Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a need for authors to look at some editorial issues in the manuscript. There is also a need to indicate the way in which themes in the data analysis section were generated.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English Language used is fair and readable.

Author Response

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your advice. We have proof-read all the article. Regarding the indication provided, about how the article categories were obtained, a brief explanation has been included in red in section 2.3 (Data extraction).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done and a scholarly effort. Your attention to detail was appreciated in using the charts as a summary to review the text, Your article will contribute to the fields of education and Psychology.

Author Response

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and positive feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent piece of work. Perhaps consider also to comment on the use/impact of social media, such as Snapchat, TikTok etc in Limitations. 

Author Response

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment and positive feedback. We have considered this recommendation and have included a sentence in red about the importance of keeping in mind the use of social networks in 4.2 (Implications for research, policy and practice).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

The article presents a research work (systematic review) that is solid, scientific, interesting and well structured. The tables and figures help to understand the text. The references are adequate and up to date. The conclusions and future lines of research are pertinent.

In summary, it performs a systematic search  carried out in the international database Web of Science, from which it obtains, after applying the inclusion criteria, 23 articles (2013-2023). This corpus is the basis of the presented analysis whose objective is to validate the 5Cs model in Europe. It is a well-designed, original and very interesting article that deserves to be published and disseminated.

It disseminates a model that is little known in Europe, such as the 5Cs Model (Confidence, Competence, Care, Connection and Character)  of PYD (Positive Youth Development). Personally, I found it very interesting and two aspects would be desirable: that it be disseminated in European countries and that more research be carried out based on intervention with adolescents. These training programs can contribute substantially to achieve social and personal improvements among the European youth population.

 

 

 

Author Response

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments, we are very happy to know that the article meets the requirements to be published.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This systematic review article is a very intersting approach to analyse if the 5Cs model was used in Europe and in which way, rather than its validity - but that is the challenge of  any  review.

The chosen approach is sound, and well  described in the paper. Nevertheless, I see many challenges in the form of presentation, and some more work on typos, grammar and style.

Regarding style one has also to reflect if the data refered to stems really from another study or is only presented and analysed with another focus in another paper (e.g. the extensive work with the 4H study). 

The tables hold too many repetitions. It might be worth considering having only one table with an additional column, indicating in which of the now existing tables it would fit (1=structure of 5Cs; 2 = 5Cs and gender and identity; 3= 5Cs and education ....). 

Why is for some studies the percentage for females presented, but for others the percentage for males?

In international studies at least the description for the non-European samples would be interesting.

For the presentation of some studies more information is needed (e.g., Crocetti from line 261 on refers to identity explorers - what would that be, and which of the 5Cs have "gretaer benefits for themselves and the commuity" - please explain)

So all in all the paper is a sound systematic review which needs improvement in the form of presentation.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many sentences have to be read more than once since they lack clarity. Needs editing.

Author Response

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable advice. We have changed the wording of the objective, replacing "validity" with "evidence". In addition, we have rewritten in red the paragraph referring to the 4H and PYD study. Second, the six tables in the included articles have been restructured following your advice into a single table. Please see the content in red in Table 1. Third, concerning the percentage of males/females, the percentage of the majority of subjects in each respective sample is presented. Fourth, non-European samples have been also included in red in Table 1. These countries are marked with a double asterisk (**). Fifth, we have added in red more explanation about Crocetti's study in terms of identity styles in section 3.5. Finally, we have changed several expressions to make it easier to read. Best regards.