PONE-D-21-10280

Dear student what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook and Instagram during the pandemic

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Coman,

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 manuscript needs a MAJOR REVISION. Please follow the suggestions given by the reviewers, in order to improve the readability of the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 25 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Barbara Guidi

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[We kindly thank the respondents for participating in the study and we thank Transilvania University of Brasov and West University of Timisoara for their support.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 [The authors received no specific funding for this work.]

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

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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: 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: Please change to (or something similar):

Line 61 Although E-learning platforms or social networks were used by higher education institutions in the educational process prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the pandemic,

Line 66 Recent studies that focused on identifying the perception of Romanian students about online learning during the pandemic [8,9], revealed less positive attitudes towards this type of learning, students considering that the online educational process has less value than the traditional one, preferring instead to use E-learning platforms as a complementary method to traditional, face-to-face learning.

Please see attachment for additional comments

Reviewer #2: In this paper the authors propose a study concerning the usage of Facebook and Instagram in a university scenario. The paper is well written, however I have few concerns.

1) I understood that you focus the two most important social networking/media platforms, but why these two in particular? Why not using other platforms, such as YouTube, TikTok, Steemit, Researchgate, or Linkedin? Why not considering other platforms specifically tought for learning such as Skillshare and Coursera? In short, the paper should clearly state what Facebook and Instagram have to support the learning process that other platforms don't have.

2) In the Introduction the very first paragraph is not convincing (lines 50-60). In particular:

- Reference 3 states that for 70% of the students Facebook is not superior to Moodle, 90% of the students find Facebook not appropriate for learning (see the paper's table 2)

- Reference 6 discusses how social networking sites can be used in the learning process, but does not prove the usefulness.

I think the authors should replace these references with other more relevant.

3) Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram were shown to generate pethological addiction (see https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/discovering-the-impact-of-notifications-on-social-network-addict/18929896 ) also in the academic scenario (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736585314000021 ). How do you frame this problem in the usage of social networks for learning? Since this problem is mainly due to the "just one more post/picture/video" effect, where you keep consuming contents mindlessly for hours, what is the impact of using such an unrestricted platform for learning? Does Moodle and other such platforms not provide better support? How much of the interviewers were in favour of using, say, Facebook just because they can have access to it without feeling guilty of not studying? I think the pper should discuss this problem.

**********

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: Jennifer Faux-Campbell Ph.D.

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-10280.docx

PONE-D-21-10280R1

Dear student what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook and Instagram during the pandemic

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Coman,

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 paper needs MINOR REVISIONS. The authors should revise the paper to address the suggestion highlighted by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 15 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Barbara Guidi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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

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: Line 48

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 57 traditional face- to – face courses, and also being perceived as platforms that can improve the

Just a minor comment-it looks like a different symbol was used or the font varies in the face-to-face section.

Line 95 between people [11] 96 Social networks have been defined by Boyd and Ellison, as web based services that offer

This paragraph seems too short. It like it, but you may want to incorporate it into its following paragraph.

Line 133 showed that 42, 17% of the

I think this is typo. Maybe you mean to say showed that 17% of the …?

Line 136 online communication, social networks helping them accommodate

Run on sentence, perhaps say …online communication, with social networks helping them accommodate easier to university life, and by…

Line 163 collaboration between students, by allowing them to chat in real time that facilitates effective feedback and 164 comments on the posts of their peers

Line 164 Social networks help teachers

Line 170 platforms such as Facebook registered lower grade-point averages,

Line 177 internet use, in January 2020 there were 3.8 billion social media users and Facebook, having 178 2.44 billion

Line 194 high interest for studying the effects of Facebook and what students use it for [55]. 195 According

Connect these two paragraphs

Line 201 students also use Facebook for discussing educational content, [57], while another research

Word research is becoming redundant. Perhaps say study for one instead.

Line 222 educational tool [66]. 11 223 Instagram is

Connect these two paragraphs

Line 254 The present cross

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 272 Based on the data gleaned

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 293 The data was analyzed

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 354 The means (Table 2) indicate that most

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 418 In consideration to the use of social

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 443 In consideration to the use of Facebook

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 462 Previous studies on social networks use

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 472 research that could complement and come as a response to a similar study

Could complement and act as a response to a similar study

Line 474 research that could come as a response to a previous study

Could support a previous study

Also, more information about this previous study. Who conducted it? For what purpose? What were the results?

Line 485 Even more, to highlight why we focused only on Facebook and Instagram, and not on other 486 platforms such as Yoututbe

Further, we focused solely on Facebook and Instagram…also should be YouTube

Line 487 YouTube

Line 489 with diversified content, we considered

With diversified content. As a consequence, we considered….

