Mapping the Cyber Interpersonal Violence among Young Populations: A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
You have done an excellet research work. Any way gender view is needed, or you need to explain whay you donnot take into account "gender" as we know that girls suffer more cyber IV than boys in all the areas. So, we need an explanation. At least you have tu justified what there is an invisibility of girls or girls inlcusion.
Technology is producing unforseen and negatives effects, so you should pay more attention in your conlcusion to these aspects.
1. Briefly summarize the content of the manuscript
Good general review of the topic Cyber Interpersonal Violence, the structure is ordered in a good style and the theoretical framework established a mixture of definitions that avoid or invite to invisibility of gender.view. The database used for the selection is not enough. The analysis of the 18 articles is explained in a good way with information that is obligatory in this kind of research. The results and conclusions are clear enough and clear. References are poor. I miss some authors such as Maciecj Siwiicki from Copernicus University Poland.
2. Illustrate what are, in your opinion, the manuscript’s strengths and
weaknesses [this is an essential step, because the Editor will consider
the reasoning behind your recommendation and needs to understand it
properly];
Formally is good and a strength is the correction in the content of the article. Weaknesses are various: less or more database revision as JCR, and Metadatabase as Web of Science.
3. Provide a point-by-point list of your major recommendations for the
improvement of the manuscript
Lines 17/18 We need to understand the meaning of "changing how they communicate and interact in society about adolescents. This is an empty sentence. What is the meaning?. The use of technology is making us lose many abilities of communication, so a review of the use is necessary. A critical view is needed. We need a new way of communication. Technology is a way of social control but not a new way for learning.
Line 20 Explain why cyber violence is increasing with the use of technology. I think there is a general fostering of violence in everyday life. We need violence educational prevention programmes but the authors do not mention it.
Line 24 I disagree strongly with the concept of vulnerability. You need to explain it. Perpetrators of violence make people vulnerable because otherwise you are guilty of the vulnerability. We have been working in some European Union Programmes in which adolescent Portuguese told us that they suffer bullying because of the succes in the secondary schools. The way of thinking of perpetrators is to say that some one or one group is vulnerable. What about handicaped people? Why cannot find any article?
Line 29 CIV is not a good way to explain, together dating violence, sexual violence or bullying. We need to explain these forms of violence. Place, behaviours, perpetrators and definitions are quite different.
You cannot delete gender bias and gender-blind analysis is this kind of article.
Line 74 Victims or perpetrators? And if they are both at the same time?
We need to explain limitations in the words used for searching the articles, the database, and the limitations of the articles that you have analysed.
Tables are excellents and it is obvious that I recommend the publication after these changes.
4. If necessary, provide a point-by-point list of your minor for the
improvement of the manuscript1. Briefly summarize the content of the manuscript
Author Response
Response Reviewer 1 Comments
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the new important comments and suggestions that contribute to significantly improve the manuscript.
The authors provide a detailed answer to each of the reviewer comments.
Changes were highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: “You have done an excellet research work. Any way gender view is needed, or you need to explain whay you donnot take into account "gender" as we know that girls suffer more cyber IV than boys in all the areas. So, we need an explanation. At least you have tu justified what there is an invisibility of girls or girls inlcusion.”
Response 1: The authors are grateful for the reviewer's suggestion. Accordingly, more details and discussion were added referring to the gender matter.
Point 2: “Technology is producing unforseen and negatives effects, so you should pay more attention in your conlcusion to these aspects”.
Response 2: The authors agree with reviewer´s comment. Accordingly, more details were now added in the conclusion.
Point 3: “1. Briefly summarize the content of the manuscript: Good general review of the topic Cyber Interpersonal Violence, the structure is ordered in a good style and the theoretical framework established a mixture of definitions that avoid or invite to invisibility of gender.view. The database used for the selection is not enough. The analysis of the 18 articles is explained in a good way with information that is obligatory in this kind of research. The results and conclusions are clear enough and clear. References are poor. I miss some authors such as Maciecj Siwiicki from Copernicus University Poland”.
