Mobile sex-tech apps: How use differs across global areas of high and low gender equality

Amanda N. Gesselman; Anna Druet; Virginia J. Vitzthum

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238501

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 6, 2020
27 May 2020 Decision Letter - Amy Michelle DeBaets, Editor PONE-D-20-06636 Sex at their fingertips: A global analysis of gender-inequality and the use of sex–tech apps PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gesselman, 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. The two reviewers had very different responses to your article submission. In your revision, please respond specifically to the methodological critiques given, including responding to each point of the critical review and how you accounted for potential bias in your subject selection. Thank you. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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. 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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Amy Michelle DeBaets, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 3. Please modify the title to ensure that it is meeting PLOS’ guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title). In particular, the title should be "specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology. Please ensure you amend both the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) and the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 4. Thank you for providing the following Funding Statement: 'Yes. The funders, the company BioWink—where AD was employed but uninvolved—collected/paid to collect the data. They were not involved in design, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.' We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors. a. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form. Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following statement: “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If the funding organization did have an additional role, please state and explain that role within your Funding Statement. b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. c. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests 5. 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 [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: No 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: Yes 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: Dear authors, I congratulate you on this very interesting work. While the general topic of the research is clear, I believe that there is a significant risk of bias in this research, which ultimately raises some doubts on its validity. The presence of Higher gender inequality (HGI) is generally associated with reduced availability of devices for dating apps and reduced possibilities for "open" relationships. Research on the topic of religion has indeed proven that "strict" beliefs are more often associated with the consideration of sex as a "dirty" act, therefore reducing pre-marital sex; likewise, chastity before marriage is still considered a "virtue" in many societies and even in parts of the Western world, such as some European countries, this is a recurring theme. The risk of selection bias has to be considered in this research. The methods for disseminating the questionnaire - i.e. "Clue’s newsletter, website, and social media accounts, and the social media accounts of the Kinsey Institute" - likely limit the possibility of a representative sample; similarly, it is likely that those who actually took the time to fill the questionnaire were more self-aware of their sexual health. I believe all these items should be explored more carefully. Reviewer #2: This is a very fine paper and I don't think any major revisions are necessary. The topic is fairly novel and interesting, uses methods that are fairly standard in the field, and is an easy read. Kudos to the authors for a well done manuscript. ****** 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: No 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.] 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238501.r001
Revision 1
3 Aug 2020 Author Response Please see our response to reviewer letter in the uploaded attachments for better formatting. Reviewer #1 Reviewer #1: Dear authors, I congratulate you on this very interesting work. While the general topic of the research is clear, I believe that there is a significant risk of bias in this research, which ultimately raises some doubts on its validity. The presence of Higher gender inequality (HGI) is generally associated with reduced availability of devices for dating apps and reduced possibilities for "open" relationships. Research on the topic of religion has indeed proven that "strict" beliefs are more often associated with the consideration of sex as a "dirty" act, therefore reducing pre-marital sex; likewise, chastity before marriage is still considered a "virtue" in many societies and even in parts of the Western world, such as some European countries, this is a recurring theme. The risk of selection bias has to be considered in this research. The methods for disseminating the questionnaire - i.e. "Clue’s newsletter, website, and social media accounts, and the social media accounts of the Kinsey Institute" - likely limit the possibility of a representative sample; similarly, it is likely that those who actually took the time to fill the questionnaire were more self-aware of their sexual health. I believe all these items should be explored more carefully. Thank you to Reviewer 1 for their time and effort in reviewing our paper and providing this important feedback. We have worked to address these points more clearly. Your overall point is that there is selection bias in our sampling, and we agree. We’ve added statements about our sample being non-representative throughout, in both the Introduction, Methods, and Discussion. For example, we added ‘a non-representative sample’ to this sentence where we introduce the current study on pg. 4: “In a non-representative sample of 130,885 women from 191 countries, we