Bullying and Its Effects on Middle School Students in Romania: A Quantitative Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and important topic but this paper needs a substantial rewrite. I have made some specific comments below. These are well intended and will hopefully help. 

Introduction - this needs to be less disjointed and present a clear argument for the research. I am not clear on what the research gap is.  Reference is made to specific programmes but these are not explained (e.g. Olweus).  Very little of the research is explained or evaluated.  Research rationale is unclear. There are some useful points made but it all needs pulling together to develop a coherent argument. 

Method - there is a substantial amount of detail missing. For instance, how were schools recruited, and how many? Was the survey online or paper-based? There are some typos (e.g. line 238).  Some example questions from the survey would be useful. Does the cronbach alpha refer to all bullying or subsets? Lines 275 - 281 are not appropriate for this section. What ethics were considered? 

Results  - The hypotheses should have been presented at the end of the introduction and it is unclear the rationale for these. The approach taken to the introduction does not build up to these. Tables are very difficult to read and do not follow the MDPI guidance.  I would suggest incorporating into the text. The results section seems to jump around a lot and needs some organising, perhaps in line with the hypotheses.  It needs substantial re-organisation.

Discussion - Some helpful points raised here but similar to the other sections it feels disjointed and unclear. Discussions do not traditionally include statistics. Strengths, limitations and future directions needed. Also, avoid use of 'prove'.

Appendix  - the content here is not readable.

References – the references are not linked to the intext citations.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is scope for the language to be more academic / scientific, but I am always in admiration of translations to English language.  The text seems quite disjointed but I am not sure if this is related to the translation of the approach taken to writing. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 comments

 

Reviewer 1 point 1

 

”Introduction - this needs to be less disjointed and present a clear argument for the research. I am not clear on what the research gap is.  Reference is made to specific programs but these are not explained (e.g. Olweus).  Very little of the research is explained or evaluated.  The research rationale is unclear. There are some useful points made but it all needs pulling together to develop a coherent argument.”

 

Response 1

 

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your insights and your recommendations. We are always eager to improve our work and your comments contribute significantly to strengthening our paper’s overall quality and impact.

 

Yes, we do agree that the research argument can be stated more clearly. In addition, we moved the research hypotheses to the end of the introduction, as you mentioned.  Please see below the modifications we made to accommodate your suggestions.

 

Bullying refers to repeated aggressive behavior toward a goal that harms another person in the context of a specific power imbalance (Olweus, 1994). This definition stood the test of time, as it remains the most prominent one in the field of research on bullying. It provided the foundation for developing the Olveus Bullying/Victimization Questionnaire (OBVQ). The OBVQ has been used to analyze the prevalence of bullying among thousands of adolescents all around the world (Currie et al., 2012). What we can see from this definition, starting from its keywords, is the repetitive nature of bullying, the power imbalance between bully and victim, and the intentionality behind the actions.

Thus, bullying can take various forms, including physical aggression, verbal harassment, social exclusion, and cyberbullying, each with its own particularity and specific implications. None of the forms of bullying can be regarded as easier/less significant than the others: for example, although on the surface, social exclusion may appear to be an easier form of bullying than physical harassment, its medium- and long-term effects can be as negative and far-reaching as those of physical harassment. More recent research, however, argues that bullying can also occur for entertainment purposes or because of teasing, which does not involve a clear intention to harm (Kerr et al., 2016).

 

During the 1970s, Olweus coordinated the first large-scale studies on bullying and developed one of the first school bullying prevention programs, known as the "Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP)", a program that is considered highly effective and is still used in schools around the world to prevent and combat bullying (Olweus, 1973).

This program is based on the principle that bullying can be prevented and reduced through changes at the school level by cultivating harmonious relationships between pupils and is based on the following principles: awareness and involvement of the whole school community (pupils, teachers, leaders, parents), school-wide interventions, continuous training of teachers in the identification and management of bullying behaviors (Olweus, 1993).

 The implementation of the Olweus Program has proven to be effective in many cases, contributing to the decrease of bullying in schools and having a positive effect on the school climate and pupils' well-being. According to a study conducted by Tofi and Farrington (2011) on 44 different prevention programs, the ones driven by the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) seem the most effective. In addition, the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ) is the most used bullying self-report measure across the globe (Cikili-Uytun, Efendi, Mentese-Babayigit, 2023).

 

 

“Some other small-scale studies have been elaborated on combating bullying (Vrăjitoru et al., 2024). In addition, research has been done on forms of bullying, (Mureșan, 2020) and the social-cognitive aspects of bullying (Rus et al., 2024), but not many studies have been conducted in recent years on specific areas of the country to determine problems, and tendencies, to come up with useful solutions to create a harmonious school environment.”

“Bullying is not an isolated phenomenon; it can vary based on multiple social and contextual factors, and it should be treated accordingly. Most teachers in Romania are not specifically trained to acquire the skills necessary to combat bullying (Diac, Grădinaru, 2022). Our research offers recommendations for policymakers and teachers to determine what aspects of the school environment and policies need to be changed, introduced, and treated to promote a positive learning environment.”

“The objective of our study was to determine the prevalence of bullying and its effects on students and their well-being from a sociodemographic perspective. We, the authors, would like to encourage similar research to be continuously carried out in Romania. We offer insights into understanding the complexity of bullying in the Romanian educational system with a case Study in the Craiovean Region.

 

Based on the objective and the literature review, we identified the following hypotheses for our research:

H1. Boys will report higher rates of bullying than girls.

H2. Students with lower academic scores are more likely to be victims of bullying.

H3. Students with strong social support are less likely to become victims of bullying.

H4. The more students are victims of bullying, the lower their academic performance and emotional state will be.”

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 1, point 2

 

”Method - there is a substantial amount of detail missing. For instance, how were schools recruited, and how many? Was the survey online or paper-based? There are some typos (e.g. line 238).  Some example questions from the survey would be useful. Does the cronbach alpha refer to all bullying or subsets? Lines 275 - 281 are not appropriate for this section. What ethics were considered?”

Response 2.

 

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your comment. Let us clarify the questions you raised. Eight schools were recruited randomly from the municipality of Craiova. The survey was paper-based. We fixed the typos from line 238 (material error on our side). The Cronbach's alpha refers to the overall questionnaire and not to specific subsets (our questionnaire was tested in a pilot study, where a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.85 was obtained), We moved lines 275-281 and added a separate subsection about data collection method and sample (see lines 289-311). Our research has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Sociology and Communication at The Transylvanian University of Brașov. In addition, we added details on the sampling method and the statistical tests used to conduct our analysis.

 

We added these two paragraphs to accommodate your comments. Please see them below:

 

 

”We recruited eight schools for our study based on the data we obtained from the Craiovean entity that administrates all educational institutions. Schools were selected randomly based on their results (the sample included both higher and lower-performing schools), proximity (we selected both central and peripheric schools from Craiova Municipality), and size (we opted for smaller and bigger middle schools from the area).”

 

”For the data analysis, we applied various statistical tests to analyze the collected data and better understand the phenomenon of bullying in the educational environment, including the ANOVA test, which was used to compare the differences in attitudes and perceptions regarding bullying between different groups of students, classified by criteria such as gender or class.

 Also, for some questions, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient to verify whether there was a relationship between some variables, such as the connection between students' self-esteem and students' experiences of being victims of bullying. These statistical analyses were useful not only for testing the hypotheses of our research but also for identifying the factors that contribute to the prevalence and severity of the bullying phenomenon, as well as for providing evidence-based recommendations for possible intervention plans that can be outlined at the level of schools or school inspectorates.

In addition to ANOVA tests and Pearson correlations, we also used the Chi-square test to examine the relationship between certain variables, such as students' gender or level of study, and the types of bullying behaviors reported.

The Chi-square test allowed us, for example, to observe whether there is a significant link between gender and the prevalence of certain forms of bullying, such as verbal harassment or social exclusion, and to conclude whether for each of these types of bullying girls or, conversely, boys are more likely to be victims.”

 

 

”Our research has been approved by the Faculty of Sociology and Communication Ethics Committee at The Transylvanian University of Brașov.”

 

Examples of questions from the survey:

 

• Have you ever observed a classmate being placed in an uncomfortable situation or subjected to unpleasant behaviors by other students? If so, did you feel comfortable intervening or reporting the situation?
• How do you consider that the bullying incident affected your relationship with school and learning?
• Have you ever been involved in a bullying incident at your school?
• Have you ever been involved in a cyberbullying incident or witnessed one?
• If you had a personal experience or witnessed bullying, did you feel supported by the teaching staff or the school counselor?
• How do you think a victim of bullying feels?

Reviewer 1, point 3

 

”Results  - The hypotheses should have been presented at the end of the introduction and it is unclear the rationale for these. The approach taken to the introduction does not build up to these. Tables are very difficult to read and do not follow the MDPI guidance.  I would suggest incorporating into the text. The results section seems to jump around a lot and needs some organising, perhaps in line with the hypotheses.  It needs substantial re-organisation.”

 

Response 3.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your comment and for the opportunity to enhance our work. We appreciate your suggestions, and we have made major changes to enhance clarity and structure. We reorganized the entire results section, starting with some demographic data on the sample, then for each hypothesis, we presented the results, and at the end, we summarized these in an orderly manner. The entire results section has been modified, you can consult this part in the revised manuscript. In addition, we moved the hypotheses to the end of the introduction, as you have suggested. Thank you again, for taking the time to review our work, and helping us improve the overall impact of our paper.

Moreover, we used MDPI layout and English editing services to make sure that all tables are now formatted according to MDPI guidelines.

 

Reviewer 1, point 4

”Discussion - Some helpful points raised here but similar to the other sections it feels disjointed and unclear. Discussions do not traditionally include statistics. Strengths, limitations and future directions needed. Also, avoid use of 'prove'.”

Response 4.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your valuable suggestions to enhance our work with the help of your expertise and insights. Based on your comments regarding the discussions section, we have made the following changes to the manuscript: we highlighted strengths and limitations and identified future directions. Based on the study results, we added a section of practical recommendations for policymakers and teachers for designing effective bullying prevention programs.

“The results challenge our initial expectations regarding academic performance and bullying. In opposition to prior studies consulted, our collected data showed that academic performance did not significantly predict bullying victimization or aggression.

The unexpected finding was that observational bullying was a predictor of lower academic scores. This could potentially point to the far-reaching effects of bullying on the wider learning environment. Its impact can extend beyond the individuals directly involved, also influencing witnesses.

 

Collected data also showed that social support from parents and friends can act as a safety barrier for combating and preventing bullying. Students with stronger social support were less likely to engage in bullying behaviors. In addition, developing prevention programs would be more effective when including relevant stakeholders, such as parents, guardians, teachers, and friends.

Our study results report a weak connection (r = 0.041) between bullying victimization and gender. Contrary to the studies we have consulted in the literature review, gender did not significantly influence bullying prevalence in our sample. Therefore, H1 is not confirmed. However, we would like to highlight that boys reported higher victimization rates than girls (especially at age 13), as presented in Tables 2 and 3. This finding does not intend to contradict our previous finding but rather provides additional context and detail to understanding the complex phenomenon of bullying. We argue that these gender differences could be influenced by various behavioral and social norms that are pushed on boys and girls. Analyzing the connections between gender and bullying more in-depth could be an interesting topic for future research.

 

                                     4.1. Recommendations for policymakers and teachers

 

• Educational institutions should design school-wide anti-bullying policies that define bullying clearly, outline procedures rigorously, and determine consistent disciplinary measures in case of incidents.
• Anti-bullying initiatives should be tailored to address bullying from different points of view, such as conflict management skills, social and emotional learning, and advocating for a positive school environment.
• We highlight that creating prevention programs does not mean a one-size-fits-all approach. Our results show that programs should be adjusted to specific cultural and contextual factors.
• Educational institutions should provide extensive training for teachers to combat bullying. Teachers need to learn about strategies that cultivate positive student-teacher relationships.
• In addition, our study demonstrates that peers and the home environment could have a significant effect on bullying prevalence. We suggest collaborating with parents/guardians and friends to raise awareness of bullying, its effects, and methods to support victims, aggressors, and witnesses as well.
• Our research stipulates that witnesses are just as much affected by this harmful phenomenon as aggressors or victims. This indicated that prevention programs should include all of the stakeholders regarding bullying.
• Campaigns and community-based events could also raise awareness of the harmful influence of bullying on the school environment.

 

4.2. Study Limitations

It is important to highlight that our study was based on a sample from Craiovean Municipality and region, limiting its potential to generalize the results at the national level.

In addition, a self-reporting approach to behavior can cause biases, because students can be shy or might not want to admit that they have been involved in bullying incidents, no matter if they were victims, witnesses, or aggressors.

Another important aspect to mention is that contextual factors such as the school’s characteristics or the family background of students have not been evaluated comprehensively. Future studies could include a qualitative or longitudinal approach and a more diverse sample both from urban and rural areas. This way, we could improve our understanding of the phenomenon of bullying in Craiova.”

 

Reviewer 1, point 5

”Appendix  - the content here is not readable.”

Response 5.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for pointing this out. We agree with your statement and consulted MDPI’s layout editing services. Now the appendix is more readable and formatted according to MDPI guidelines.

Reviewer 1, point 6

”References – the references are not linked to the in text citations.”

Response 6.

Dear Reviewer, you are right. We revised each reference separately and now all references are linked to the in-text citations. You can review this by consulting the revised manuscript. We activated track changes and linked each reference manually.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

Bullying and its Effects on Middle School Students in Romania: A Quantitative Approach

 

Abstract

-          The abstract in this journal has a limit of 200 words; this one has 272. [Reference: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions]

-          How was the questionnaire distributed, and how was the data analyzed (e.g., statistical techniques used)?

-          The abstract highlights key findings. However, the results are not structured clearly, and no statistical data is presented.

-          The results section is shorter than the conclusion; the results should be more prominent.

 

Introduction

-          The introduction describes bullying broadly (lines 30-33) but does not define it in a structured way. Bullying should be defined more formally (e.g., using a well-established definition such as Olweus' definition in lines 96-99).

-          The effects of bullying on middle school students are only briefly mentioned (lines 62-65) without linking them directly to the study’s specific focus.

-          Lines 70 and 71 would be better suited for the study design section in the methodology.

-          The objective is not explicitly stated in a clear and structured manner. A stronger, more direct statement of the study’s goal is needed. The objective is buried within the introduction (lines 48-55) rather than explicitly stated, and it is usually placed at the end of the introduction.

 

Methodology

-          The sampling method is unclear: it is described as both random and non-probabilistic, which is contradictory. Random sampling implies a systematic selection process, while non-probabilistic sampling suggests a convenience or purposive approach.

-          The methodology states that the questionnaires were administered face-to-face (lines 231-232), but it does not describe who administered them (teachers, researchers?).

-          The methodology states that data was analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 23) and included ANOVA, Pearson correlations, and descriptive statistics. However, it does not justify why these tests were chosen or how they relate to the research questions.

-          Ethical considerations are mentioned in lines 262-267, stating that ethical academic principles were followed, participants were informed, and GDPR compliance was ensured. However, there is no explicit mention of approval from an ethical committee or institutional review board.

 

Results

-          Line 288: The hypotheses appear for the first time in the results section; they should be mentioned earlier in the article.

-          The results section presents findings related to each hypothesis, which is a good structure. However, the section lacks a clear summary of key findings at the beginning or end—instead, results are scattered throughout. A short introductory paragraph summarizing the key results should be included.

-          The authors mention four hypotheses (H1–H4) (lines 288-293) but do not explicitly state whether each hypothesis was supported or rejected.

-          Tables are not properly introduced/explained: The results section includes multiple tables but does not explain them thoroughly. Readers must interpret tables themselves rather than being guided by the text. Some tables are mentioned in the text, while others are not.

-          The study focuses on students from Craiova, yet the discussion implies generalizability to all Romanian students (lines 490-496).

-          There is no demographic data on the sample.

-          Inconsistent nomenclature: "boys" is used in the text, while "men" appears in the tables.

 

Discussion

-          The discussion does not begin with a clear summary of the most important findings. Instead, it jumps straight into hypothesis testing. A brief summary at the beginning should highlight the most important findings.

-          The study acknowledges that gender was not a significant factor in bullying (H1 not supported, line 506), yet later in the discussion (lines 572-573), it contradicts this by stating that boys reported higher rates of victimization.

-          The study concludes that bullying is a serious issue and suggests that prevention programs should be developed (lines 590-592). However, specific recommendations are missing—it is unclear what kind of intervention programs are needed or how policymakers and educators should respond based on the results.

 

Conclusion

-          The conclusion does not start with a clear and concise summary of the most important findings. Instead, it jumps directly into the study’s location and sample size (lines 608-612), which is unnecessary at this stage.

-          The conclusion states that gender had only a weak correlation with bullying (lines 613-616), yet earlier in the discussion (lines 572-573), the authors claim that boys reported higher victimization rates.

-          Similarly, academic performance is said to have a weak correlation (lines 617-618), but in the discussion (lines 510-520), the effect of bullying on witnesses' academic performance was emphasized more strongly.

-          The conclusion mentions the importance of prevention programs (lines 641-644) but does not specify how these programs should be designed or what strategies might be effective. The lack of concrete and practical recommendations limits the study’s impact for educators and policymakers.

-          The conclusion states that bullying remains a large-scale issue in Romania (line 626), but this study only examined Craiova.

 

Tables

-          The tables are not formatted according to the journal's guidelines.

 

Appendix

-          The tables in the appendix are unreadable.

 

References

-          The references are not formatted according to the journal's guidelines.

Author Response

Reviewer 2, point 1

”The abstract in this journal has a limit of 200 words; this one has 272. [Reference: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions]

How was the questionnaire distributed, and how was the data analyzed (e.g., statistical techniques used)?

The abstract highlights key findings. However, the results are not structured clearly, and no statistical data is presented.

The results section is shorter than the conclusion; the results should be more prominent.”

 

Point 1 Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your valuable insights on the structure of the abstract. We agree with your suggestions and made the following modifications to improve it by addressing your feedback:

”Bullying, especially in the context of digitalization, is a global issue that can significantly impact students' educational and personal development. Our research analyzed the complex and multi-faceted phenomenon of bullying, its prevalence, and its effect on students in middle schools in Craiova, Romania. A quantitative approach was applied by the adopted Save the Children Romania and Olweus questionnaires to a sample of 673 middle school students. The data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Version 23, employing ANOVA tests, Pearson correlations, and chi-square tests, as well as descriptive statistics. Contrary to previous research, our findings indicate that gender (r = 0.041) and academic performance did not significantly predict bullying victimization or aggression (p = 0.079). However, we found that the academic performance of students who witnessed bullying incidents was significantly affected. Interestingly, the descriptive statistics showed that boys reported higher rates of bullying involvement. Additionally, social support (−0.148) and the school environment emerged as important factors in bullying prevention. These unexpected results highlight the contextual and cultural specificity of bullying. We encourage further research to better understand this nuanced and complex phenomenon, focusing not only on victims but also on bystanders. Addressing bullying requires a comprehensive approach to promote a healthy learning environment for all students.”

 

Reviewer 2, point 2

2.1.

”The introduction describes bullying broadly (lines 30-33) but does not define it in a structured way. Bullying should be defined more formally (e.g., using a well-established definition such as Olweus' definition in lines 96-99).”

Response 2.1.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you so much for your suggestion. We agree with your point and we would like to enhance the understanding and the readability of our manuscript. In this manner, we added the following section to the manuscript to define bullying in a more structured manner (lines 59-75):

”Bullying refers to repeated aggressive behavior toward a goal that harms another person in the context of a specific power imbalance (Olweus, 1994). This definition stood the test of time, as it remains the most prominent one in the field of research on bullying. It provided the foundation for developing the Olveus Bullying/Victimization Questionnaire (OBVQ). The OBVQ has been used to analyze the prevalence of bullying among thousands of adolescents all around the world (Currie et al., 2012). What we can see from this definition, starting from its keywords, is the repetitive nature of bullying, the power imbalance between bully and victim, and the intentionality behind the actions.”

”Therefore, bullying can take various forms, including physical aggression, verbal harassment, social exclusion, and cyberbullying, each with its own particularity and specific implications. None of the forms of bullying can be considered as easier/less harmful than the others: for example, although on the surface, social exclusion may appear to be an easier form of bullying than physical harassment, its long-term effects can be as negative as those of physical harassment. More recent research, however, argues that bullying can also occur for entertainment purposes or because of teasing and diminishing of reputation, which does not involve a clear intention to harm Kerr et al. (2016).”

 

2.2.

”The effects of bullying on middle school students are only briefly mentioned (lines 62-65) without linking them directly to the study’s specific focus.”

Response 2.2.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for that suggestion. You are right, please see below lines 62-65 modified with the effects of bullying linked to specific studies from the literature.  98-101

“The serious consequences of bullying are evident in both victims and aggressors. It can impact many areas of life, such as self-esteem (Fanti & Henrich, 2015), academic performance (Oliviera F.R, Menezes, Ifffi, & Oliviera G.R., 2018), mental health (Fullchange & Furlong 2016) and physical health (Wolke, Lereya 2016).”

2.3.

”Lines 70 and 71 would be better suited for the study design section in the methodology.”

Response 2.3.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for making this observation. We agree with your statement, and we removed lines 70 and 71 from the manuscript, and we restructured the methodology part (lines 303-311).

2.4.

”The objective is not explicitly stated in a clear and structured manner. A stronger, more direct statement of the study’s goal is needed. The objective is buried within the introduction (lines 48-55) rather than explicitly stated, and it is usually placed at the end of the introduction.”

Response 2.4.

 

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your comment. We wish to continuously improve our work and elevate our paper’s overall quality. In this regard, we added the following paragraphs to the end of the introduction. Here we specifically state the objective and the research rationale.

 

“Bullying is not an isolated phenomenon; it can vary based on multiple social and contextual factors, and it should be treated accordingly. Unfortunately, most teachers in Romania are not specifically trained to acquire the skills necessary to combat bullying (Diac, Grădinaru, 2022). Our research offers recommendations for policymakers and teachers to determine what aspects of the school environment and policies need to be changed, introduced, and treated to promote a positive learning environment.

The objective of our study was to determine the prevalence of bullying and its effects on students and their well-being from a sociodemographic perspective. We, the authors, would like to encourage similar research to be continuously carried out in Romania. We offer insights into understanding the complexity of bullying in the Romanian educational system with a case Study in the Craiovean Region.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2, point 3

3.1.

”The sampling method is unclear: it is described as both random and non-probabilistic, which is contradictory. Random sampling implies a systematic selection process, while non-probabilistic sampling suggests a convenience or purposive approach.”

Response 3.1.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with your comment. It was a material error on our side. For clarification, we added the following paragraph to the manuscript, where we explain the sampling method used.

“The sampling technique we used to carry out our research was stratified convenience sampling to ensure that the results of our research are representative of middle school students in Craiova Municipality. To respect this stratification, when we proportionally selected the students to answer our questionnaire, we selected them randomly (of different genders, from different classes, from different socio-economic situations).”

 

3.2.

”The methodology states that the questionnaires were administered face-to-face (lines 231-232), but it does not describe who administered them (teachers, researchers?).”

Response 3.2.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for pointing this out. The survey was administered by researchers. Please see the paragraph we added to our manuscript where we addressed your comment (lines 312-316).

“The questionnaires were administered by researchers. In addition, we would like to highlight that before data collection, informed consent was obtained from all participants and their parents. Pupils were informed that participation was entirely voluntary. All responses were anonymous, and no personally identifiable information (names, addresses, school names) was collected.”

 

3.3.

“The methodology states that data was analyzed using IBM SPSS (version 23) and included ANOVA, Pearson correlations, and descriptive statistics. However, it does not justify why these tests were chosen or how they relate to the research questions.”

 

Response 3.3.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your suggestions. We agree with the lack of explanation of statistics and tests used; please see the paragraphs below. We added them to accommodate your comments and to improve the methodology section.

”For the data analysis, we applied various statistical tests to analyze the collected data and better understand the phenomenon of bullying in the educational environment, including the ANOVA test, which was used to compare the differences in attitudes and perceptions regarding bullying between different groups of students, classified by criteria such as gender or class.

 Also, for some questions, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient to verify whether there was a relationship between some variables, such as the connection between students' self-esteem and students' experiences of being victims of bullying. These statistical analyses were useful not only for testing the hypotheses of our research but also for identifying the factors that contribute to the prevalence and severity of the bullying phenomenon, as well as for providing evidence-based recommendations for possible intervention plans that can be outlined at the level of schools or school inspectorates.

In addition to ANOVA tests and Pearson correlations, we also used the Chi-square test to examine the relationship between certain variables, such as students' gender or level of study, and the types of bullying behaviors reported.

The Chi-square test allowed us, for example, to observe whether there is a significant link between gender and the prevalence of certain forms of bullying, such as verbal harassment or social exclusion, and to conclude whether for each of these types of bullying girls or, conversely, boys are more likely to be victims.”

3.4.

“Ethical considerations are mentioned in lines 262-267, stating that ethical academic principles were followed, participants were informed, and GDPR compliance was ensured. However, there is no explicit mention of approval from an ethical committee or institutional review board.”

Dear Reviewer, thank you for addressing this aspect. Our study was approved by the Committee of the Faculty of Sociology and Communication at The Transylvanian University of Brașov. Please see the paragraph we added to the manuscript:

“Our research has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Sociology and Communication at The Transylvanian University of Brașov.”

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2, Point 4

Dear Reviewer, please note that the results section has been changed significantly, tables have been redone using MDPI layout editing services, hypotheses were moved, and tables have been reorganized to follow a more logical structure. A summary of the key findings and demographic data have been added. Please see our responses for each comment you made for the results section.

4.1.

”Line 288: The hypotheses appear for the first time in the results section; they should be mentioned earlier in the article.”

Response 4.1.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your comment, we agree with the fact that hypotheses should appear earlier in the manuscript. We moved them to the end of the introduction. You can see this in the revised manuscript (lines 276-280).

4.2.

”The results section presents findings related to each hypothesis, which is a good structure. However, the section lacks a clear summary of key findings at the beginning or end—instead, results are scattered throughout. A short introductory paragraph summarizing the key results should be included.”

Response 4.2.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable suggestion! We agree that the results need a more clear structure. We changed it completely in the manuscript.

We added at the beginning of the results section the objectives of our analysis. Then, we start presenting results for each of the hypotheses. Consequently, we mention at the end the summary of key findings briefly. This is because the key findings are explained in more detail at the beginning of the discussion section.

4.3.

“The authors mention four hypotheses (H1–H4) (lines 288-293) but do not explicitly state whether each hypothesis was supported or rejected.”

Response 4.3.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for mentioning this. We added validating the hypotheses in the discussions section of the manuscript.

4.4.

”Tables are not properly introduced/explained: The results section includes multiple tables but does not explain them thoroughly. Readers must interpret tables themselves rather than being guided by the text. Some tables are mentioned in the text, while others are not.”

Response 4.3.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your suggestions. We agree with you. We used MDPI layout editing services to modify tables, we referenced each one in text and reorganized them to enhance readability and understanding.

4.5.

”The study focuses on students from Craiova, yet the discussion implies generalizability to all Romanian students (lines 490-496).”

Response 4.5.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your comment. We are happy that you share your expertise and opinion with us. You raise a good point. In our study, we have a sample of students from Craiova, Romania. We would like to note that we made a case study in Craiova. We could focus on other areas of the country, however, this is a time-consuming process, and given the deadline for resubmitting the manuscript, we cannot make this happen. In the future, we would like to extend our research and explore the bullying phenomenon in other parts of Romania as well.

4.6.

”There is no demographic data on the sample.”

Response 4.6.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your comment, we agree that demographic data could give context to the research and would enhance the overall readability of the manuscript. In this regard, we added at the beginning of the results section a couple of paragraphs about demographic data. Please see them below or in the revised manuscript.

”More than 50% of the respondents to the questionnaire were 14 years old, followed by 13-year-olds (32.6%) and 15-year-olds, who constitute 16.6% of the sample. The lowest response weights were obtained from pupils aged 15 years and over and 11-year-olds, who represent only 0.3% and 0.1% respectively.

Most of the students who participated in our research (99.3%) were students of 7th (46.1%) and 8th (53.2%) grades. 6th (0.3) and 5th (0.4) grades.

 

3.1. Demographical data

 

Our sample was relatively gender-balanced (boys 50%, girls 49.8), which was an advantage for our research because, in this way, we were able to make comparisons between girls' and boys' experiences of bullying or to observe, for example, whether in some forms of bullying, girls are more predisposed to bullying than boys.

We opted to administer questionnaires to all four classes at the middle school level because bullying occurs at each of these levels and because, in this way, we were able to correlate the answers to certain questions according to the class in which the students were learning. Most of the students who participated in our research (99.3%) were students of 7th (46.1%) and 8th (53.2%) grades, with students of 6th (0.3%) and 5th (0.4%) grades.

 

In the present study, we aimed to understand whether or not gender was a significant predictor of bullying victimization. Moreover, we were curious to find out if students with lower academic scores were more likely to be victims of aggression. In addition, we aimed to analyze if social support can be a protective factor in bullying prevention. Consequently, we examined the relationships between gender, academic performance, well-being, and bullying.”

4.7.

Inconsistent nomenclature: "boys" is used in the text, while "men" appears in the tables.

Response 4.7.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for noting this, you are absolutely right. We changed ”men” to ”boys” as we consider this the most appropriate term.

Reviewer 2, Point 5

5.1.

” The discussion does not begin with a clear summary of the most important findings. Instead, it jumps straight into hypothesis testing. A brief summary at the beginning should highlight the most important findings.”

Response 5.1.

Dear Reviewer, your comment is well received and we do agree that the discussion would benefit from a clear summary of key findings. Please see below the modifications we made to accommodate this suggestion.

“The results challenge our initial expectations regarding academic performance and bullying. In opposition to prior studies consulted, our collected data showed that academic performance did not significantly predict bullying victimization or aggression.

The unexpected finding was that observational bullying was a predictor of lower academic scores. This could potentially point to the far-reaching effects of bullying on the wider learning environment. Its impact can extend beyond the individuals directly involved, also influencing witnesses.”

 

 

5.2.

”The study acknowledges that gender was not a significant factor in bullying (H1 not supported, line 506), yet later in the discussion (lines 572-573), it contradicts this by stating that boys reported higher rates of victimization.”

Response 5.2.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your valuable insight. An objective review is always welcomed as, for us, it might seem clear, but for a third party, it can be confusing as to why we made those statements in the manuscript. Let us clarify. As you correctly noted, the study results showed a weak connection between bullying victimization and gender, indicating that gender did not significantly influence the prevalence of bullying in the sample (H1 not supported). This finding is reported in the manuscript. However, in the subsequent discussion, we do acknowledge that the data in Tables 2 and 3 highlights that boys reported higher rates of bullying victimization compared to girls, particularly at age 13. This observation is not intended to contradict the earlier finding but rather to provide additional context and nuance to the discussion. It is possible to test this in future studies. The key point here is that while gender was not a significant predictor of bullying victimization overall, the descriptive data still showed some gender differences in the reported rates of victimization. This is an important observation that we, the authors, felt was worth highlighting, even though it did not directly support the original hypothesis (H1). We recognize that these gender differences in bullying behaviors can be influenced by various social and behavioral norms that are often imposed on boys and girls. This contextual information is provided to help readers better understand the nuances of the findings and the potential factors that may contribute to the observed patterns. Please see the changes we made in the manuscript below to address this aspect (lines 663-669):

“Collected data also showed that social support from parents and friends can act as a safety barrier for combating and preventing bullying. Students with stronger social support were less likely to engage in bullying behaviors. In addition, developing prevention programs would be more effective when including relevant stakeholders, such as parents, guardians, teachers, and friends.

Our study results report a weak connection (r = 0.041) between bullying victimization and gender. Contrary to the studies we have consulted in the literature review, gender did not significantly influence bullying prevalence in our sample. Therefore, H1 is not confirmed. However, we would like to highlight that boys reported higher victimization rates than girls (especially at age 13), as presented in Tables 2 and 3. This finding does not intend to contradict our previous finding but rather provides additional context and detail to understanding the complex phenomenon of bullying. We argue that these gender differences could be influenced by various behavioral and social norms that are pushed on boys and girls. Analyzing the connections between gender and bullying more in-depth could be an interesting topic for future research.”

 

5.3.

”The study concludes that bullying is a serious issue and suggests that prevention programs should be developed (lines 590-592). However, specific recommendations are missing—it is unclear what kind of intervention programs are needed or how policymakers and educators should respond based on the results.”

Response 5.3.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for this valuable suggestion, yes, we agree that specific recommendations would significantly elevate the overall impact of our paper. Please find below our recommendations for policymakers and teachers (lines 762-784):

“Recommendations for policy-makers

 

Educational institutions should design school-wide anti-bullying policies that define bullying clearly, outline procedures rigorously, and determine consistent disciplinary measures in case of incidents.

 

Anti-bullying initiatives should be tailored to address bullying from different points of view, such as conflict management skills, social and emotional learning, and advocating for a positive school environment.

 

We highlight that creating prevention programs does not mean a one-size-fits-all approach. Our results show that programs should be adjusted to specific cultural and contextual factors.

 

Educational institutions should provide extensive training for teachers to combat bullying. Teachers need to learn about strategies that cultivate positive student-teacher relationships. 

 

In addition, our study demonstrates that peers and the home environment could have a significant effect on bullying prevalence. We suggest collaborating with parents/guardians and friends to raise awareness of bullying, its effects, and methods to support victims, aggressors, and witnesses as well.

 

Our research stipulates that witnesses are just as much affected by this harmful phenomenon as aggressors or victims. This indicated that prevention programs should include all of the stakeholders regarding bullying.

 

Campaigns and community-based events could also raise awareness of the harmful influence of bullying on the school environment.”

 

 

 

Reviewer 2, Point 6

6.1

”The conclusion does not start with a clear and concise summary of the most important findings. Instead, it jumps directly into the study’s location and sample size (lines 608-612), which is unnecessary at this stage.”

Response 6.1.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for pointing this out. We agree that a mention of the key findings could significantly strengthen the conclusions section. We also deleted the lines (608-612) where the sample size and location are described. Please see the changes made below:

“Our research generated several key findings that challenged our initial expectations and offered new insights into the nuanced relationships between bullying, academic performance, social support, and gender.

Results underscore that academic performance did not predict bullying victimization or aggression significantly. Instead, we argue that students who witness aggression (observational bullying) were more likely to have lower academic scores, suggesting the possible extensive effects of bullying on the wider academic environment, even for those students who were not directly involved.

Decisively, our data showed that support from friends and family can be a protective factor against bullying prevalence. This stipulates the potential of bullying prevention programs, including key parties from students’ social support networks.

When it comes to the connection between gender and bullying, our statistical analysis reported a weak connection, although we noted that boys reported higher victimization rates than girls. This observation brings nuance and context to the dynamics of bullying among Craiovean middle-school students.”

6.2.

”The conclusion states that gender had only a weak correlation with bullying (lines 613-616), yet earlier in the discussion (lines 572-573), the authors claim that boys reported higher victimization rates.”

Response 6.2.

Dear Reviewer. Thank you so much for mentioning this. We have already covered this aspect earlier when we responded to your comments for the discussions section. Again, we would like to highlight that this observation is not intended to contradict the earlier finding but rather to provide additional context and nuance to the discussion. It is possible to test this in future studies.

6.3.

”Similarly, academic performance is said to have a weak correlation (lines 617-618), but in the discussion (lines 510-520), the effect of bullying on witnesses' academic performance was emphasized more strongly.”

Response 6.3.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for offering valuable recommendations to strengthen our research. We are happy to clarify the comment about the relationship between academic performance and bullying.

Initially, we anticipated that academic performance is significantly linked to bullying victimization and aggression. We did not predict that observational bullying would be a significant factor in having lower academic scores.

Items 31.11–31.17 from our survey addressed students who witnessed bullying. During the data analysis stage, we correlated the variable of academic performance with all three of the following roles: aggressors, victims, and witnesses. While we found a weak link between bullying victimization/aggression and academic performance, data showed that bullying witnesses tended to have lower academic scores. This could potentially point to the far-reaching effects of bullying on the school climate. This was an unexpected and interesting finding for us. This is why we emphasized the finding more in the discussions section.

See items 31.11 to 31.17 below (Likert Scale):

31. How often have the following situations happened to you:

31.11. Have you seen a child threaten another child.

31.12. Have you seen a child embarrass another child.

31.13. Have you heard a child spreading rumors about another child.

31.14. Have you seen a child destroy another child's things.

31.15. Have you seen a child shove another child.

31.16. Have you seen a child lightly injure another child (hit them, pinch them, bite them, etc.).

31.17. Have you seen a child beat another child.

Possible responses were: Very often; Often; Sometimes; Rarely; Very rarely; Never

“Some of our initial hypotheses were rejected, or partially confirmed. Our literature review suggested that gender and academic performance significantly correlate to bullying. Although boys reported higher rates of bullying, we identified only a weak link (r = 0.041) between bullying and gender. In the same way, we identified a weak correlation between bullying and academic performance for aggressors and victims (p = 0.079; Table 2). However, we found that observational bullying is linked significantly with academic performance.

Social support from the family had a moderate negative correlation (−0.148). This underscores the importance of having a positive and healthy home environment. Furthermore, students’ perception of the school environment is crucial when creating a positive learning environment, which can also predict involvement in bullying.”

 

6.4.

”The conclusion mentions the importance of prevention programs (lines 641-644) but does not specify how these programs should be designed or what strategies might be effective. The lack of concrete and practical recommendations limits the study’s impact on educators and policymakers.”

 

Response 6.4.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you so much for making this suggestion. Practical recommendations for policymakers would enhance the overall impact of our research. Please find the paragraphs we added to the manuscript to address your comment below (lines 838-849):

“Based on our findings, the potential of developing bullying prevention programs is undeniable. Policymakers, teachers, and institutional leaders should focus on some key points when developing bullying prevention initiatives to elevate students’ well-being and the overall learning environment. The goal is to advocate for a positive school climate where students can cultivate both academic and personal growth while feeling safe and comfortable.

Bullying prevention programs should target all students, not only victims or aggressors. Moreover, they should include key players from students’ social networks, such as parents and friends. Teachers and educators would benefit from participating in training sessions that equip them with the knowledge and skillset to prevent and combat bullying. In addition, there should be a clear and rigorous definition of bullying aggression incidents, and they should be treated accordingly.”

 

6.5.

The conclusion states that bullying remains a large-scale issue in Romania (line 626), but this study only examined Craiova.

Response 6.5.

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your comment. We would like to clarify your observation by adding the following paragraph to the manuscript (lines 832-837):

“We acknowledge that the existing literature and our study findings underscore that bullying remains a major issue within the Romanian educational system. However, it is important to highlight that the current research was conducted as a case study focused on Craiova. While the results provide insights into understanding bullying in this particular context, we cannot generalize these findings to the national level without further investigation.”

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments made. I agree that this does make a valuable contribution to the field but there are still areas where improvements are needed:

1. The introduction / literature review does present more background but the rationale still needs some clarity. I don't think a separate title is needed for the literature review section as this is what an introduction should include.
2. Some of the comparative data from the results section (i.e. previous research?) should probably be mentioned here.
3. Thank you for clarifying the recruitment method but this could include the information about the school prior to the children. Also what happened if they didn't want to take part? 
4. More needed re. ethics and ensuring children were okay.
5. More needed about the procedure - was this done during class? Lesson? Break time? Did the researcher sit with the students?
6. In places in the results, it refers to 'more than 50%' but the actual stats need reporting.
7. Gender stats don't add up? Was there another category?
8. The Discussion section still needs some substantive reviewing - it is not common to report statistics and numbers in the discussion and clarity is needed in places about the impact of the work in line with the literature. Thank you for referring specifically to the recommendations, this is helpful. 
9. The appendix formatting still needs some work.
10. The referencing hasn't used MDPI format which is to include numbers in brackets.

In some places this still feels like a draft paper and I do think quite of bit of tidying would be useful.

That said, it is an important piece of research and thank you for considering the changes so far. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 comments

 

Reviewer 1 point 1 and 2

 

 

Reviewer 1, Response 1 and 2

Dear reviewer, thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to improve our work. Yes, we agree with you that the research rationale could still be more clearly stated when analyzing previous research, thus highlighting possible gaps in the existing literature. Please see below the paragraphs we introduced to accommodate your suggestions:

”The research rationale for this study originates from the need to address and understand the prevalent issue of bullying within the Romanian educational system (Bularca et al., 2021). Despite the extensive literature on bullying in various contexts such as sports, adulthood, and elementary schools (Nichifor, Marian & Tiță, 2023; Melinte, 2023; Husky et al., 2020), there is a lack of recent comprehensive research focused on the prevalence, manifestation, and effects of bullying, specifically within Romanian middle schools.

The most impactful study was published in 2016 by the Save the Children Organization. It provides a detailed analysis of this phenomenon in Romania, providing valuable data on the frequency, forms, and consequences of bullying. The study combined qualitative and quantitative methods to capture the complexity of the bullying phenomenon.

The research assessed the bullying phenomenon through three dimensions: bully, victim and witness. The main indicators used in the study were exclusion from the group, humiliation, destruction of others' property, and physical violence.

The results show that "the notoriety of the term bullying is low," as many children and parents are not familiar with it or its implications; thus, "48% of children are familiar with the term bullying, and of these, 35% have obtained information from the internet and 30% from television" (p. 29).

At the same time, an alarming frequency of bullying incidents has been found, with significant implications for the emotional state and behavior of victims (Save the Children, 2016: 29-34).

Given the high prevalence of bullying reported in Romania, as highlighted by previous studies, it is necessary to delve deeper into this phenomenon to develop targeted interventions and policies that promote a safe and school environment for all students.

Furthermore, the existing research landscape in Romania indicates a high prevalence of bullying, ranking the country among the top in Europe in terms of bullying rates. This underscores the urgency and significance of conducting localized studies to uncover the unique sociodemographic factors influencing bullying behaviors in Romanian middle schools. By exploring the complexities of bullying within the Romanian cultural and educational context, this research aims to provide insights for preventing and addressing bullying effectively.”

Reviewer 1, point 3 and 4

”3.Thank you for clarifying the recruitment method but this could include the information about the school prior to the children. Also what happened if they didn't want to take part? 

4.More needed re. ethics and ensuring children were okay.”

Reviewer 1, points 3 and 4 response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your kind observation. We appreciate your comment. Let us further elaborate on the ethical aspects of our study regarding children’s safety:

„We want to note that informed consent has been obtained from the institution’s coordinator regarding the questionnaire application. All participants understood the purpose of the study, and each respondent took part in the study voluntarily, with the possibility to withdraw at any moment.

We did not collect personal data, such as name, email address, phone number, or any other information that could identify the minor’s identity. We have used age-appropriate formulations when designing our survey, questions that ensure a good understanding of the content displayed.

We have considered a well-defined and well-suited approach based on the children’s age, cognitive abilities, and the stage of their development. In addition, the ethics committee of the Faculty of Sociology and Communication in Brașov has approved our study.”

 

Reviewer 1, Point 5

”More needed about the procedure - was this done during class? Lesson? Break time? Did the researcher sit with the students?”

 

Dear reviewer, Thank you for your question. We appreciate your time and effort in helping us improve our work. Let us clarify this aspect.

 

“The researchers initially discussed the project with the principal and identified specific survey administration dates. Questionnaires were applied during coordination classes (they are held once a week in every school in Romania, where pupils are usually asked about school activities, administrative instruction, informative classes, training, events, and issue-solving). The teacher was absent during the class to ensure a calm, safe, and pressure-free environment for students to respond.”

 

 Reviewer 1, Point 6

”In places in the results, it refers to 'more than 50%' but the actual stats need reporting.”

 

Reviewer 1, Point 6 response

Dear reviewer, thank you so much for making this observation; we agree with your statement.

The actual statistic is 50,4%, and we updated the manuscript to the exact percentage. See line 349

 

Reviewer 1, Point 7

Gender stats don't add up? Was there another category?

Reviewer 1, Point 7 response

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your question. Let us clarify this aspect:

Regarding the gender stats, we refer to the fact that there was a relatively balanced gender distribution (52% girls and 48% boys), and for some questions, correlating the answers with the independent variable "gender" allowed us to highlight significant differences: it was possible to identify trends in the types of bullying according to gender: in girls- social exclusion, and verbal harassment.

 

 

 

Reviewer 1, point 8

 

 

”The Discussion section still needs some substantive reviewing - it is not common to report statistics and numbers in the discussion and clarity is needed in places about the impact of the work in line with the literature. Thank you for referring specifically to the recommendations, this is helpful.”

 

Reviewer 1, point 8 response

 

Dear reviewer, Thank you so much for your suggestions. We agree with you, and we reorganized the entire discussion section for more clarity. We also presented key takeaways more in depth in relation to existing literature. Please see the improved discussions section below:

 

 

Our study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and effects of bullying among middle school students from Craiova Municipality, Romania, and produced key takeaways that teachers and policymakers can apply in designing effective prevention programs.

 We found that, contrary to our initial hypotheses, the correlation between gender and bullying victimization was weak. This highlights that in the Craiovean area, gender is not a significant factor in understanding bullying.

The results challenge our initial expectations regarding academic performance and bullying. In opposition to prior studies consulted, our collected data showed that academic performance did not significantly predict bullying victimization or aggression.

The unexpected finding was that observational bullying predicted lower academic scores. This could potentially point to the far-reaching effects of bullying on the wider learning environment. Its impact can extend beyond the individuals directly involved, and it can also influence witnesses.

Boys reported higher victimization rates than girls, as presented in Tables 2 and 3. Hypothesis 1 is confirmed. Nonetheless, our study results report a weak connection between bullying victimization and gender. Contrary to the studies we have consulted in the literature review, gender did not significantly influence bullying prevalence in our sample. This does not intend to contradict our previous finding but rather provides additional context and detail to understanding the complex phenomenon of bullying. These gender differences could be influenced by various behavioral and social norms that are pushed on boys and girls. Analyzing the connections between gender and bullying more in-depth could be an interesting topic for future research.

When it comes to Hypothesis 2, we found a weak negative link between bullying and academic performance, both for victims and aggressors. The unexpected finding, however, was a significant correlation between bullying witnesses and academic performance.

For example, the results for Question 31.15 suggested a significant link between the two variables. Moreover, linking academic performance to questions 31.1, 31.2, 31.5, 31.7, and 31.12 indicated that students who witnessed bullying were likelier to have lower academic scores (Appendix A).

Lacey and Cornell (2013) argued that witnesses are just as affected by bullying as aggressors and victims. Their study analyzed 286 High Schools in Virginia, USA. They found in their study that a negative learning environment causes lower academic scores. This can explain our research results. Being a witness to such incidents can cause distress, anxiety, a feeling of being unsafe, and lower academic scores. Other researchers also argue that this negative impact is not limited to victims; those who witness bullying also experience detrimental effects on their academic performance. (Rusteholz, 2023; Zequinão, 2017)

When analyzing Hypothesis 3, we found that 75.4% of students reported having friends of the same age. This indicates that strong social support can be effective when combating bullying. This was also confirmed by Ridgal et al. (2020). Their study used a large survey comprising Norwegian adolescents. In addition, they argued that without the protection of social support, adolescents are more likely to develop symptoms of stress and anxiety.

Collected data also showed that social support from parents and friends can act as a safety barrier for combating and preventing bullying. Students with stronger social support were less likely to engage in bullying behaviors. In addition, developing prevention programs would be more effective when relevant stakeholders, such as parents, guardians, teachers, and friends, are included. Therefore, H3 is confirmed.

Al-Smadi et al. (2024) also claimed that social support partially eased students’ depressive symptoms. Shaheen et al. (2019) carried out a study in Jordan. They had a sample of 436 students and analyzed bullying victimization and the role of social support in this phenomenon. The authors reported that social support acts as a protective variable regarding bullying. In addition, they claimed that gender, age, social media, and support from family can all forecast bullying victimization. Moreover, adolescents who perceive higher levels of support from loved ones are less likely to experience bullying. (Shaheen, 2019; Lee, 2022; Cuesta, 2022)

Our study, however, showed that only 10.7% of students reported that bullying made them feel unsafe in the school environment, and 9.6% declared that they did not want to go to school anymore because of bullying. In contrast, 59.7% claimed that bullying did not affect their relationship with the school and learning environments. Only 6.1% reported difficulties focusing and performing well after a bullying incident. These data partially validate our fourth hypothesis (H4). Kim and Chun (2020) claimed that a positive school environment on an individual level reduces bullying and suicidal tendencies. In contrast, (Feming, 2010) argues that victims of bullying report higher levels of sadness, hopelessness, loneliness, insomnia, and suicidal ideation.

We found a moderate negative correlation between a student’s relationship with their family and bullying. A better relationship with parents was associated with less involvement in bullying actions. In addition, we report a strong negative correlation between bullying and students’ perception of school safety. This means that if students consider the school environment to be unsafe, they are more likely to become involved with bullying. The existing literature supports this argument by stating that Students who feel unsafe at school are more likely to be victims, bullies, or both. This is linked to feelings of sadness and a lack of belonging (Glew, 2008; Goldweber, 2013)

The studied phenomenon remains a major problem in the Romanian school system (Nichita, Enache,& Rebecca-Eunie, 2020). It peaks at 13 years of age for both victims and aggressors. Boys are reporting slightly higher rates of victimization than girls. This finding was confirmed by Gomez-Ortiz (2017) (Rawlings, 2016) and (Fleming, 2010).

Our study highlights the multidimensionality and complexity of the bullying phenomenon and underscores the importance of social factors such as family, friends, and social support. At the same time, a good perception of the school environment is imperative in preventing bullying. Gender did not seem to be a significant factor in our sample; however, a deeper analysis of its implications is still necessary in other contexts.

Ciucă (2019) and claimed that bullying is a major issue in the Romanian educational system. In addition, he encouraged further research on this topic due to the existing literature focusing on violence for the most part. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, we found that specificity is the only common factor in understanding the phenomenon of bullying. What predicts bullying in one region, country, or even city may differ from other areas. Furthermore, we should expand our scope and look at other variables, such as school dropout rates or absenteeism, and adopt an analytical approach to designing prevention programs for them to be effective. This includes conducting research before implementing any new strategies in schools. More targeted interventions are needed that take into account the specific social dynamics and risk factors present in middle schools (Monopoli, 2022; Ybarra, 2019).

 

4.1. Recommendations for policymakers and teachers

 

• Educational institutions should design school-wide anti-bullying policies that define bullying clearly, outline procedures rigorously, and determine consistent disciplinary measures in case of incidents.
• Anti-bullying initiatives should be tailored to address bullying from different points of view, such as conflict management skills, social and emotional learning, and advocating for a positive school environment.
• We highlight that creating prevention programs does not mean a one-size-fits-all approach. Our results show that programs should be adjusted to specific cultural and contextual factors.
• Educational institutions should provide extensive training for teachers to combat bullying. Teachers need to learn about strategies that cultivate positive student-teacher relationships.
• In addition, our study demonstrates that peers and the home environment could have a significant effect on bullying prevalence. We suggest collaborating with parents/guardians and friends to raise awareness of bullying, its effects, and methods to support victims, aggressors, and witnesses as well.
• Our research stipulates that witnesses are just as much affected by this harmful phenomenon as aggressors or victims. This indicated that prevention programs should include all of the stakeholders regarding bullying.
• Campaigns and community-based events could also raise awareness of the harmful influence of bullying on the school environment.

 

4.2. Study Limitations

 

It is important to highlight that our study was based on a sample from Craiovean Municipality and region, limiting its potential to generalize the results at the national level.

In addition, a self-reporting approach to behavior can cause biases, because students can be shy or might not want to admit that they have been involved in bullying incidents, no matter if they were victims, witnesses, or aggressors.

Another important aspect to mention is that contextual factors such as the school’s characteristics or the family background of students have not been evaluated comprehensively. Future studies could include a qualitative or longitudinal approach and a more diverse sample both from urban and rural areas. This way, we could improve our understanding of the phenomenon of bullying in Craiova, Romania.

Reviewer 1, point 9

 

“The appendix formatting still needs some work.”

 

 

Reviewer 1, point 9 response

 

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for the comment. We understand that the initial appendix might need some additional work. This is why we consulted the MDPI layout editing services, and they have reformatted all the tables and the appendix as well.

 

Reviewer 1, point 10

 

 

“The referencing hasn't used MDPI format which is to include numbers in brackets.”

 

 

Reviewer 1, point 10 response

 

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for pointing this out. We agree with you, and we have updated the referencing style using Zotero. Please consult the updated manuscript to see the changes we made.

 

 

Reviewer 1, point 11

 

”In some places this still feels like a draft paper and I do think quite of bit of tidying would be useful.”

 

Reviewer 1, point 11 response

 

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We appreciate your input, time, and expertise in improving our manuscript.

 

In this regard, we expanded the introduction, discussing findings from previous research in detail and clearly defining the research rationale. We also removed the subsection titled: ”Literature Review”.

 

In the methodology section, we explained the ethics of the study further.

 

In the results, we specified the statistics you mentioned. Moreover, we completely reorganized the discussions section and introduced more studies that contextualized our findings.

 

We totally updated the referencing style and method.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revised manuscript and for addressing the comments and suggestions provided. I have reviewed your responses and the changes made to the manuscript, and I confirm that the issues raised have been adequately addressed.

The revisions enhance the clarity and quality of the work, and I am satisfied with the responses provided.

 

Best regards

Author Response

Reviewer 2 comments

Reviewer 2, Point 1

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for your revised manuscript and for addressing the comments and suggestions provided. I have reviewed your responses and the changes made to the manuscript, and I confirm that the issues raised have been adequately addressed.

The revisions enhance the clarity and quality of the work, and I am satisfied with the responses provided.

 

Best regards

 

Reviewer 2, Point 1 response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your positive feedback on our revised manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to address the comments and suggestions provided, and we are pleased to hear that the revisions have enhanced the clarity and quality of our work.

We greatly appreciate your confirmation that the issues raised have been adequately addressed. We want to express our sincere gratitude for your time and expertise in reviewing our manuscript. Your guidance and constructive feedback have been invaluable in helping us improve the overall quality of our study.