Response 3: The authors agree with the reviewer´s comment and have reformulated the manuscript and included more references.
Point 4: “2. Illustrate what are, in your opinion, the manuscript’s strengths and
weaknesses [this is an essential step, because the Editor will consider
the reasoning behind your recommendation and needs to understand it
properly];
Formally is good and a strength is the correction in the content of the article. Weaknesses are various: less or more database revision as JCR, and Metadatabase as Web of Science”.
Response 4: The authors agreed with the reviewer's comment and included some recent articles from these databases in the manuscript.
Point 5: “Lines 17/18 We need to understand the meaning of "changing how they communicate and interact in society about adolescents. This is an empty sentence. What is the meaning?. The use of technology is making us lose many abilities of communication, so a review of the use is necessary. A critical view is needed. We need a new way of communication. Technology is a way of social control but not a new way for learning”.
Response 5: The authors agree with the reviewer´s comment and have now clarified the sentence.
Point 6: “Line 20 Explain why cyber violence is increasing with the use of technology. I think there is a general fostering of violence in everyday life. We need violence educational prevention programmes but the authors do not mention it”.
Response 6: We appreciate the suggestion, which we have incorporated. We also include a lean approach to the need for violent education programs.
Point 7: “Line 24 I disagree strongly with the concept of vulnerability. You need to explain it. Perpetrators of violence make people vulnerable because otherwise you are guilty of the vulnerability. We have been working in some European Union Programmes in which adolescent Portuguese told us that they suffer bullying because of the succes in the secondary schools. The way of thinking of perpetrators is to say that some one or one group is vulnerable. What about handicaped people? Why cannot find any article?”
Response 7: The authors agree with the reviewer´s suggestions and proceed to correction on the manuscript.
Point 8: “Line 29 CIV is not a good way to explain, together dating violence, sexual violence or bullying. We need to explain these forms of violence. Place, behaviours, perpetrators and definitions are quite different. You cannot delete gender bias and gender-blind analysis is this kind of article.”
Response 8: We thank you once again for the suggestion to promote the article, which we have adopted.
Point 9: “Line 74 Victims or perpetrators? And if they are both at the same time?”
Response 9: The authors agree with the reviewer, and this phrase was removed during the revision of the manuscript.
Point 10: “We need to explain limitations in the words used for searching the articles, the database, and the limitations of the articles that you have analysed”.
Response 10: The authors agree with the reviewer and add the requested information to the article.
Point 11: “Tables are excellents and it is obvious that I recommend the publication after these changes”.
Response 11: We appreciate the careful review of the entire manuscript, the suggestions to improve it, in order to enhance its publication.
The authors have carefully considered all the suggestions made by the Reviewer, aiming to fully address the expressed doubts.
The authors have made a serious effort to fully meet the suggestions of the Reviewer, in order to successfully address all comments and issues mentioned.
Other changes intend to respond to other Reviewers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript „Mapping the Cyber Interpersonal Violence among Young Populations: A Scoping Review“ highlights an important issue in the field. Authors state that primary aim of the scoping review was to map and organise the published academic literature on the mentioned subject, which was done. The secondary objectives, as Author state, were:
1) To develop a descriptive overview of the existing academic literature to reveal the most relevant research trends on CIV amongst youngsters;
2) To systematically map and categorise the wide variety of instruments designed to identify and assess the CIV in general and amongst our target group;
3) To identify research gaps, and consequently to develop recommendations.
Although the first two goals has been achieved, I am not sure that the third goal has been achieved.
In Data Collection section Autor(s) wrote: „ All studies that met the defined criteria were analysed in full text“ but it is not clear, what was the criteria?
Also, author(s) state: „.Most of the research was carried out in Spain and the 206 United States…“. which may seem like a shortcoming of this paper, and the Author(s) have not looked at it critically…
In Results Autor(s) wrote that reason for exclusion of manuscript was „focus on presential violence“ but it is unclear why that criterion was used.
