Action and Reaction, Social Response to the Development of an Education Law, the Case of Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to assess this paper. However, there are some issues I would like you to address:

1. How representative are the data from your sample
2. is it possible to classify participants of the debate, for instance by their professional staut based on their social media profile descriptions
3. to what extent it is possible to indicate if these voices were recognised by the lawmakers?

My principal doubts regarding this paper concern the reliability of the dataset used and the discussion of the results. Law is one of the disciplines whose coverage in the Web of Science is limited. This is particularly true in respect of the non-English speaking world. SCOPUS covers a much broader set of journals, but still cannot be treated as a complete dataset. OpenAlex, with its flexibility, is much more inclusive and has more law journals than the other two databases. I think the authors should discuss the completeness of the dataset and run their analyses also for SCOPUS and OpenAlex (it is possible with bibliometrix), and then compare the results. There is no real discussion as to the results. For instance, we do not know if the identified tourism law texts are really written by the lawyers or are at least remotely law-related. The All Science Journal Classification has a very broad understanding of law and often journals that publish mostly non-legal texts fall also in this category, with the Journal of Business Ethics being a good example. So, the authors should analyse the outputs to identify both the legal qualifications of prolific authors and to analyse if the texts are really law-related. The same goes for the rest of the research - if they collaborate, with whom? How? Is it law-related? Are there any indicators of cooperation within or across legal cultures? Which methods (dogmatic, comparative, empirical, critical, other) do they use? Etc. After dealing with these issues the paper will be not only interesting, but also go beyond what has been done so far in this area.

Author Response

Comments: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to assess this paper. However, there are some issues I would like you to address:

Response: Thank you very much for your review, which has helped us to reflect on the submitted manuscript and, where appropriate, to improve our perspective on the research.

 

Comments: How representative are the data from your sample

Response: The sample is representative because it is global. That is to say, the programme collects all comments without limit, so that when a hastag# is inserted, all comments assigned to that hastag# are collected. An explanatory sentence on this issue has been written in the method.

Comments:  is it possible to classify participants of the debate, for instance by their professional staut based on their social media profile descriptions

Response: Thank you for noting that issue. It was one of the questions we asked ourselves when conducting the research. Unfortunately the anonymity of the networks and political polarisation did not allow for that. They did not expose themselves to being identified and provided a public profile by the content of the commentaries themselves, so it was not possible to carry out that analysis..

Comments: to what extent it is possible to indicate if these voices were recognised by the lawmakers?

Response: In the Spanish context, there have been many changes in education in terms of legislation. An issue that is highlighted in the introduction, indicating that there is a lot of ideological debate at the political level, which is reflected and echoed in social networks.

 

Comments: My principal doubts regarding this paper concern the reliability of the dataset used and the discussion of the results. Law is one of the disciplines whose coverage in the Web of Science is limited. This is particularly true in respect of the non-English speaking world. SCOPUS covers a much broader set of journals, but still cannot be treated as a complete dataset. OpenAlex, with its flexibility, is much more inclusive and has more law journals than the other two databases. I think the authors should discuss the completeness of the dataset and run their analyses also for SCOPUS and OpenAlex (it is possible with bibliometrix), and then compare the results. There is no real discussion as to the results. For instance, we do not know if the identified tourism law texts are really written by the lawyers or are at least remotely law-related. The All Science Journal Classification has a very broad understanding of law and often journals that publish mostly non-legal texts fall also in this category, with the Journal of Business Ethics being a good example. So, the authors should analyse the outputs to identify both the legal qualifications of prolific authors and to analyse if the texts are really law-related. The same goes for the rest of the research - if they collaborate, with whom? How? Is it law-related? Are there any indicators of cooperation within or across legal cultures? Which methods (dogmatic, comparative, empirical, critical, other) do they use? Etc. After dealing with these issues the paper will be not only interesting, but also go beyond what has been done so far in this area.

 

Response: Thank you for the reflection. As you will see in the manuscript, the basis of the manuscript originates in the passing of a law. However, it is not a legal debate on the law, but on pedagogical, organisational and even ideological foundations. Therefore, legislative knowledge is not necessary for this, as the law is not analysed. What is analysed in the text is the impact of the law on society, the polarisation it generates, and the opposing points of view are criticised.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a relevant and carefully conducted analysis of public reactions to a major education reform in Spain. The use of qualitative methods and digital data is well thought out, and the coding process is clearly explained, giving credibility to the results and their interpretation.

To increase the article’s resonance with a broader audience, improving the clarity and natural flow of the English throughout would be helpful. More importantly, situating the Spanish case within a wider international context—both in the introduction and discussion—would allow readers to see it as part of a global conversation on education policy and public response, rather than as a strictly national issue. Expanding the literature review to include references to comparable international cases could also help reinforce this broader perspective and make the discussion more relevant to a diverse academic readership.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences in the manuscript appear to be literal translations from Spanish, affecting the English's natural flow. Reformulating these phrases would improve clarity and readability. For example:

1. Original: "The subsequent research has been grounded in the recently enacted education legislation..."
   Suggested: "This study is based on the recently enacted education legislation."
2. Original: "The objective of this study is to establish a frame of reference in terms of the current social perception..."
   Suggested: "This study aims to understand how the new law is perceived by society."
3. Original: "The present article has sought to identify the main issues of interest that have arisen on the web..."
   Suggested: "This article aims to identify key issues that have emerged online."   

