All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for your submission. all the reviews agree that this paper can now be accepted for publication
Added the description of the current prevalence of community violence in Ciudad Juárez.
The use of the term contextual victimization was corrected
No comment
Differences by sex are included
The article in its second version includes the suggested corrections. As it is a relevant topic and of great interest, I recommend its publication
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors have addressed all of my comments.
-
-
-
-
Please refer to the reviewer's comments and submit an appropriate revision.
1. In the introduction in the section on Demographis section it is important to describe the current state of community violence.
2. Although the document as a whole observes the good use of the concept of community violence and one of its main effects is contextual victimization, an error is observed in line 79 between parentheses must say contextual victimization. The same happens in lines 84 and 87 where contextual victimization of community violence should be indicated (see Echeburúa 2004).
no comment
no comment
This is a really interesting topic, this paper is highly relevant in terms of the topic discussed, and correct in terms of the method used. However, there are some important issues that need to be corrected and improved. Specifically, the following modifications are considered necessary:
1. In the introduction in the section on Demographics section it is important to describe the current state of community violence.
2. Although the document as a whole observes the good use of the concept of community violence and one of its main effects is contextual victimization, an error is observed in line 79 between parentheses must say contextual victimization. The same happens in lines 84 and 87 where contextual victimization of community violence should be indicated (see Echeburúa 2004).
3. Since a robust data analysis is used, it would be important to deepen the discussion of the results, especially since only two predictors (neighborhood and school) remain in the model. Differences by sex would also be interesting to discuss in greater depth.
I would suggest adding some details in the tables and figures which could be useful for the readers, as follows:
• Table 1, it is better to include sample size in the title of the table, e.g. (N=298).
• In Figure 1 to Figure 4, the titles and the notes are repeated.
• In Figure 1 to Figure 4, the author provided whether the effect of contextual violence reaches statistical significance and the R-squared for some paths but not all paths. For example, in Figure 1, the author stated “Post-traumatic stress also has positive predictive effects on disposition to aggression”, but whether the coefficients reach statistical significance at P<0.05 level. Similar problems are observed in Figure 2 to Figure 4.
In terms of the results:
• In the initial model (Figure 1), some factor loadings are too low, e.g. CV school and CV witness. Aware of this, the authors applied a new model (Figure 2) to estimate the effect of contextual violence. However, in the new model, the author adopted “factors of contextual violence at school and neighborhood” (line 267-269). Please explain why use the two factors and why the latent variable of the contextual violence is no longer used in the new model?
• RMSEA of both the initial and new models (Figure 1 and Figure 2) are above 0.05. Further justification is needed.
• The authors calculate the indirect effect of contextual violence on AQ (Line 280-281, Line 307-308). Do the indirect effects reach statistical significance at P<0.05 level?
My comment on the research design are as follows:
• The authors didn't provide enough information to the reader on how this manuscript fills an identified knowledge gap. The authors need to further expand upon the knowledge gap being filled by this manuscript.
• In the line P77-80 the author defined “contextual violence” as “hearing and witnessing violent act in one’s community” and use the term throughout the entire manuscript. However, in line 58-76, the paper reviewed is mostly concentrated on “violence exposure”. If the two concepts are different, the author needs to explain what is different between “contextual violence” and “violence exposure”. If the two concepts are the same. Why the author use “contextual violence” given the “violence exposure” applied more frequently in their review part?
The method is described with sufficient detail and information to replace. This section is also well presented with many details. My comments are as follows:
• The authors investigate contextual violence->PTSD->aggregation using SEM. However, the direct effect of contextual violence on aggregation is not estimated. Why?
• Since all the measurements are based on well-established psychological inventory, why the authors applied exploratory factor analysis (Line179-180) instead of confirmative factor analysis?
no comment.
This paper "Contextual violence and its link to social aggression: a study of community violence in Juáre" aims to address an interesting question on how contextual violence affects social aggression through changing the level of PTSD. Generally speaking, the paper is well-formatted and articulated. I commend the authors for their extensive data set, compiled over many years of detailed fieldwork. Besides, the manuscript is written in a professional, unambiguous language. My comments are listed above, which should be considered before acceptance.
1. It is necessary to present conceptual definitions of direct, indirect and contextual violence, indicating the authors on which they are based.
2. It is important to rely on a psychological model that indicates the relationships between the variables considered and it can justify statistical model tested in the study.
3. The introduction of the acceptance of violence variable should be justified in the background.
1. You must indicate how the study sample was selected
2. A data analysis section should be created explaining the analyzes performed, as well as to justify why it was considered to measure the neuroticism factor.
3. An important limitation is that the fifth instrument in the Mexican population has not been validated. It is indicated that it was validated in a Spanish context but cultural differences between Mexico and Spain are important and that validation is required.
1. It was not measured if the participants suffered direct or indirect violence in their childhood. This may be an important limitation of the study since the results could be explained by the experience of direct or indirect violence, and not so much by contextual violence.
1. Post-traumatic stress and violence acceptance variables must be correctly codified.
2. The Mexican validation reference of the Checklist for PTSD Traits Scale must be updated, as it has already been published in 2020.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.