Review Reports - Patterns of Control: A Narrative Review Exploring the Nature and Scope of Technologically Mediated Intimate Partner Violence Among Generation Z Individuals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a comprehensive review of the recent literature on technologically mediated intimate partner violence among Generation Z individuals. It provides a good summary of the main forms of digital intimate violence, the link with offline intimate violence and discusses some solutions to the problems outlining prospects in the future. To this, the article depends on traditional narrative of research papers from many databases. The article is very well-written with a clear narrative and good logical sequence of arguments.

As indicated above, the article depends on traditional narrative review. While this by itself is not a problem, it is good to justify why other methods such as systematic literature review, that can in principle better represent the extant literature, are not. A very short explanation for the choice of methodology would strengthen the article.

The geographical coverage of the literature review is also not completely clear. Does the literature review cover only USA or is it global? Except a reference to a study from Sweden (p. 7), there aren’t many explicit references about the geographical location of most of the results. If global, assuming most of the studies are from the US, it would be good to provide a comparison between US and the rest of the world.

Most of the paper gives the impression that online and offline intimate violence are strongly correlated with each other. In contrast to this, the discussion of Jaureguizar et al. (2024) (p. 8, lines 344-346) provide that the correlation is not straightforward. It is better to reconcile the two narratives. Particularly, if there are longitudinal studies that follow the same individuals over time, it is good to highlight how online and offline intimate violence are related. Does the online usually cause (is followed by) and offline intimate violence or the other way round or there is no systematic relationship. If most intimate violence are initiated from online followed by offline, then the focus of mitigating policy should be mainly online (in the opposite case, the focus should be online).

A very minor editorial correction: p. 9, line 411: edit “… can be also be …”

Author Response

Reviewer 1 comments:

A. This article provides a comprehensive review of the recent literature on technologically mediated intimate partner violence among Generation Z individuals. It provides a good summary of the main forms of digital intimate violence, the link with offline intimate violence and discusses some solutions to the problems outlining prospects in the future. To this, the article depends on traditional narrative of research papers from many databases. The article is very well-written with a clear narrative and good logical sequence of arguments.
As indicated above, the article depends on traditional narrative review. While this by itself is not a problem, it is good to justify why other methods such as systematic literature review, that can in principle better represent the extant literature, are not. A very short explanation for the choice of methodology would strengthen the article.

Author Response: Entire Methodology section has been re-written, please check page 3.

B. The geographical coverage of the literature review is also not completely clear. Does the literature review cover only USA or is it global? Except a reference to a study from Sweden (p. 7), there aren’t many explicit references about the geographical location of most of the results. If global, assuming most of the studies are from the US, it would be good to provide a comparison between US and the rest of the world.

Author Response: Article has been rewritten to only include studies based in the US

C. Most of the paper gives the impression that online and offline intimate violence are strongly correlated with each other. In contrast to this, the discussion of J et al. (2024) (p. 8, lines 344-346) provide that the correlation is not straightforward. It is better to reconcile the two narratives. Particularly, if there are longitudinal studies that follow the same individuals over time, it is good to highlight how online and offline intimate violence are related. Does the online usually cause (is followed by) and offline intimate violence or the other way round or there is no systematic relationship. If most intimate violence are initiated from online followed by offline, then the focus of mitigating policy should be mainly online (in the opposite case, the focus should be online).

Author Response: Section 3.5 rewritten and clarified.

D. A very minor editorial correction: p. 9, line 411: edit “… can be also be …”

Author Response: Correction has been made

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Incorporates elements of generative AI and its relationship with IPV-T, broadening the contemporary discussion.

Areas for improvement:

Include a section on limitations, highlighting possible biases in the studies reviewed and methodological heterogeneity.

Clarify the exclusion criteria and search strategy in the database (keywords, year ranges, languages included/excluded).

Very important. This part is the weakest. There is no flowchart; it would be important to use the PRISMA (2020) method. The methodology used should be better explained, otherwise we will not know where the conclusions were drawn from.

Strengthen the conclusions with recommendations for researchers and policymakers.

Revise the English to improve fluency, avoid repetition, and improve clarity in complex sentences. Improve the bibliographic references in the text and in the bibliography.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comments:

A. Incorporates elements of generative AI and its relationship with IPV-T, broadening the contemporary discussion.

Author Response: Section 3.5 rewritten and a portion has been added there as suggested. Also, a related analysis added under conclusion and recommendations.

B. Include a section on limitations, highlighting possible biases in the studies reviewed and methodological heterogeneity.

Author Response: Section 5 titled “limitations” has been added.

C. Clarify the exclusion criteria and search strategy in the database (keywords, year ranges, languages included/excluded).

Author Response: Inclusion and exclusion criteria and search strategies clarified in the methodology section which has been rewritten

D. Very important. This part is the weakest. There is no flowchart; it would be important to use the PRISMA (2020) method. The methodology used should be better explained, otherwise we will not know where the conclusions were drawn from.

Author Response: Methodology section has been rewritten and a Prisma flowchart has been added.

E. Strengthen the conclusions with recommendations for researchers and policymakers.

Author Response: Conclusion has been rewritten and a section on recommendations has been added.

F. Revise the English to improve fluency, avoid repetition, and improve clarity in complex sentences. Improve the bibliographic references in the text and in the bibliography.

Author Response: Revisions made and repetitive sections have been removed. Bibliographic references and bibliography also checked and edited and missing references added.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review: Patterns of Control: A Narrative Review Exploring Nature and Scope of Technologically Mediated Intimate Partner Violence Among Generation Z Individuals

Summary of feedback:

While the focus of this paper has great promise and contribution to the field, I feel in its current form, this paper is not ready for publication. Unfortunately, there are many critical sections missing from the introduction that need to be added to boost the quality. Although the authors have provided a definition of IPV, this needed to be more detailed. Moreover, there is no definition provided for technology-facilitated abuse, despite it being the main premise of the paper. There were several issues with narrative flow and structure, as at times the writing felt somewhat clunky, too brief or abrupt. However, this can easily be improved by adding further detail to the sections I have highlighted below and re-read in some parts to improve readability. I feel the findings section needs the most work as the narrative analysis is unclear and requires stronger links to the 65 included papers. That being said, I have not reviewed a “narrative review” paper like this before and the editor’s perspective on this matter might differ. I am uncertain about the specific protocol to follow, however, from a criminology academic standpoint, the findings section requires greater clarity. Additionally, there needs to be greater differentiation between the sections as some feel repetitive or have seemingly no connection to the included papers. At present, I recommend rejection, with encouragement that the authors revise and resubmit. Remember that this piece has great potential, it just requires a heavy reframing to allow the data to shine. Below are some starting points to consider in the rework:

Abstract:

The final sentence of the abstract is quite long and convoluted, please consider breaking it up or re-wording.
I would recommend some mention of the findings in the abstract, just a sentence or two that briefly outlines how many papers were found and/or the common patterns identified.
With the key words, authors could also consider the following to potentially boost searchability of the piece: Technology Facilitated; Intimate Partner Violence; Narrative Review

Introduction:

Consider swapping the first two sentences around? Its feels quite jarring starting with data, and you could easily have the introduction start with the “with most individuals in the U.S….” sentence.
Line 31 to 33, an additional more recent reference here would be valuable.
Line 60 to 66 I recommend you remove this larger block quote and instead re-write the information in your own words. This quote takes up the majority of the paragraph and removes the voice of the author. There are also a range of definitions of IPV in the literature, so it would be good to see more citations and perspectives included here. Only having one perspective limits the credibility of the definition
Line 71 to 72 sits oddly in its current position, greater elaboration and reference is needed here, as it currently reads as a throw away sentence.
At the end of section 2. A brief description of intimate partner violence (IPV), it would be good to see the inclusion of a wrap up sentence here, something to round out the section as it ends quite abruptly.
Section 3. The impact of social media engagement on relationship navigation needs a few sentences that link this information back to the importance of the paper. Why is this data and information important to readers and increase the need for your research?
There is no definition of technology facilitated abuse mentioned here, despite this being a major component of the research and the paper’s focus. A new section outlining this is needed.

Methodology

Please provide either a list, appendix or additional document that outlines which domestic violence organizations, non-profits, advocacy organizations and state-based coalitions were accessed and how you found/chose them.
A PRISMA diagram or flow chart would be valuable here to show the search process and how the authors narrowed the findings down to 65 papers.
What was the exclusion criteria? Did you only look at English written manuscripts? Why did you pick the year range of 2000 to 2025?
What was the review process for the included papers, how many authors/researchers were involved in determining the included/excluded papers? Did you use Covidence as part of the review? Greater detail on this process would be valuable.

Findings:

I feel this is the section that needs the most work as it is unclear where the 65 identified studies sit and what the patterns were across the findings. The narrative was largely lost here and needs stronger reframing around the thematic categories.
Line 130-132 feels repetitive, and you already mentioned this point at the beginning of the findings section.
Many of the paragraphs in section 3.1 start with an iteration of “also”, restructure this to improve narrative flow.
Section 2. Patterns of violence victimization and perpetration the paragraph does not appear to provide any new information and feels repetitive to the above section on types of IPV. It is unclear how this section speaks to patterns of behaviour rather than being an extension of section 3.1. A re-write is recommended here to further differentiate it from the above section or remove it entirely.
While the GenAI section is very interesting, it seems that only two papers mentioned it, why is there such a big focus on this if only two out of 65 papers included it?
Avoid ending and starting a section on a quote.
Proofread needed: “Online harassment solely, online harassment combined with offline harassment, and 326 online sexual harassment correlate significantly with increased anxiety and depressive 327 symptoms.”

Future Directions:

Needs a stronger thematic connection back to the 65 papers. Did these papers specifically suggest these future directions? How do these suggestions connect to the thematic sections in the findings?

Conclusions:

There is an overreliance of quotes throughout this paper, which limits the quality of the overall argument. It is highly recommended that these are removed and/or reduced to allow the authors voices to come through stronger.

Minor editorial suggestions:

Line 105, consider removing “also” at the start of the sentence
Line 115 spelling mistake “patters” should be “patterns”
Line 128 remove “or another form of technology”

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comments:

A. there is no definition provided for technology-facilitated abuse, despite it being the main premise of the paper
Author Response: Definition and description added on pages 4 and 5.

B. I feel the findings section needs the most work as the narrative analysis is unclear

Author Response: Entire methodology section has been rewritten

C. there needs to be greater differentiation between the sections as some feel repetitive or have seemingly no connection to the included papers.

Author Response: Repetitive sections have been removed and the whole paper has been edited.

D. The final sentence of the abstract is quite long and convoluted, please consider breaking it up or re-wording

Author Response: Last line has been rewritten (abstract has been rewritten to incorporate suggestions by the reviewers)

E. I would recommend some mention of the findings in the abstract, just a sentence or two that briefly outlines how many papers were found and/or the common patterns identified.

Author Response: Methodology and findings added and abstract has been rewritten.

F. With the key words, authors could also consider the following to potentially boost searchability of the piece: Technology Facilitated; Intimate Partner Violence; Narrative Review

Author Response: Keywords added as suggested

G. Consider swapping the first two sentences around? Its feels quite jarring starting with data, and you could easily have the introduction start with the “with most individuals in the U.S….” sentence.

Author Response: Sentences changed as suggested

H. Line 60 to 66 I recommend you remove this larger block quote and instead re-write the information in your own words. This quote takes up the majority of the paragraph and removes the voice of the author. There are also a range of definitions of IPV in the literature, so it would be good to see more citations and perspectives included here. Only having one perspective limits the credibility of the definition

Author Response: Block quote has been removed.

I. Line 31 to 33, an additional more recent reference here would be valuable

Author Response: New references have been added

J. Line 71 to 72 sits oddly in its current position, greater elaboration and reference is needed here, as it currently reads as a throw away sentence.

Author Response: Line has been changed

K. At the end of section 2. A brief description of intimate partner violence (IPV), it would be good to see the inclusion of a wrap up sentence here, something to round out the section as it ends quite abruptly

Author Response: A wrap up sentence added.

L. Section 3. The impact of social media engagement on relationship navigation needs a few sentences that link this information back to the importance of the paper. Why is this data and information important to readers and increase the need for your research?

Author Response: Section 1.3 has been rewritten and a wrap up sentence added at the end.

M. There is no definition of technology facilitated abuse mentioned here, despite this being a major component of the research and the paper’s focus. A new section outlining this is needed.

Author Response: A section 3.1 has been added.

N. Methodology
Please provide either a list, appendix or additional document that outlines which domestic violence organizations, non-profits, advocacy organizations and state-based coalitions were accessed and how you found/chose them.
A PRISMA diagram or flow chart would be valuable here to show the search process and how the authors narrowed the findings down to 65 papers.
What was the exclusion criteria? Did you only look at English written manuscripts? Why did you pick the year range of 2000 to 2025?
What was the review process for the included papers, how many authors/researchers were involved in determining the included/excluded papers? Did you use Covidence as part of the review? Greater detail on this process would be valuable.

Author Response: We decided not to include DV organizations, non-profits, advocacy organizations etc. and their reports.
A Prisma flowchart has been added.
Methodology has been rewritten to clarify inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Methodology has been rewritten to clarify that only English manuscripts have been chosen.
Year range has been clarified.
Methodology has been rewritten to clarify about the involvement of the two authors.
Methodology has been rewritten to clarify about using Covidence.

O. Findings:
• I feel this is the section that needs the most work as it is unclear where the 65 identified studies sit and what the patterns were across the findings. The narrative was largely lost here and needs stronger reframing around the thematic categories.

Author Response: Findings have been rewritten and clarifications added. 38 studies are now being considered.

• Line 130-132 feels repetitive, and you already mentioned this point at the beginning of the findings section.

Author Response: Has been removed.

• start with an iteration of “also”, restructure this to improve narrative flow.

Author Response: Edited as suggested

• Section 2. Patterns of violence victimization and perpetration the paragraph does not appear to provide any new information and feels repetitive to the above section on types of IPV. It is unclear how this section speaks to patterns of behaviour rather than being an extension of section 3.1. A re-write is recommended here to further differentiate it from the above section or remove it entirely.

Author Response: Majorly edited, rewritten and merged with other sections

• While the GenAI section is very interesting, it seems that only two papers mentioned it, why is there such a big focus on this if only two out of 65 papers included it?

Author Response: Rewritten and new studies added

• Avoid ending and starting a section on a quote.

Author Response: Edited as suggested
• Proofread needed: “Online harassment solely, online harassment combined with offline harassment, and 326 online sexual harassment correlate significantly with increased anxiety and depressive 327 symptoms.”

Author Response: Edited as suggested

P. Future Directions:
Needs a stronger thematic connection back to the 65 papers. Did these papers specifically suggest these future directions? How do these suggestions connect to the thematic sections in the findings?

Author Response: Rewritten with new portions and connected to prior discussions.

Q. Conclusions:
There is an overreliance of quotes throughout this paper, which limits the quality of the overall argument. It is highly recommended that these are removed and/or reduced to allow the authors voices to come through stronger.

Author Response: Conclusion rewritten and recommendations added

R. Minor editorial suggestions:
Line 105, consider removing “also” at the start of the sentence
Line: Also, any publicly available reports and data published by domestic violence or-ganizations, non-profits, advocacy organizations and state-based coalitions were also considered.
Line 115 spelling mistake “patters” should be “patterns”
Line 128 remove “or another form of technology”

Author Response: All changes made as suggested.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

Good to see stronger changes here and clarity on the findings
Line 14-19 is too long. Please review for clarity and flow

Introduction:

No comments, well done improving this

Methodology:

Much clearer focus and inclusion/exclusion criteria – well done
Your PRISMA chart needs to include a list of reasons as to why 370 papers were removed. For example, wrong population = X, wrong year/focus/method etc.
Likewise, you need to breakdown the 42 papers that were excluded in the next round. What was the reason for these exclusions and how many. E.g. wrong year = X

Findings:

Line 153 to 156 needs a citation
Line 177 to 178 needs a citation around the use of terms revenge porn and leaking nudes. Also be aware that literature is shifting away from the use of the term “revenge porn”.
Please fix the in-text citation on line 312 so that it is not a URL.
Proof read the first half of the sentence on line 329

Conclusion:

Line 525 has two full stops

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 14-19 is too long. Please review for clarity and flow

Response: Line broken down into separate sentences as suggested.

Comment 2: Your PRISMA chart needs to include a list of reasons as to why 370 papers were removed. For example, wrong population = X, wrong year/focus/method etc.
Likewise, you need to breakdown the 42 papers that were excluded in the next round. What was the reason for these exclusions and how many. E.g. wrong year = X

Response 2: A separate section with a list of reasons for exclusion in screening phase 1 and phase 2 has been added on page 4 below the PRISMA chart

Comment 3:Line 153 to 156 needs a citation

Response 3: Citation added

Comment 4: Line 177 to 178 needs a citation around the use of terms revenge porn and leaking nudes. Also be aware that literature is shifting away from the use of the term “revenge porn”.