Addressing Hostile Attitudes in and through Education—Transformative Ideas from Finnish Youth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is interesting, however it has some limitations that are discussed below: 1) The title must be reformulated indicating to the reader what he will find in this work. In this way it is not very descriptive and scientific 2) The summary must be restructured: in which the objective, the method, the main results found and the conclusions are indicated 3) References must follow the rules of the journal. They currently do not comply. 4) The method section is confusing and incomplete. This is the most mature section of the work. 5) I recommend making sub-sections that describe: methodology, participants, instrument, and data analysis. a. Indicate the sample that makes up the study b. Indicate the instruments used c. Indicate what was done with those instruments (procedure) d. Indicate what type of tests were done with the data obtained in the collection of information 6) From my point of view, the limitations section should not go in the method, but at the end of the discussion section. 7) The limitations of the methodology are presented again in the results. They should be more visual, descriptive and clear. 8) I recommend supporting the results with tables or graphs, accompanied by pressures obtained in the different statistical tests used for this. 9) I recommend that you restructure the discussion following these headings: objective, research question, other studies, suggestions in the educational field, limitations and future lines of research 10) Review the rules and sections of the magazine. Before the references there are some mandatory sections that have been omitted
Author Response
Response to the reviewers of manuscript ID: youth-1951907
Addressing hostile attitudes in and through education – Transformative ideas from Finnish youth
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers of our manuscript. The reviewers agreed on the importance of the researched theme but noticed some shortcomings and ambiguities in the text. Reflecting upon and addressing these in the revised version helped us enormously in making the manuscript better and the arguments stronger. The manuscript went through considerable revision. We want to thank the reviewers for their relevant comments and wish we have successfully responded to their requests.
Please read below how we have addressed their comments in the revised version of the manuscript.
The revised version of the manuscript is uploaded to the journal’s portal including the abstract.
Comments, Reviewer 1.
1) The title must be reformulated indicating to the reader what he will find in this work. In this way, it is not very descriptive and scientific
The title has been reformulated to be more descriptive and truer to the content of the manuscript: Addressing hostile attitudes in and through education – Transformative ideas from Finnish youth
2) The summary must be restructured: in which the objective, the method, the main results found, and the conclusions are indicated
The abstract has been restructured according to the reviewer’s suggestion. It now includes information on the objective, participants, method, main results, and implications of the study.
3) References must follow the rules of the journal. They currently do not comply.
References have been edited to follow the rules of the journal.
4) The method section is confusing and incomplete. This is the most mature section of the work. I recommend making sub-sections that describe the methodology, participants, instrument, and data analysis. a. Indicate the sample that makes up the study b. Indicate the instruments used c. Indicate what was done with those instruments (procedure) d. Indicate what type of tests were done with the data obtained in the collection of information
We have made substantial efforts to revise the method section of the manuscript. We have edited the text for more clarity. We have added subtitles and a detailed description of the participants, method, instrument, and analysis. Now the section includes the following headings: 2. Method, 2.1 Participants, 2.2 Procedure and instrument, 2.3 Data analysis.
5) The limitations of the methodology are presented again in the results. They should be more visual, descriptive, and clear. I recommend supporting the results with tables or graphs, accompanied by pressures obtained in the different statistical tests used for this.
We have endeavored to make the result section more informative and clearer. The research design is now better explicated, and a second research question is added (please see response 3. for Reviewer 2). We have added clarity by editing the text and by adding Figures 2, 3, and 4 to visualize the results. No statistical tests were applied in the data analysis.
6) I recommend that you restructure the discussion following these headings: objective, research question, other studies, suggestions in the educational field, limitations, and future lines of research
The discussion section is edited according to the reviewer’s suggestions. It starts with a statement of the objective of the study, the gap in previous research, and a brief description of the design of the present study. Then the results are discussed in light of the two research questions. We also added Figure 4 to summarize and visualize the findings. Suggestions for the educational field are provided in the chapter “Conclusive remarks”.
7) Review the rules and sections of the magazine. Before the references, there are some mandatory sections that have been omitted
The mandatory sections describing Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Conflicts of Interest are added.
Comments of Reviewer 2.
- The research design description lacks in clarity.
The method section has been re-written with a more detailed description of the study design, participants, procedure, instrument, and data analysis.
- The literature review has not appropriate international references.
The literature review has been re-written and new paragraphs with relevant literature have been added. In addition to the introduction section framing the current study, the literature review now includes scholarly sources related to 1.2 Hostile attitudes, 1.2 Finnish education and the problem of normative Finnishness, and 1.3 Educational programs to foster peace.
- The conclusions are only partially justified by the amount of finding described in the paper.
Reviewer 2 commented that the conclusions are only partially justified by the findings. This prompted in us a deep reflection about the educational implications of the findings of our study. It became clear that to deploy the students’ insightful suggestions to address hostility in and through Finnish education, we need to examine them in a pedagogical framework. To this end, we added a second research question that investigated the appropriate educational approach.
The research problem, which investigated Finnish youth’s views on the role of schools in addressing hostile attitudes, is now examined, and answered through two research questions, namely:
1) According to students, what are the central elements in addressing hostile attitudes in and through education?
2) How could the students’ suggestions inform the crafting of more peaceful futures in and through education in Finland?
The addition of the second research question necessitated adding a new theoretical section in the literature review: 1.3 Educational programs to foster peace.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents the suggestions of Finnish youth (n=2744) for how schools could reduce hostility and foster peaceful cohabitation in the diversifying Finnish society. The topic of the manuscript is relevant but requires adjustments to fit the criteria for a scientific publication.
The research design description lacks in clarity. The literature review has not appropriate international references. The conclusions are only partially justified by the amount of finding described in the paper. My suggestions is to reconsider after major revisions.
Author Response
Response to the reviewers of manuscript ID: youth-1951907
Addressing hostile attitudes in and through education – Transformative ideas from Finnish youth
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers of our manuscript. The reviewers agreed on the importance of the researched theme but noticed some shortcomings and ambiguities in the text. Reflecting upon and addressing these in the revised version helped us enormously in making the manuscript better and the arguments stronger. The manuscript went through considerable revision. We want to thank the reviewers for their relevant comments and wish we have successfully responded to their requests.
Please read below how we have addressed their comments in the revised version of the manuscript.
The revised version of the manuscript is uploaded to the journal’s portal including the abstract.
Comments, Reviewer 1.
1) The title must be reformulated indicating to the reader what he will find in this work. In this way, it is not very descriptive and scientific
The title has been reformulated to be more descriptive and truer to the content of the manuscript: Addressing hostile attitudes in and through education – Transformative ideas from Finnish youth
2) The summary must be restructured: in which the objective, the method, the main results found, and the conclusions are indicated
The abstract has been restructured according to the reviewer’s suggestion. It now includes information on the objective, participants, method, main results, and implications of the study.
3) References must follow the rules of the journal. They currently do not comply.
References have been edited to follow the rules of the journal.
4) The method section is confusing and incomplete. This is the most mature section of the work. I recommend making sub-sections that describe the methodology, participants, instrument, and data analysis. a. Indicate the sample that makes up the study b. Indicate the instruments used c. Indicate what was done with those instruments (procedure) d. Indicate what type of tests were done with the data obtained in the collection of information
We have made substantial efforts to revise the method section of the manuscript. We have edited the text for more clarity. We have added subtitles and a detailed description of the participants, method, instrument, and analysis. Now the section includes the following headings: 2. Method, 2.1 Participants, 2.2 Procedure and instrument, 2.3 Data analysis.
5) The limitations of the methodology are presented again in the results. They should be more visual, descriptive, and clear. I recommend supporting the results with tables or graphs, accompanied by pressures obtained in the different statistical tests used for this.
We have endeavored to make the result section more informative and clearer. The research design is now better explicated, and a second research question is added (please see response 3. for Reviewer 2). We have added clarity by editing the text, and by adding Figures 2, 3, and 4 to visualize the results. No statistical tests were applied in the data analysis.
6) I recommend that you restructure the discussion following these headings: objective, research question, other studies, suggestions in the educational field, limitations, and future lines of research
The discussion section is edited according to the reviewer’s suggestions. It starts with a statement of the objective of the study, the gap in previous research, and a brief description of the design of the present study. Then the results are discussed in light of the two research questions. We also added Figure 4 to summarize and visualize the findings. Suggestions for the educational field are provided in the chapter “Conclusive remarks”.
7) Review the rules and sections of the magazine. Before the references, there are some mandatory sections that have been omitted
The mandatory sections describing Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, and Conflicts of Interest are added.
Comments of Reviewer 2.
- The research design description lacks clarity.
The method section has been re-written with a more detailed description of the study design, participants, procedure, instrument, and data analysis.
- The literature review has not have appropriate international references.
The literature review has been re-written and new paragraphs with relevant literature have been added. In addition to the introduction section framing the current study, the literature review now includes scholarly sources related to 1.2 Hostile attitudes, 1.2 Finnish education and the problem of normative Finnishness, and 1.3 Educational programs to foster peace.
- The conclusions are only partially justified by the amount of finding described in the paper.
Reviewer 2 commented that the conclusions are only partially justified by the findings. This prompted us to reflect on the educational implications of the findings of our study. It became clear that to deploy the students’ insightful suggestions to address hostility in and through Finnish education, we need to examine them in a pedagogical framework. To this end, we added a second research question that investigated the appropriate educational approach.
The research problem, which investigated Finnish youth’s views on the role of schools in addressing hostile attitudes, is now examined, and answered through two research questions, namely:
1) According to students, what are the central elements in addressing hostile attitudes in and through education?
2) How could the students’ suggestions inform the crafting of more peaceful futures in and through education in Finland?
The addition of the second research question necessitated adding a new theoretical section in the literature review: 1.3 Educational programs to foster peace.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I congratulate the authors for responding to all my suggestions
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors addressed feedback and comments offered by the reviewers. The overall argumentation is now clear and well-stated.