Line 491 between students. As far as Tik Tok is concernced, being a relatively new platform, we 492 considered that the analysis of the way it could be integrated into the educational process, 493 could have altered the replicability of the research, because the development and use of Tik 25 494 Tok globally is rather uneven.

In regard to Tik Tok, while we considered the educational benefits of the platform, we decided to exclude it from the study because it is a relatively new platform and people’s response to the application is uneven.

Line 500 Researchgate is a platform that aims to 500 promote research, to spread knowledge through scientific papers, and we wanted to focus on 501 social networks that offer more diverse functions.

While Researchgate is a beneficial platform for promoting research and spreading knowledge trough the scientific community, it is not a widely known application with diverse functions.

Line 502 that could be used by students and teachers for searching for jobs and internships, but our 503 interest was in finding out how social networks more general and comprehensive,

Internships; however, our interest

Line 505 Furthermore, Coursersa was not in 505 our area of interest because the focus of this paper was on social networks, on platforms that 506 were not initially designed for educational purposes

Finally, Coursersa was not a focus of this particular study because it centralized its format specifically on educational purposes, rather than social network outreach.

Line 510 they allow students to properly communicate and collaborate with eachother during courses

Each other

Line 511 for example, on Facebook, teachers could create groups and students could work in teams in 512 order to fulfil certain tasks, that can later be presented to the other teams on a live meeting)

Separate sentence entirely

Line 513 and last but not least, students are familiar with these social networks, and even though they 514 usually use them to relax and communicate with their friends, because they are already 26 515 accustomed to them, students may be more relaxed, more creative and more willing to learn in 516 a familiar environment.

Separate sentence entirely

Line 519 used to promote knowledge in higher education, but only 26,7%

26.7%

Line 536 educational process, students would rather use Facebook. Thus,

You use “thus” too frequently. You can use “as a consequence” instead.

Line 535 According to our findings, if they were to use Facebook and Instagram in the 536 educational process, students would rather use Facebook. Thus, this higher preference for 27 537 Facebook, and the idea that Facebook is the most suitable platforms for students, might also be 538 influenced by the fact that the platform was initially created for students [61], in order to help 539 them socialize. A

Very choppy. Consider re-wording these sentences.

For example, “according to our findings, students prefer using Facebook exclusively for educational purposes, opting to exclude the use of Instagram. Because students prefer Facebook, and because it is better suited for students academically, this platform may aid instructors in student socialization and interaction.

Another aspect revealed by our research is that master’s and Ph.D. students are 540 more willing to use Facebook for educational purposes than, Bachelor students. Thus, this 541 result is in line with other studies conducted in Romania, [8] which showed that Master 542 students were fonder of using online platforms, than Bachelor students.

“our study also revealed acceptance of these social platforms by master’s and Ph.D. students, which concurs with previous studies conducted in Romania which supported the use of online platforms in students with advanced educational degrees as opposed to Bachelor’s students.”

Line 548 process. 549 In the case of Instagram, i

Combine these paragraphs

Line 551 students who use daily their Facebook and Instagram accounts

Students who use their Facebook and Instagram accounts daily

Line 557 such as Facebook and Instagram is relevant and necessary. Thus

Again, thus

Line 569 respondents daily used Facebook for more than 4,5 hours

4.5 hours

Line 584 Taking into consideration the aspects mentioned above, certain issues can be 585 addressed. The first issue refers to whether Moodle platforms

Not all educators are versed in Moodle. You should define this platform

Line 594 these platforms only because they would have a reasonable motive for using them, thus not 595 developing a feeling of guilt for not studying. Thus, a

Thus, again

Line 606 In the context

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Line 629 Taking into account the previously mentioned aspects, some theoretical and practical 630 implications of our paper can be highlighted. Considering the

Awkward sentence structure. Consider something like “turning to the theoretical and practical implications of our paper, this research can contribute to the literature…

Line 639 Therefore

Minor formatting concern-should be another space between subtitle and text.

Also, delete therefore

Line 640 future researches. Our study being exploratory

Because our study is exploratory, the instruments

Reviewer #2: I think the authors made an excellent work in addressing all the comments.

I only have one final suggestion: I understand Steemit is not as popular as other platforms, so maybe a citation that explains its features is due to help the reader in case she/he wants to to delve into the platform. Just add the following reference the first time you name Steemit in your paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9298888/

**********

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: Yes: Jennifer Faux-Campbell

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.

Dear student what should I write on my wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook and Instagram during the pandemic

PONE-D-21-10280R2

Dear Dr. Coman,

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,

Barbara Guidi

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: The authors did a great job imporivng the quality of the manuscript and I think the paper is finally ready for publication.

**********

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 #2: No