested structure:

Research problem: The increased use of technological tools by teachers and learners has resulted in a heightened awareness of global risks, including the dissemination of disinformation. This awareness is crucial for ensuring the well-being of the population, especially teenagers. Cultivating awareness enables individuals to recognize potential hazards, thereby empowering them to protect themselves and advocate for change

Objectives: This study, which forms part of a European project, aims to analyze the current state of awareness among secondary school students (12 to 17) and their teachers. Differences between both are analyzed in how they deal with disinformation in terms of perceptions, feelings -practices, and knowledge-management.

Methods: A quantitative approach was adopted, with the study reaching 1,186 minors and 166 teachers. The analysis was based on the comparison of results from independent samples (Group 1= students; Group 2= teachers). Non-parametric statistics will be employed in this study. The Mann-Whitney U statistic will be used as the appropriate measure for the comparison of independent samples with a non-normal sample distribution (p < 0.05).

Key findings: The results were surprising in that they highlighted that minors were more expert than expected in their use of technology and their awareness of the risks of disinformation.

Conclusions: Conclusions make it clear that using technological tools has the potential to raise awareness of the dangers of disinformation but remains a threat.

Comments 3: While a brief reference to limitations of your study appears in the Discussion and Conclusions section, for methodological transparency please include a more detailed (though not necessarily lengthy) dedicated section or sub-section on study limitations. This will help the readers to clarify the scope and applicability of your findings.

Response 3: According to the reviewer's comments, a specific sentence has been added to clarify the scope and application of the findings.

Comments 4: Please re-check and correct numbering of all sub-sections in the paper. For example, all sub-sections under title 4 (Results), such as 3.1. (Perceptions of disinformation in terms of creation, associations and distribution, must be corrected (to 4.1).

Response 4: The highlighted mistake is much more appreciated, and has now been corrected.

Comments 5: It is recommended that after addressing these new reviewer remarks, the authors also re-check the entire paper in light of all earlier comments. This is to ensure that all improvements are consistently applied throughout the paper.

Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion, which was certainly necessary in light of all the changes made to improve the quality of the article. As you can see in the new version, the entire text has been edited and is marked in red. The paper has undergone a thorough review for clarity, grammar, and overall English language quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf