Spanish Social Cinema: Analysis of Evolution and Implications for Social and Behavioral Sciences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Must be improved: There is no indication of a review of previous research about the topic. While some authors are cited to explain what “cine social/social cinema” is, one is not able to tell what the current state of the literature about the topic is based on this article. One measure the authors might do to revise the article is to define “cine social” according to its history, relevance and meaning in Iberian and Latin American academia and societies (rather than merely translate a term that doesn’t seem to be as theoretically and empirically relevant in other contexts).

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Must be improved: The authors claim that the objective of the study is “to identify how that evolution has been, as well as its scientific, economical and political bases and the main consequences for the general population”, but the article fails to make the connection between the sample and the socioeconomic, scientific and cultural analysis explicit. Perhaps because the text seems to have originally been written in Spanish, the authors risk taking for granted that people who read the English version of the text may not be as familiar with Spanish history and key figures as Spanish readers are. As a consequence, the section dedicated to discussing the results seems to squeeze too many shallow hints of the socioeconomic and political history rather than make sense of how the films chosen and analysed represent the evolution the authors listed as an objective. Plus, the methodology needs more explaining. What does the “historical-logical method” mean? How does it work in combination with “content analysis” and “descriptive phenomenological approach”? As it is now, it is not possible for the reader to grasp exactly what the author did to reach the results. The sampling also needs some explanation: why did the author select these 36 films? Saying that “When 155 choosing the titles, we selected films that presented a global development of social relationships” is not enough.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Must be improved: as mentioned earlier, there is not a clear connection between the films chosen and the claims the authors intended to make when setting the research design and objectives.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved: the whole section three consists of quotes from the films. No explanation, no reflection, nothing. Just a list. It might be a good idea for the authors to merge sections three (results) and four (discussion) to improve the connection between the empirical materials and the claims they make.  

Is the article adequately referenced?

Must be improved: some quotes lack references. Some references still have XX rather than dates (indicating a state of draft rather than finished article) and some references don’t make sense in the argument the authors want to make. For example, Bilandzic and Busselle’s article used to explain “social cinema” does not even mention the term.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

No.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

About the language (my mother tongue is Portuguese):

“Cine social” / “social cinema” seems to be a concept that is more popularized in scholarship in Spanish than in English. The author could explain the Iberian, Latin American relevance and meaning of the concept rather than merely translating it into English. The text seems to have been written originally in Spanish, then translated into English. No problem with that. However, the translation needs revising since there are still sentences and terms blending Spanish and English. For being a Portuguese speaker, I made sense of some sections that might be difficult for someone who does not speak Latin languages.

Author Response

Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have done a full revission of the paper, trying to apply all the reviewer's points for improvement. 

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Must be improved: There is no indication of a review of previous research about the topic. While some authors are cited to explain what “cine social/social cinema” is, one is not able to tell what the current state of the literature about the topic is based on this article. One measure the authors might do to revise the article is to define “cine social” according to its history, relevance and meaning in Iberian and Latin American academia and societies (rather than merely translate a term that doesn’t seem to be as theoretically and empirically relevant in other contexts). Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have changed the description of the concept, including more and more actual references. also, we have changed the order od the Introduction, trying to clarify this point.

 

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Must be improved: The authors claim that the objective of the study is “to identify how that evolution has been, as well as its scientific, economical and political bases and the main consequences for the general population”, but the article fails to make the connection between the sample and the socioeconomic, scientific and cultural analysis explicit. Perhaps because the text seems to have originally been written in Spanish, the authors risk taking for granted that people who read the English version of the text may not be as familiar with Spanish history and key figures as Spanish readers are. As a consequence, the section dedicated to discussing the results seems to squeeze too many shallow hints of the socioeconomic and political history rather than make sense of how the films chosen and analysed represent the evolution the authors listed as an objective. Plus, the methodology needs more explaining. What does the “historical-logical method” mean? How does it work in combination with “content analysis” and “descriptive phenomenological approach”? As it is now, it is not possible for the reader to grasp exactly what the author did to reach the results. The sampling also needs some explanation: why did the author select these 36 films? Saying that “When 155 choosing the titles, we selected films that presented a global development of social relationships” is not enough. Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have changed the Methods part, especially the Sample description and the selection of movies. Also, we have empowered the thematic analysis and changed the mention to the historical-logical method (respecting the references and the temporal divission). 

 

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Must be improved: as mentioned earlier, there is not a clear connection between the films chosen and the claims the authors intended to make when setting the research design and objectives. A lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have changed the Discussion part, changed parts that were not strictly from the discussion, added a table with we summarize main findings, and connected these findings with the aims of the study.

 

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Must be improved: the whole section three consists of quotes from the films. No explanation, no reflection, nothing. Just a list. It might be a good idea for the authors to merge sections three (results) and four (discussion) to improve the connection between the empirical materials and the claims they make. Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have connected the sentences/verbatim with the explanation and reflections about the topics.  

 

Is the article adequately referenced? Must be improved: some quotes lack references. Some references still have XX rather than dates (indicating a state of draft rather than finished article) and some references don’t make sense in the argument the authors want to make. For example, Bilandzic and Busselle’s article used to explain “social cinema” does not even mention the term. Lot of thanks for your comments, we have reviewed the references and included more actual cites in the paper

 

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?  No. Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have changed the Conclusions part 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

About the language (my mother tongue is Portuguese): “Cine social” / “social cinema” seems to be a concept that is more popularized in scholarship in Spanish than in English. The author could explain the Iberian, Latin American relevance and meaning of the concept rather than merely translating it into English. The text seems to have been written originally in Spanish, then translated into English. No problem with that. However, the translation needs revising since there are still sentences and terms blending Spanish and English. For being a Portuguese speaker, I made sense of some sections that might be difficult for someone who does not speak Latin languages. Lot of thanks for your kind comment, we have done a full revission of paper, including the English style and vocabulary. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Wonderful topic and study. I'd love to see a follow-up using this research to link the evolution of social cinema over time with tangible social/political transformation. That would be powerful!

One practical note - the authors switch between "content analysis" and "thematic analysis) several times throughout the paper. While there are similarities between these methods (and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably) I recommend choosing the term that best matches the process used and using this consistently throughout the paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing was quite rough in many places, with grammatical/punctuation errors, incomplete sentences, confusing phrasing (see lines 48-51), and sometimes overly casual phrasing (like starting a paragraph with "Anyway,...," etc. I believe that some attentive editing is required to improve the readability and respectability of the paper. 

Author Response

Wonderful topic and study. I'd love to see a follow-up using this research to link the evolution of social cinema over time with tangible social/political transformation. That would be powerful! Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have done a revission of the paper, trying to apply all the reviewer's points for improvement. 

 

One practical note - the authors switch between "content analysis" and "thematic analysis) several times throughout the paper. While there are similarities between these methods (and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably) I recommend choosing the term that best matches the process used and using this consistently throughout the paper. Lot of thanks for your comments, we have reviewed the methodology to Thematic analysis, avoiding confusion in the text

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing was quite rough in many places, with grammatical/punctuation errors, incomplete sentences, confusing phrasing (see lines 48-51), and sometimes overly casual phrasing (like starting a paragraph with "Anyway,...," etc. I believe that some attentive editing is required to improve the readability and respectability of the paper. Lot of thanks for your kind comment, we have done a full revission of the paper, including the English style and vocabulary 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Spanish Social cinema: analysis of evolution and implications

for social and behavioural sciences

Terminology

 

• "social cinema" and "realistic cinema" should be clearly defined and used consistently.

 

Methodological Clarity:

• Provide more details on the historical-logical method and qualitative content analysis. This will help readers understand the research process better. Explain why the specific films were chosen and how they represent the broader category of Spanish social cinema.

 

• The article mentions that 36 films were selected based on IMDb ratings and relevance to social issues, but it does not provide a detailed rationale for why these specific films were chosen. A more transparent explanation of the selection criteria would strengthen the study's validity.

 

• Present a more detailed explanation of how the coding process was done. For instance, how were the themes identified, and how were disagreements among researchers resolved?

 

Theoretical Framework:

 

• There is a lack of theoretical depth. While it references social cinema and its role in society, it does not engage deeply with existing theories in film studies, sociology, or cultural studies. Incorporating theories from these fields could provide a stronger foundation for the analysis.

 

Limitations

 

• The article briefly mentions some limitations (e.g., the subjective nature of the analysis and the exclusion of short films), but it could expand on these points. For example, how might excluding short films or films with lower IMDb ratings affect the findings? How could future research address these limitations?

 

Conclusion and Future Research:

 

• The conclusion could be more robust by summarizing the key findings more clearly and discussing their implications for academia and society. For example, how can the insights from this study inform future filmmaking or social policy in Spain?
• The article could suggest specific areas for future research, such as the impact of digital media on social cinema, the role of streaming platforms, or the intersection of social cinema with other art forms (e.g., literature, theater).

 

Language and Style

 

• Make the language clearer and organization more organized. Breaking down complex ideas into simpler terms and using subheadings more effectively could improve readability.

 

Translation Issues

 

• Since the article includes verbatim quotes from films in Spanish, it would be helpful to ensure that the English translations are as accurate and nuanced as possible. Some translations feel slightly awkward or lose the original meaning.

 

References

 

• Ensure that all references are up-to-date and relevant. Including more recent studies can strengthen the paper's credibility.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammar lapses are observable. 

Author Response

Spanish Social cinema: analysis of evolution and implications for social and behavioural sciences

Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have done a full revission of the paper, trying to apply all the reviewer's points for improvement. 

Terminology:  "social cinema" and "realistic cinema" should be clearly defined and used consistently. Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have explained both concepts and why we have chosen the term Social cinema, in order with the comment of the reviewer.

Methodological Clarity: Provide more details on the historical-logical method and qualitative content analysis. This will help readers understand the research process better. Explain why the specific films were chosen and how they represent the broader category of Spanish social cinema. Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have explained clearly the process of movies´ selection and the method of the paper. 

 The article mentions that 36 films were selected based on IMDb ratings and relevance to social issues, but it does not provide a detailed rationale for why these specific films were chosen. A more transparent explanation of the selection criteria would strengthen the study's validity. Lot of thanks for your kind comment, we have included more information about the process of selection

 Present a more detailed explanation of how the coding process was done. For instance, how were the themes identified, and how were disagreements among researchers resolved? Lot of thanks for your kind comment, the coding process and the way disagreements were solved are in the paper; anyway we have done changes in methodology to explained better these parts of the process. 

Theoretical Framework:  There is a lack of theoretical depth. While it references social cinema and its role in society, it does not engage deeply with existing theories in film studies, sociology, or cultural studies. Incorporating theories from these fields could provide a stronger foundation for the analysis. Lot of thanks for your comment, we have changed the Introduction, including more explanations, theories and references about the topic.

 

Limitations:  The article briefly mentions some limitations (e.g., the subjective nature of the analysis and the exclusion of short films), but it could expand on these points. For example, how might excluding short films or films with lower IMDb ratings affect the findings? How could future research address these limitations? Lot of thanks for your comment, we have added a sentence in Limitations explaining these points. 

 

 

Conclusion and Future Research: The conclusion could be more robust by summarizing the key findings more clearly and discussing their implications for academia and society. For example, how can the insights from this study inform future filmmaking or social policy in Spain? The article could suggest specific areas for future research, such as the impact of digital media on social cinema, the role of streaming platforms, or the intersection of social cinema with other art forms (e.g., literature, theater). Lot of thanks for your kind and right comment, we have added your magnificent suggestion into the conclusions part. 

Language and Style

Make the language clearer and organization more organized. Breaking down complex ideas into simpler terms and using subheadings more effectively could improve readability.  Lot of thanks for your kind comment, we have done a full revission of the paper, including the English style and vocabulary. 

 

Translation Issues: Since the article includes verbatim quotes from films in Spanish, it would be helpful to ensure that the English translations are as accurate and nuanced as possible. Some translations feel slightly awkward or lose the original meaning. Lot of thanks for your kind comment, we have done a full revission of the paper, including the English style and vocabulary. 

 

References

Ensure that all references are up-to-date and relevant. Including more recent studies can strengthen the paper's credibility. Lot of thanks for your comments, we have reviewed the references and included more actual cites in the paper

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I  would like to congratulate the authors on the choice of the study topic and the paper made.  The review process involved an analysis which is detailed in the following points:

1 - The article explores the evolution of Spanish social cinema, analyzing how it has changed over time in response to social, political, and economic factors. The study aims to identify the key themes depicted in Spanish social films and their impact on society, focusing on topics such as poverty, work, violence, social identity, and political perspectives.
2 - The topic is relevant to both film studies and social sciences, as it examines cinema not just as an artistic expression but as a tool for social critique and transformation. The research addresses a gap by providing a structured historical analysis of the Spanish social cinema, linking it explicitly to broader societal changes. However, while the study contributes to the field, the originality of its approach could be strengthened by comparing Spanish social cinema with similar movements in other countries.
3 - The study provides a comprehensive historical overview of Spanish social cinema, integrating qualitative content analysis to identify recurrent themes across different historical periods. Its emphasis on how cinema reflects and interacts with social realities adds depth to the discussion. Compared to previous literature, this research offers a systematic categorization of social issues represented in Spanish films, using a structured methodology.
4 - Specific improvements to consider regarding the methodology:
4.1 - Methodological clarity: The article describes the historical-logical method and qualitative content analysis, but it lacks a detailed explanation of how these methods were applied. For example, how were the films selected, and what criteria determined their classification as “social cinema”?
4. 2 - Comparative analysis: Including a comparison with social cinema movements from other countries (e.g., Italian neorealism, British social realism) would strengthen the discussion.
4.3 - Data representation: The study could benefit from additional tables or figures summarizing trends in social themes over time.
5 - The conclusions generally align with the presented data, emphasizing that Spanish social cinema has evolved while maintaining core themes related to social justice. The study effectively argues that social cinema serves as both a reflection of and a response to historical and political contexts. However, some conclusions—such as the assertion that Spanish social cinema has remained politically independent—would benefit from further evidence or counter opinions/arguments.

6 - The article includes references to key works in film studies and social sciences. However, some citations are outdated, and more recent studies on social cinema, media influence, and audience reception could be included to strengthen the discussion.

7 - The tables are useful for summarizing film selection and thematic categorization. However, the analysis could be enhanced with visual representations of historical trends, such as timelines or graphics showing the evolution of key themes.

 

 

Author Response

I  would like to congratulate the authors on the choice of the study topic and the paper made. 

Lot of thanks for your kind comments and suggestions, we have done a full revission of the paper, trying to apply all the reviewer's points for improvement 

The review process involved an analysis which is detailed in the following points:

1 - The article explores the evolution of Spanish social cinema, analyzing how it has changed over time in response to social, political, and economic factors. The study aims to identify the key themes depicted in Spanish social films and their impact on society, focusing on topics such as poverty, work, violence, social identity, and political perspectives. 

Lot of thanks for your kind comment, we are honoured. 

2 - The topic is relevant to both film studies and social sciences, as it examines cinema not just as an artistic expression but as a tool for social critique and transformation. The research addresses a gap by providing a structured historical analysis of the Spanish social cinema, linking it explicitly to broader societal changes. However, while the study contributes to the field, the originality of its approach could be strengthened by comparing Spanish social cinema with similar movements in other countries. Lot of thanks for your suggestion we have included more information about the topic in Spain and other countries. 

3 - The study provides a comprehensive historical overview of Spanish social cinema, integrating qualitative content analysis to identify recurrent themes across different historical periods. Its emphasis on how cinema reflects and interacts with social realities adds depth to the discussion. Compared to previous literature, this research offers a systematic categorization of social issues represented in Spanish films, using a structured methodology. Lot of thanks for your kind comment, we really appreciate

4 - Specific improvements to consider regarding the methodology:

4.1 - Methodological clarity: The article describes the historical-logical method and qualitative content analysis, but it lacks a detailed explanation of how these methods were applied. For example, how were the films selected, and what criteria determined their classification as “social cinema”? Lot of thanks for your comment, we have explained clearly the process of movies selection.

4. 2 - Comparative analysis: Including a comparison with social cinema movements from other countries (e.g., Italian neorealism, British social realism) would strengthen the discussion. Lot of thanks for your comment, we have included more information about it in Discussion part. 

4.3 - Data representation: The study could benefit from additional tables or figures summarizing trends in social themes over time. Lot of thanks for your comment, we have done this table and included it in Discussion part. .

5 - The conclusions generally align with the presented data, emphasizing that Spanish social cinema has evolved while maintaining core themes related to social justice. The study effectively argues that social cinema serves as both a reflection of and a response to historical and political contexts. However, some conclusions—such as the assertion that Spanish social cinema has remained politically independent—would benefit from further evidence or counter opinions/arguments. Lot of thanks for your comment, we have changed the Conclusions part. 

6 - The article includes references to key works in film studies and social sciences. However, some citations are outdated, and more recent studies on social cinema, media influence, and audience reception could be included to strengthen the discussion. Lot of thanks for your comments, we have reviewed the references and included more actual cites in the paper

7 - The tables are useful for summarizing film selection and thematic categorization. However, the analysis could be enhanced with visual representations of historical trends, such as timelines or graphics showing the evolution of key themes. 

Lot of thanks for your kind comment, we have included a table in Discussion part as response to the suggestion of the reviewer. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is much easier to follow and understand the objectives of the authors. I can't speak for originality since I am not familiar with the debates about the topic. So, in general and considering my own limitations, I consider this to be a publishable article. Perhaps someone with more familiarity to the topic would be able to provide more area-specific comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

However, the article still requires language check. There are broken sentences, in-text citations lacking quotation marks and misspellings. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has satisfied all the suggestions given.  It is now a better version than the original. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations. You have made good improvements in your article.