Author Response

Comments: This manuscript offers a relevant and carefully conducted analysis of public reactions to a major education reform in Spain. The use of qualitative methods and digital data is well thought out, and the coding process is clearly explained, giving credibility to the results and their interpretation.

Response: Thank you very much for your considerations and for highlighting the authors' care in the research process.

 

Comments: To increase the article’s resonance with a broader audience, improving the clarity and natural flow of the English throughout would be helpful. More importantly, situating the Spanish case within a wider international context—both in the introduction and discussion—would allow readers to see it as part of a global conversation on education policy and public response, rather than as a strictly national issue. Expanding the literature review to include references to comparable international cases could also help reinforce this broader perspective and make the discussion more relevant to a diverse academic readership.

 

Response: Indeed, the translation has been unfortunate, it needs to be revised. The manuscript will be sent to the author services of the publisher to correct these issues.

Regarding the international perspective of the article. Your indications have been very pertinent. As you will see, a part has been added, both in the introduction and in the discussion, devoted to this aspect. In addition, a perspective has been added from the main bodies influencing education, such as the OECD, UNESCO or UN.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

STRENGTHS

1. The use of Twitter as a data source for qualitative analysis of the debate on an educational law is relevant and relatively innovative.
2. The article properly contextualizes the LOMLOE within the Spanish educational legislative history, with references to the LOE and LOMCE.
3. The research objectives are clearly defined: to identify topics of interest, analyze socio-educational repercussions, and map relationships among debate elements.
4. It draws on current and relevant references (e.g., Montero, Luengo, López-Rupérez) to justify the importance of the topic.
5. It applies grounded theory and content analysis methodologies supported by ATLAS.ti software, demonstrating methodological rigor.
6. The data collection is well defined: 1,536 tweets across two waves, with clearly explained exclusion criteria and coding.
7. The use of ATLAS.ti software for data organization, coding, and categorization is transparent.
8. The focus on real-time social reaction to the LOMLOE provides an updated and contextualized perspective.
9. It offers empirical evidence on public perceptions of relevant legislation—something often missing in legal or educational policy analyses.
10. The structure for presenting results is clear, using graphs, tables, and Sankey diagrams to aid understanding.
11. The main themes identified—subsidized education, religion, and special education—are consistent with the data.
12. The analysis highlights relevant nuances, such as the correlation between negative evaluations and religious or private themes.
13. The semantic analysis of discourse reveals important ideological aspects in the social polarization around education.
14. The article is well structured, with clearly defined introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
15. The reasoning is generally well-articulated: it begins with a theoretical premise, gathers data, and interprets it using appropriate methods.
16. The coding of categories and their articulation with tweet discourses are logically coherent.
17. The conclusions effectively synthesize the core points of the article, reaffirming social concerns regarding LOMLOE.
18. It clearly identifies focal points of tension: freedom of choice, language of instruction, special education, among others.

 

WEAKNESSES

1. The study heavily relies on specific hashtags, which may introduce selection bias and limit the sample’s representativeness.
2. The introduction is somewhat descriptive and lengthy, with repetitive legal background and limited focus on the scientific problem.
3. There is a lack of clear research questions or hypotheses to structure the investigation.
4. Weak articulation between objectives and theoretical foundations on public opinion, educational policy, or digital analysis.
5. The description of the coding process (open, axial, and selective) is brief and lacks examples illustrating category construction.
6. The criterion of data saturation is mentioned, but without a clear operational definition.
7. The discussion lacks theoretical depth. Findings are presented descriptively rather than interpreted through critical literature.
8. There is no critical analysis of the polarizing role of social media or how it shapes public opinion.
9. No differentiation is made between user types or their influence (institutional, civil, bots, etc.).
10. There is no critical reflection on the political and educational implications of the perceptions analyzed.
11. The study does not present its limitations or suggest avenues for future research.
12. The originality of the thematic focus could be better supported by broader comparison with previous studies or international contexts.
13.  The connection with broader educational or sociological theories is limited.
14. The initial abstract could be more concise and to the point.
15. Some inferences are made implicitly without sufficient critical development.
16. There is limited critical engagement among the cited authors—references often appear isolated and out of context.
17. The bibliography focuses almost exclusively on the Spanish context, lacking references to international authors on educational policy or social media analysis.
18. Some sources seem descriptive rather than critical, with limited theoretical weight.

 

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

 

1. Synthesize the legal background and emphasize the scientific gap justifying the study.
2. Formulate clear research questions or an implicit hypothesis.
3. Integrate a brief theoretical approach to social media as a space for political discourse production.
4. Include a comparative discussion with similar studies on reactions to educational reforms in other countries, enhancing the study’s originality.
5. Provide a concrete example of how a tweet was coded and categorized.
6. Better justify the hashtag selection and discuss the methodological limitation of thematic selection.
7. Broaden the discussion by connecting findings to theories of the public sphere, digital polarization, or online political engagement.
8. Reflect on user profiles and the nature of the tweets (spontaneous, organized, sponsored).
9. Include considerations on the external validity of the findings: to what extent can they be generalized to real public opinion?

• Specify how data saturation was analytically determined.
• Explore how the findings contribute to the understanding of participatory public policies or the relationship between public opinion and educational legislation.
• Rewrite the abstract focusing on key results and implications.
• Add more analytical insights into how different perceptions could affect the implementation of the LOMLOE.
• Expand the theoretical framework with international literature on comparative education, sociology of legislation, and social media analysis in public policy. Diversify sources with similar empirical studies (e.g., reactions to education reforms in Chile, Brazil, the U.S., etc.).
• Rewrite the conclusions in an analytical format, highlighting the significance of the findings within the context of public policy and participatory democracy.
• Include a brief section on limitations (e.g., sampling bias, lack of demographic profiles of users).
• Suggest future studies that explore, for example, how these online reactions translate into concrete political or social actions.

Author Response

Comments: STRENGTHS

 Response: First of all we would like to thank you for your positive comments and would like to encourage us to improve the text following your indications.

 

Comments: WEAKNESSES

1. The study heavily relies on specific hashtags, which may introduce selection bias and limit the sample’s representativeness.

 Response: Se ha añadido una explicación en la parte metodológica que profundiza ene ste cuestión, verá que no es algo que afecta a la investigación.

1. The introduction is somewhat descriptive and lengthy, with repetitive legal background and limited focus on the scientific problem.

 Response: Following the recommendation of the other two evaluators, it has been expanded by adding an international perspective. We hope you will find it more appropriate.

1. There is a lack of clear research questions or hypotheses to structure the investigation.

Response: A short section has been added to the introduction with the two main questions that have been the backbone of the research.

1. Weak articulation between objectives and theoretical foundations on public opinion, educational policy, or digital analysis.

Response: With the new references added, it has been tried to better articulate the theoretical references with the developed objectives.

1. The description of the coding process (open, axial, and selective) is brief and lacks examples illustrating category construction.

Response: The truth is that this is the first time we have been asked about this since we have been doing this kind of research and, consequently, we do not keep records of the elaboration of the codes.

1. The criterion of data saturation is mentioned, but without a clear operational definition.

Response: It has been highlighted at the end of the methodology that has been taken into account for data saturation which is at the discretion of the researchers. This criterion, as noted, includes the most prevalent categories.

1. The discussion lacks theoretical depth. Findings are presented descriptively rather than interpreted through critical literature.

Response: We hope that the added discussion will provide the desired theoretical depth.

1. There is no critical analysis of the polarizing role of social media or how it shapes public opinion.

Response: Since the discussion addresses the main issues from which polarization emerges, it has been chosen to introduce a paragraph on polarization in the introduction.

1. No differentiation is made between user types or their influence (institutional, civil, bots, etc.).

Response: We had no way of being able to differentiate between these aspects.

1. There is no critical reflection on the political and educational implications of the perceptions analyzed.

Response: As explained in the introduction, the approval of the ye occurs without consensus, like most in our country, so there are no political implications.

1. The study does not present its limitations or suggest avenues for future research.

Response: A paragraph has been added with the main limitations.

1. The originality of the thematic focus could be better supported by broader comparison with previous studies or international contexts.

Response: As recommended by other reviewers, a global international perspective has been introduced, both in the introduction and in the discussion.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version responds well to earlier suggestions. The international context is now better integrated, and the language has improved. These changes make the article more relevant and accessible to a broader audience.

While it is ready for publication, I recommend—if possible—adding a reference or two to recent reviews on education policy reforms. This would further enrich the discussion and connect the case more clearly to ongoing global debates.

Author Response

Comments: 

The revised version responds well to earlier suggestions. The international context is now better integrated, and the language has improved. These changes make the article more relevant and accessible to a broader audience.

While it is ready for publication, I recommend—if possible—adding a reference or two to recent reviews on education policy reforms. This would further enrich the discussion and connect the case more clearly to ongoing global debates.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for noticing the improvement of the manuscript, it would not have been possible without your recommendations.

Indeed, the addition of the international references makes it possible to integrate it into the international context. The following have been added:

Arteaga-Alcívar, Y. 2024. Educational reforms and their impact on learning outcomes: An international comparison. Revista Académica y Científica VICTEC, 5(9). https://doi.org/10.61395/victec.v5i9.177

Eden, C. A., Chisom, O. N., & Adeniyi, I. S. 2023. Education policy and social change: Examining the impact of reform initiatives on equity and access. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 11(02), 139–146 https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.11.2.0372

Ganimian, A. J., & Murnane, R. J. 2016. Improving education in developing countries: Lessons from rigorous impact evaluations. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 719–755. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24752880

Watkins, A., & Donnelly, V. 2020. Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation in European countries. Prospects, 50, 65–79. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2

Witenstein, M. A., & Abdallah, J. 2022. Applying the street-level bureaucracy framework for education policy discernment to curriculum and exam policies in India. Prospects, 52(3–4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09623-7

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive review of the manuscript.