Review Reports

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The manuscript uses the term “digital violence,” but the behaviors described and measured (e.g., cyberbullying, online harassment, impersonation, exclusion from groups) do not necessarily align with the established definitions of “violence.” The authors should clarify whether they intend to study digital aggression, cyberbullying, or online offending and justify why these behaviors are conceptually treated as “violence” when non-physical acts are involved. If the authors choose to retain this term “digital violence,” they should provide a clearer conceptual definition, grounded in prior literature, and explain how such online behaviors are theoretically linked to broader understandings of violence.]

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that the previous version of the manuscript did not provide sufficient conceptual justification for the use of the term digital violence. In the revised version, we have clarified that digital violence is used as an umbrella construct encompassing various non-physical but harmful online behaviors, such as cyberbullying, online harassment, impersonation, and social exclusion.

We have added a paragraph to the Introduction (page 2) explaining that these behaviors are conceptualized as forms of violence because they can cause psychological harm and social exclusion, consistent with the broader definitions adopted by WHO (2002) and UNESCO (2019).

We have also specified how digital violence is theoretically linked to these frameworks and how it is empirically operationalized in our study. This clarification has been incorporated in the Abstract (page 1,) and elaborated further in Section 1.1 “Digital violence” (page 2-3).

Comments 2: [The use of mean scores on categorical variables (1 = did not, 2 = not sure, 3 = did) is statistically inappropriate. The scale does not represent equal intervals, and the middle category reflects uncertainty, not an intermediate level of experience.]

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the use of mean scores for categorical variables. In the revised version, we have addressed this concern by reporting medians as the main measure of central tendency, while retaining means to demonstrate the variation in responses across items. Additionally, a non-parametric Z-test was used to compare the groups, given the positively skewed distribution of responses resulting from the high frequency of “no” answers. The explanatory note preceding Table 3 was revised accordingly to clarify the rationale for these methodological choices.

Comments 3: [The interpretation of the findings related to Figure 2 (“Distribution of the answers of parents and children about the way they reacted to cyberbullying”) is problematic. In the Discussion section, the manuscript states that “a very small percentage of parents report violence to schools. The research results indicate that cooperation and communication are essential both within the family and between the family and the school,” implying parental inaction in response to known incidents. However, Figure 2 shows that approximately 85% of parents reported that their children had not experienced cyberbullying. Thus, the 5% who “reported violence to schools” should be interpreted as a percentage of all parents, not just those whose children were victimized. When adjusted for the relevant subgroup (parents of children who did experience cyberbullying), the proportion who took action is likely much higher. In other words, the authors’ conclusion confuses base rates with conditional proportions. They interpret low overall percentages as evidence of parental negligence when they mainly reflect the fact that most parents did not encounter such cases. This misinterpretation leads to a misleading conclusion about parents’ responsiveness. The discussion should be revised to clearly distinguish between the overall prevalence of victimization and the conditional response patterns among those affected..]

Response 3: We appreciate this insightful comment. The discussion section has been substantially revised to clarify the interpretation of Figure 2. The revised text now explicitly distinguishes between overall prevalence rates (referring to all respondents) and conditional proportions (referring only to parents and children who actually experienced cyberbullying). This is written in the part Results and in the Discussion part.According to the suggestions of the second reviewer additionl literature from 2023, 2024 was added in the paper, and also the consluion part and the discussion part has been updated

Response to Reviewer Comments

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The Abstract is not focused. More than a third of it is a general context. It lacks research aims and statement of at least some key findings. The selected 2 keywords are highly insufficient for locating the study.]

Response 1: \ We fully agree with this observation. The Abstract has been completely rewritten to ensure focus and structure. The revised version now: introduces the main research aim (“This study examines how parents and children perceive digital violence…”); provides a conceptual definition of digital violence and its justification; describes the sample (5,054 students and 6,309 parents) and methodology (quantitative comparative design); summarizes the key findings (children report higher exposure than parents recognize, parental underestimation of online activity, and low reporting rates); and includes seven relevant keywords to facilitate indexing and retrieval.

This revision can be found in the Abstract (page 1,).

Comments 2: The Introduction includes a too large part devoted to ICT in general. This section resembles a literature review which however is not related to research objectives and questions. Moreover, these are not properly established at all in the Introduction. Next, the sub-section 1.3. tends to mix protection as a variety of mechanisms with protection as a number of measures introduced by Serbia/ Vojvodina. My recommendation is to make a separate sub-section on the issue in Serbia/ Vojvodina involving both state-of-the-art of studies on digital violence in the country/ province, and the normative framework.]

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable observation. The Introduction has been revised to reduce the general discussion of ICT and to better align it with the research focus. The revised version now explicitly links the background on children’s internet use and media exposure to the study’s main aim—understanding parental and child perceptions of digital violence. The theoretical context has been shortened and reframed to emphasize the relevance of digital risks, prevention, and parental supervision as directly related to the research objectives.

Thank you very much for these insightful comments. The section 1.3 “Protection from digital violence” has been revised and shortened to focus on general protective mechanisms, while a new subsection 1.4 “Digital violence prevention in Serbia” has been added to present the national and provincial context, recent projects, and the normative framework.

Comments 3: For the sake of not confusing the reader, I think some clearer conceptual distinctions could be formulated. For instance, is digital violence synonymous with cyberbullying?

Response 2: Thank you for this useful remark. We agree that the conceptual distinction between digital violence and cyberbullying was not sufficiently clear in the original version of the manuscript. In the revised text, we have explicitly clarified that digital violence is used as a broader, umbrella term, while cyberbullying represents one specific subtype within this construct, alongside other behaviors such as online harassment, impersonation, and social exclusion.

To prevent confusion, we have added a short clarification at the end of the stating that digital violence denotes the overarching construct, whereas the listed subtypes refer to particular behaviors/items analyzed in the study. A clarification sentence has been added in the subsection 1.1 Digital violence

Comments 4: The Discussion section is however too short and schematic. It looks like it sometimes just restates the results from the previous section. It is also insufficiently contextualized in the findings in literature, in order to outline the added value of the study. Also, there are only few cases of interpretation of "why" some results have occurred (e.g., underreporting to parents).

Response 2: The discussion section is updated

Comments 5: The Conclusions section is also very short. It may be extended into possible implications, limitations of the study, as well as avenues for further research.

Response 5: The conclusion section is updated

Comments 6: The literature is not fully up-to-date (not a single academic source after 2022). Serbian-language sources are exuberant. It is not bad in itself but English-language literature on digital violence has significantly expanded in the recent years, and can be consulted as well

Response 6: In addition, the literature review has been updated with recent international English-language sources (2022–2024) covering topics such as parental mediation, cyberbullying prevention, digital harm, and online risk perception. So the theory was updated with new literature, and the conclusion and discussion part was updated, also the abstract at the begining.