Review Reports

REVISOR 1

Comments

INTRODUCTION

There is more current scientific literature than the studies included at the beginning of the introduction. It is recommended that some more up-to-date studies be included.

For example: Rodríguez-Castro, Y., Martínez-Román, R., Alonso-Ruido, P., Adá-Lameiras, A., & Carrera-Fernández, MV (2021) Intimate partner cyberstalking, sexism, pornography, and sexting in adolescents: new challenges for sex education. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(4), 2181.

New studies in the scientific literature on the study of digital violence, including the proposed one, have been reviewed and referenced.

INSTRUMENT

Re-do this sub-section. The scales that have been used should be named and described, or the scales from which the items have been extracted should be named. For example, this subsection says: The second part is composed of four subscales or blocks with a total of items? which ones? why?

Please elaborate on this subsection.

Lines 133-136 include some of the scales that were reviewed in the construction of the research instrument.

Lines 142-144 summarise the process of constructing the blocks of the Ad hoc questionnaire.

REVISOR 2

COMMENTS

GENERAL

The literature on digital violence or crime should be better searched. Majid Yar's studies on this topic can be examined.

New studies from the scientific literature on digital violence have been reviewed and referenced, including the suggested author.

METHOD

It is understood that the research was conducted using a mixed method. However, this is not clearly established.

It should be clarified that the mixed method was used in the research. "In the "Materials and methods" section, it should be clearly stated why the mixed method is used. It should be written which of the mixed method designs the research was designed with. In this respect, the works of JW Creswell can be used.

Lines 111-114 detail the chosen design and the rationale for it, following the recommended author.

Information on the quantitative dimension of the research is given in the sections "Participants" and "Instrument". No information on the qualitative dimension is given in these sections. The characteristics of the participants in the qualitative dimension and how they were selected should be given in the section "Participants". Information on what type of questions are asked in the qualitative dimension should be included in the section "Instrument".

Lines 134-137 describe the participants of the qualitative part of the focus groups.

Lines 177-180 specify the design of the focus groups.

Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data with which the analysis techniques should be explained by opening the analysis title.

In lines 190-198, a new section 2.4 dedicated to the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data is created.

RESULTS

It is recommended to include the results of the study entitled "Investigation of the relationship between online privacy concerns and Internet addiction among university students", which focuses on the relationship between online privacy concerns and gender, in the discussion part of the research.

In lines 504-507 there is a mention of the results of this study, coinciding with allusions from the focus groups.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended to add the heading "conclusion", which presents the general inferences drawn from the research. In this section, assessments should be made on the relationship between the quantitative and qualitative findings. The relationship between the quantitative dimension and the qualitative dimension should be clarified in the conclusion.

A new section, number 5, is added for the conclusions and, in lines 512-514, the relationship between quantitative and qualitative dimensions is specified.

REVISOR 3

COMMENTS

GENERAL

The authors (p. 2) correctly explained why they use the term "digital violence" and not, for example, "cyberstalking". The hypothesis presented in the article (pp. 2-3: "violence through digital media will result in a new form of violence that is not directly related to traditional violence off-screen, as digital violence may manifest itself as an isolated phenomenon in many cases and/or complement traditional violence") is well constructed. The research presented in the article was appropriately designed. The research plausibly shows "a low but significant presence of digital violence" (p. 12).

The definition of "cyberstalking" is added on page 2, line 47.

GENERAL

I am of the opinion that the results of research conducted ten or twenty years ago (e.g. Spitzberg 2002) should be used with some caution. Attitudes and experiences of violence among young people today may differ from those experienced by young people 20 years ago, when ICT use was lower. Therefore, reference should be made to the most recent research findings, and research findings from years ago should be treated as supplementary material.

The author and his work continue to be mentioned, however, in this case as a reference and complementary material to the first studies that investigated this phenomenon, in the introduction section.