asked about their personal use of mobile sex–tech for meeting and connecting with sexual partners, for learning about sex and improving sexual relationships, and for tracking personal sexual health.” And again in the first paragraph of the Discussion on pg. 23: “To our knowledge, and although not representative of women worldwide, this study provides the most comprehensive global data on sex–tech use thus far, and is the first to examine women’s engagement in sex-related mobile technology in locations with greater gender disparities.” Regarding your first point about locations with higher gender inequality likely having reduced access to smartphone devices, we certainly agree that smartphone use is less saturated in countries with lower income. However, there are “rich” countries with high gender inequality, as in Saudi Arabia, so we wish to be cautious in generalizing here. Additionally, smartphone access has been spreading to lower and middle income countries over the last several years, with lower-priced models available in these countries that fit the price points of the local economy (see “mobile-first markets”). We’ve added more detailed information about the presence of smartphones in emerging economies to help clarify how widespread such use is in non-Westernized countries on pg. 4: “Additionally, smartphone access has rapidly spread around the world. A 2018 study conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 76% of people in advanced economies (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, South Korea) and 45% of people in emerging economies (e.g., India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Tunisia) have smartphones, although this tends to be skewed toward more ownership in younger populations [13]. With rising access to smartphones, and a near-universal motivation to seek romantic and sexual connection, mobile technologies that serve to enhance or advance these relationships are likely to have spread beyond those few regions that have been studied to date.” Regarding your second point about selection bias around social norms in conservative cultures, we again agree that these norms, such as stricter gender roles, may shape engagement in sex–tech behavior. We acknowledge this on pg. xx but also point out that such norms or socio-cultural ideals do not necessarily mean that citizens are not engaging in those taboo or forbidden behaviors (pg. 4): “On the other hand, countries and regions differ in their norms and practices, such as holding more conservative views regarding gender roles. While these factors may influence the use and impact of sex-tech, socio-cultural ideals do not necessarily prevent people from engaging in the proscribed behaviors. For example, foundational research by Alfred C. Kinsey revealed considerable same-sex sexual behavior, although these behaviors were illegal at the time [14,15]. Contemporary research has also demonstrated same-sex and premarital sexual behavior in countries where these behaviors are still illegal, such as in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia [16,17]. The nature and extent of such norms and practices on sex–tech behavior are, as yet, unanswered questions.” We also acknowledge this again in our Limitations section on pg. 28: “Countries with higher GII are likely to be more conservative, especially with regards to sexuality. This likely resulted in a selection bias, skewing our sample toward more liberal sexual attitudes and behaviors.” Third, you pointed out selection bias due to the method of disseminating the survey via the Clue app, newsletter, and social media accounts of Clue and the Kinsey Institute. We acknowledge this in our Limitations section on pp. 27-28: “…it should be noted that our survey respondents were not a representative sample, and were most likely to have participated in the study after signing up to the newsletter of a sex-positive women’s health app or via the social media accounts of a well-known sex research institute. People who used that particular app or who followed those social media accounts may have had a pre-established interest in sexual health topics greater than that of the general population.” Fourth, you mentioned that our participants may have been more self-aware of their sexual health than their local peers who did not participate. We agree and now acknowledge this in the Limitations on pg. 28: “Our participants may also have been more self-aware of their sexual health than a more representative sample, although awareness does not necessarily indicate differences in behavior. Anthropological studies at the community level are needed to answer these questions. Thus, our findings provide a foundation for more detailed exploration in specific contexts.” Thank you again for your detailed review. Reviewer #2 Reviewer #2: This is a very fine paper and I don't think any major revisions are necessary. The topic is fairly novel and interesting, uses methods that are fairly standard in the field, and is an easy read. Kudos to the authors for a well done manuscript. Thank you so much, we appreciate your positivity and the time and effort you contributed to reviewing our paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ReviewerLetter.7.9.2020ag.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238501.r002
19 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Amy Michelle DeBaets, Editor Mobile sex-tech apps: How use differs across global areas of high and low gender equality PONE-D-20-06636R1 Dear Dr. Gesselman, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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. Kind regards, Amy Michelle DeBaets, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238501.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Aug 2020 Acceptance Letter - Amy Michelle DeBaets, Editor PONE-D-20-06636R1 Mobile sex-tech apps: How use differs across global areas of high and low gender equality Dear Dr. Gesselman: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Amy Michelle DeBaets Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238501.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .