PONE-D-19-19506

Effect of Restricting Bedtime Mobile Phone Use on Sleep, Arousal, Mood and Working memory

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Tang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 25 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sergio Garbarino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that there are still two instances (line 30, line 138) where 'diary' has been spelt 'dairy'. Please ensure these errors are corrected as part of your revisions.

3. Thank you for stating that “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript” in your financial disclosure.

Please also provide the name of the funders of this study (as well as grant numbers if available) in your financial disclosure statement.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study, He et al reported how reduction use of mobile phone at bedtime affected sleep through Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Pre-sleep Arousal Scale (PSAS), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and n-back task, and concluded that reduction use of mobile phone at bedtime was very helpful to sleep, although the number of participant was not big enough (n=19).

Majors:

It is confused that several significance marks (* or **) were missing in Table 2 and Figs 2 and 3 according to results (Line 202-246). The writing is poor and tables are ugly.

Minors:

I suggest authors make all the statistical raw data available in spreadsheet format (like Microsoft excel) and describe statistical analysis in text with more details.

Figure legends are missing (only abbreviations).

Line 8 and 10: 1 and 2 should be superscript.

Line 30, 138: “dairy”?

Line 30-34: rephrase with ‘respectively’.

Line 82-83: rephrase

Line 94: screen should be screened

Line 94-99: confused, need rephrase

Line 135: missing original reference of PSQI

Line 137-138: Sleep diary data of the four weeks between that were collected or not?

Line 142: rephrase

Line 158: reference should be after period.

Line 161-162: “There are 10 questions for positive and 10 for negative affects”, redundant.

Line 172-173: “when the number presented is not identical to the previous one” replaced with “if not”.

Line 176-179: confused. Need rephrase.

Table 1 and 2: ugly, need revise.

Line 202-246 of results: Significance for some tests cannot be found in Table 2, need correct for each. For example:

Table 2: A star (*) is missing in the group effect of sleep latency and time effect of sleep duration according to Line 205 and 207-208, respectively.

Fig 2 and 3: Significance (* and **) should be noted with corresponding p-value for each test.

Line 212-219: correct Table 2 and Figs for significance

Line 222-225: correct positive affect for significance in Table 2 and Figs.

Line 227: it is not significant for p=0.06. Correct Table 2 and Figs.

Line 233-234, Line 236-237: Don’t know it is for accuracy or reaction time, or for 2-back accuracy?

Line 235: redundant with Line 232

Line 238-246: not corresponding to Table 2.

Line 262-264: “In this” study, “the effects” …. Was investigated.

Line 268: Sleep quality “was” improved significantly.

Line 269: One research “group”

Line 270-271: adolescents “who” stopped, delete “and”

Line 276-277: arousal “was” decreased, suggesting that it…

Line 278: no published report has shown

Line 281: It was reported that insomnia patients have somatic, cognitive and cortical arousal [21-24].

Line 282-283: “Content in the mobile….sleep quality” should be in Line 278.

Line 284-285: redundant. Sleep “plays”

Line 288-289: rephrase

Line 294: suggesting

Line 296-300: rephrase

Line 304-308: confused

Line 309: remove “four weeks of”, add “for four weeks” after “bedtime”.

Others:

1. The study presents the results of original research.

Yes.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

Yes.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

Ok.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

Ok.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

Ugly tables. Poor writing.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

Yes.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

Yes.

Reviewer #2: 1) Authors should briefly provide a description/synonym of netizens, since not all readers may be familiar with this term.

2) There are some typos. Some sentences begin with "And". English should be revised for the sake of clarity.

3) Only after reading methods, I come to know that the study is a randomized trial. However, authors did not follow reporting guidelines for randomized trials (for example, the title does not contain informative keywords). Did authors register the randomized trial in a database of RTs?

4) Sample size is very small (because was small already the recruited sample size at the commencement of the trial, after a lot of individuals being excluded). However, authors performed a lot of statistical analyses. Seems (to my opinion) that the study is underpowered to make sufficiently strong statements and conclusions. Is it a pilot study? How much is the statistical power found (in tems of effect sizes)? And the post-hoc power Did authors perform a sample power analysis?

5) Some important studies are not mentioned (one for all: Mobile Phone Use and Mental Health. A Review of the Research That Takes a Psychological Perspective on Exposure. Thomée S. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Nov 29;15(12)).

6) Graphs miss bars of standard deviations.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Guo Luo

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Effect of restricting bedtime mobile phone use on sleep, arousal, mood, and working memory: A randomized pilot trial

PONE-D-19-19506R1

Dear Dr. Tang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Sergio Garbarino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors should carefully check grammar/typos again before print.

Reviewer #2: All comments and concerns of reviewers have been properly addressed and the manuscript has been considerably improved.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Nicola Luigi Bragazzi