Furthermore, in Discussion, Authors wrote: „Despite all the subdomains of CIV, only a few studies used a longitudinal design.“ but did not write references for that statement and did not cite conclusion from this data. It is significant to provide conclusions from longitudinal research.
Also, in Discussion Author() wrote : „Our scoping re view found that three fields emerged: CDA/ CDV, cyberbullying, and cyber-harassment. Different tools were used to measure CDA/ CDV, cyberbullying and cyber-harassment. In the CDA/CDV field, six different tools were used. In the cyberbullying field, seven tools were used, and in cyber-harassment, five tools emerged. All the tools were developed and validated for the different proposals, and all used different criteria (e.g., victimization, perpetration, or both; specific versus broad behaviours).“ In this text (and rest of Discussion), Author(s) only rephrased sentences from Results, so there is a lack of an elaborated discussion of the findings. Discussion section needs to be revised in a way that the implications or meanings of the results are discussed comprehensively.
No significant contribution of this manuscript to the area is visible in this form, so recommendation is not to publish.
Author Response
Response Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the new important comments and suggestions that contribute to significantly improve the manuscript.
The authors provide a detailed answer to each of the reviewer comments.
Changes were highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: “The manuscript Mapping the Cyber Interpersonal Violence among Young Populations: A Scoping Review“ highlights an important issue in the field. Authors state that primary aim of the scoping review was to map and organise the published academic literature on the mentioned subject, which was done. The secondary objectives, as Author state, were:
1) To develop a descriptive overview of the existing academic literature to reveal the most relevant research trends on CIV amongst youngsters;
2) To systematically map and categorise the wide variety of instruments designed to identify and assess the CIV in general and amongst our target group;
3) To identify research gaps, and consequently to develop recommendations.
Although the first two goals has been achieved, I am not sure that the third goal has been achieved”.
Response 1: The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment, analyse the research gaps, and include some recommendations at the end of the manuscript.
Point 2: “In Data Collection section Autor(s) wrote: All studies that met the defined criteria were analysed in full text“ but it is not clear, what was the criteria?”
Response 2: The authors agree with the reviewer´s comment and have now added a new section ´ Inclusion and exclusion criteria´ before the Data Collection’s section.
Point 3: “Also, author(s) state:.Most of the research was carried out in Spain and the United States…“. which may seem like a shortcoming of this paper, and the Author(s) have not looked at it critically…”
Response 3: The authors agree with the reviewer and corrected this issue.
Point 4: “In Results Autor(s) wrote that reason for exclusion of manuscript was focus on presential violence“ but it is unclear why that criterion was used”.
Response 4: The authors agree with the reviewer´s comment and summarise exclusion reasons on a new section as referred above.
Point 5: “Furthermore, in Discussion, Authors wrote:Despite all the subdomains of CIV, only a few studies used a longitudinal design.“ but did not write references for that statement and did not cite conclusion from this data. It is significant to provide conclusions from longitudinal research”.
Response 5: The authors agree with the reviewer and corrected this issue.
Point 6: “Also, in Discussion Author wrote: “Our scoping review found that three fields emerged: CDA/ CDV, cyberbullying, and cyber-harassment. Different tools were used to measure CDA/ CDV, cyberbullying and cyber-harassment. In the CDA/CDV field, six different tools were used. In the cyberbullying field, seven tools were used, and in cyber-harassment, five tools emerged. All the tools were developed and validated for the different proposals, and all used different criteria (e.g., victimization, perpetration, or both; specific versus broad behaviours).“ In this text (and rest of Discussion), Author(s) only rephrased sentences from Results, so there is a lack of an elaborated discussion of the findings. Discussion section needs to be revised in a way that the implications or meanings of the results are discussed comprehensively”.
Response 6: The authors agree with the reviewer and revised the discussion section.
Point 7: “No significant contribution of this manuscript to the area is visible in this form, so recommendation is not to publish”.
Response 7: The authors reaffirm the relevance and interest of the present manuscript focused on Cyber Interpersonal Violence (CIV), an emerging form of abuse, now reinforced by the implications arising from the pandemic period. Likewise, resubmitted version incorporates a number of considerable changes arising from the various comments and suggestions of three reviewers. We therefore consider that the changes now introduced have improved the quality of the manuscript.
The authors have carefully considered all the suggestions made by the Reviewer, aiming to fully address the expressed doubts.
The authors have made a serious effort to fully meet the suggestions of the Reviewer, in order to successfully address all comments and issues mentioned.
Other changes intend to respond to other Reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The overall manuscript is neat and written concisely—with relevant information for existing literature. Improvements can be made in (a) coherence and (b) clarification. First, the coherence in the introduction is lacking—partly due to the one or two sentence paragraphs. A paragraph is at least three sentences so merge accordingly (this applies to several sections in your work). You can use signaling words to guide the reader through your message. Moreover, the order in which you present the information in the introduction can be improved (it is illogical at the moment). Instead of starting with the accessibility to technology, I would start with “Adolescents and young people…”. This would allow the reader to prepare for what is coming. Switching between general information about adolescents and technology to cyberbullies (or related concept), back to adolescence is confusing. As a result, your introduction does not prepare the reader for what is coming. Second, some section need clarification, in particular your method. Some information is presented in the results (e.g., time frame for your review) and that does not belong there. You need to define youngster as well as how you identified relevant studies. For example, you can explicitly list inclusion criteria. This also means that you have to communicate what variables will be coded for your scoping review. As a result, the information in your results do not come as a surprise.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response Reviewer 3 Comments
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the new important comments and suggestions that contribute to significantly improve the manuscript.
The authors provide a detailed answer to each of the reviewer comments.
Changes were highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: “The overall manuscript is neat and written concisely—with relevant information for existing literature. Improvements can be made in (a) coherence and (b) clarification”.
Response 1: We are grateful for the appraisal of the work and the exhaustive review of it, and the guidelines provided to improve the work, which we have taken to implement.
Point 2: “First, the coherence in the introduction is lacking—partly due to the one or two sentence paragraphs. A paragraph is at least three sentences so merge accordingly (this applies to several sections in your work). You can use signaling words to guide the reader through your message”.
Response 2: The authors agree with the reviewer´s comment and adopted the suggestion throughout the manuscript.
Point 3: “Moreover, the order in which you present the information in the introduction can be improved (it is illogical at the moment). Instead of starting with the accessibility to technology, I would start with “Adolescents and young people…”. This would allow the reader to prepare for what is coming. Switching between general information about adolescents and technology to cyberbullies (or related concept), back to adolescence is confusing. As a result, your introduction does not prepare the reader for what is coming”.
Response 3: The authors agree with the reviewer and revised the introduction section.
Point 4: “Second, some section need clarification, in particular your method”.
Response 4: The authors agree with the reviewer´s comment and have now added a new section ´ Inclusion and exclusion criteria´ before the Data Collection’s section.
Point 5: “Some information is presented in the results (e.g., time frame for your review) and that does not belong there. You need to define youngster as well as how you identified relevant studies. For example, you can explicitly list inclusion criteria. This also means that you have to communicate what variables will be coded for your scoping review. As a result, the information in your results do not come as a surprise”.
Response 5: The authors agree with the reviewer´s comment and have now added a new section ´ Inclusion and exclusion criteria´ and revised the results section.
The authors have carefully considered all the suggestions made by the Reviewer, aiming to fully address the expressed doubts.
The authors have made a serious effort to fully meet the suggestions of the Reviewer, in order to successfully address all comments and issues mentioned.
Other changes intend to respond to other Reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
At this point, the manuscript seems appropriate for the publication.
