Anti-Bullying in the Digital Age: How Cyberhate Travels from Social Media to Classroom Climate in Pre-Service Teacher Programmes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is necessary to review the wording to ensure that the language is inclusive.
Reduce the key words to five.
I find particularly significant and novel in the article the section dedicated to the trivialization of evil, which is a decisive aspect for understanding the overwhelming expansion of cyberbullying, which has become one of the most pervasive and widespread perversions of the virtual world, and is in line with the populist discourse of necessary and inevitable evil that underlies the principles of fascist ideologies.
I also find it very powerful how the latest reflections published around the concept of otherness are handled in this context.
One line of research to explore based on the responses from the training teachers is the necessary mechanisms of training and self-reflection so that these teachers do not reproduce hate speech in the classroom.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments you provided. Your insights have been invaluable in improving the clarity, focus, and overall quality of the article.

In line with your recommendations, we have undertaken the following modifications:

1. Inclusive language: We carefully reviewed the wording throughout the manuscript to ensure that the language is consistently inclusive, precise, and respectful of diversity. This adjustment has improved both the accessibility and the ethical coherence of the text.

2. Keywords: As you suggested, the list of keywords has been reduced to five. We selected the most representative terms that best reflect the scope and focus of the article.

3. Trivialisation of evil and otherness: We greatly appreciate your recognition of the originality and importance of the section on the banality of evil. We strengthened this part by linking it more explicitly to the empirical data and to the reflections on otherness. This allows for a more integrated analysis of how apparently minor practices and discourses normalise exclusion and how, conversely, the recognition of otherness can reorient pedagogical practices towards inclusivity.

4. Future research: Following your suggestion, we incorporated a reflection in the conclusions regarding the need for mechanisms of training and self-reflection that help teachers avoid reproducing hate speech in classroom contexts. This line of research, which we consider highly relevant, has been highlighted as part of the agenda for further studies.

Once again, we thank you for your thorough and thoughtful review. Your feedback has significantly contributed to the refinement of our manuscript and to the strengthening of its theoretical and practical contributions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I note that the sections and points that are not indicated or commented on are correct.

The following sections could be improved:

Introduction:

It is important to clearly state the objectives in an explicit paragraph.

Participants:

-It is necessary to indicate the total number of participants.

- It is important to ensure that table describing the groups could be included.

Materials:

It seems appropriate to describe the axes and some of the questions as examples. The group guide, a matrix of codes, and definitions can be attached as supplementary support material.

Reliability:

In this regard, the coding, Cohen's κ or % agreement, and the version of Atlas.ti can be specified.

Figures and tables:

Ensure that table numbering appears close to their first mention.

Placeholders:

In Contributions (CRediT), replace it with the final version.

Funding:

-It should be replaced with the final text

References and Citations:

-Perhaps modifying the citation style to numerical format and then adjust the reference list according to the Journal's requirements.

Numbering:

There is a duplication of "2.2" that will need to be corrected, as the next one is "2.3."

I congratulate the authors for the study conducted and the results and conclusions contributed through this article to the scientific community and society at large.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your careful review and constructive comments. In response to your suggestions, we have implemented the following modifications:

1. Introduction: An explicit paragraph has been added to clearly state the study objectives.

2. Participants: The total number of participants is now indicated, and the table describing the groups has been included.

3. Materials: We expanded the description of the thematic axes and provided examples of guiding questions.

4. Reliability: Details have been incorporated regarding the coding process, inter-coder reliability, and the version of ATLAS.ti used.

5. Figures and tables: All tables have been re-ordered to appear close to their first mention, ensuring consistency.

6. Numbering: The duplication of section “2.2” has been corrected.

We are grateful for your positive evaluation of the manuscript and for the suggestions that allowed us to improve its clarity and methodological precision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses how online hate speech influences cyberbullying and deteriorates classroom climates among pre-service teachers in Chile. The study uses an exploratory descriptive qualitative design with focus groups and analyzes the data thematically using ATLAS.ti. The paper proposes pedagogical and institutional strategies to counteract the normalization of hate and strengthen inclusivity, well-being, and equity.

Following are my comments on the paper:

1. The paper covers several broad themes (hate speech, cyberbullying, classroom climate, philosophy, teacher education). Please write the central research question(s) early in the Introduction section so that the readers can understand the purpose of the paper.
2. The theoretical discussion (Arendt, Levinas, Han, etc.) is written in too much detail. Sometimes this discussion overshadows the empirical aim. It is recommended to summarize parts of the philosophy to make space for the study’s own findings. 
3. Show the coding process in more detail (e.g. a figure or table showing codes → subthemes → themes). This will allow readers to see how raw data led to the reported findings.
4. Currently, the Results and Discussion sections are blended. It is recommended to separate them more clearly. First present findings with supporting quotes, then interpret them using theory and literature.
5. Many tables have only 3–5 quotes per theme, and some are repetitive. Include more varied excerpts.
6. Some bold statements (e.g. hate from lecturers leading to dropouts) are not fully backed by data excerpts.
7. There are minor inconsistencies in reference style (missing accents, inconsistent years, DOI formats).
8. The conclusion is rich but lengthy. Summarise the main contributions in a few clear points by highlighting (a) what is new, and (b) how the findings can be applied in teacher education practice and policy.

 

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your thorough review and valuable feedback. Your comments have helped us strengthen the structure and focus of the manuscript. In response, we have made the following modifications:

1. Introduction: The central research objectives are now stated explicitly in a dedicated paragraph, providing clarity on the purpose of the study.

2. Theoretical framework: The philosophical discussion (Arendt, Levinas, Han, etc.) has been summarised and streamlined to ensure that it does not overshadow the empirical findings, thereby giving greater prominence to the results.

3. Coding process: A detailed table has been added to show the progression from codes to subthemes and themes, making the analytic process more transparent.

4. Results and Discussion: These sections have been more clearly separated. Results are now presented first with supporting excerpts, followed by interpretation and connection with theory and literature in the Discussion.

5. Data excerpts: Additional and more varied student comments have been incorporated into the results tables to avoid repetition and to better substantiate key statements.

6. Conclusion: The section has been revised and condensed, highlighting the main contributions in a clearer and more concise manner, with emphasis on the novelty of the findings and their implications for teacher education practice and policy.

We thank you once again for your constructive observations, which have been essential in improving the manuscript’s clarity, rigour, and contribution.