PONE-D-23-00811Real-world adolescent smartphone use is associated with improvements in mood: An ecological momentary assessment studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Minich,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 07 2023 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: https://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,

Ricardo Limongi

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. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere.

[The data analyzed for this paper were also analyzed for a manuscript that is currently under review at another journal. These analyses were conducted independently, produced different results, and address different theoretical questions --- it is the belief of these authors that each makes a distinct contribution to the scientific literature. As requested, the other manuscript has been uploaded along with this submission.]

Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

6. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript entitled " Real-world adolescent smartphone use is associated with improvements in mood: An ecological momentary assessment study "explores the relationship between adolescent smartphone use and mood using a longitudinal methodology that measured both in real time. Through a quantitative approach, the main result is that adolescent smartphone use is positively associated with mood.

To contribute to the advancement of the manuscript, considerations will be presented as follows:

1. For a better detailing into the introduction as a contribution, relevance, and theoretical cut, the opening could be organized using paragraphs as follows:

(i) Common ground (what we know in the literature): The author must present the basic premises of the literature under analysis to establish a starting point for the reader.

(ii) Complication (what are the limitations – gaps – of the literature): The author must expose missing elements or flaws in the literature (incoherent, incomplete, or contradictory theories) to explain some phenomenon that it should explain. Practical, real-world examples can help expose the limitations of the literature.

(iii) Concern: The author must show that the limitation of the literature is something relevant to be studied. More than a trivial limitation is required to motivate a search. The author should write about How and Why restriction impairs our understanding of a phenomenon.

(iv) Course of Action: The author should show the course of action that may resolve the central complication. To resolve the limitation, the author must develop a theory or refine an existing theory. To this end, the author can (i) suggest new constructs; (ii) model new relationships between constructs; (iii) explore the theoretical process; (iv) develop a typology. (v) Contribution: The author must explain how his course of action can contribute significantly to the existing theory (that which has been described on the common ground).

2. The authors could address a formal objective at the end of the introduction; in this sense, the reader will understand better the course perspective.

3. The limitations presented could be discussed in a longitudinal perspective aligned with state of the art about the central construct: the mood in a specific context, an adolescent.

4. The research questions appear on page 8 and could be addressed with the limitations and theory discussion.

5. the period the authors choose to collect data needs to be clarified.

6. Excellent perspective in choosing longitudinal and multilevel modeling procedures.

7. For better replicability of the study, the authors could present a flowchart of the analytical proposal.

8. When presenting the experimental perspective, it would be interesting to discuss the modeling of the levels of the variables and if the proposed scales were updated based on the literature through validation.

9. Could approach the analysis from the gender of the respondent for a comparison of different perspectives and effects.

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

[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.

PONE-D-23-00811R1Real-world adolescent smartphone use is associated with improvements in mood: An ecological momentary assessment studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Minich,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:  Dear Authors,

I recently had the opportunity to read your new version and the feedback of reviewers. Firstly, I would like to commend the effort and dedication invested in the study, addressing an extremely relevant topic at the intersection of technology and mental health. However, I would like to offer some main points to consider in the next round: 

1. Methodological Clarity: There are moments in the document where the description of the employed methods is somewhat vague or confusing. Specifically, the modeling of random intercepts and slopes for smartphone use and duration of use could benefit from a more detailed explanation. This will help readers better understand the rationale behind the methodological choices and how they affect the interpretation of the results.

2. Detailing of Results: Including detailed tables of the model results, especially the parameters of random effects, would significantly strengthen the results section. Additionally, clarifying whether Figure 1 is based on raw scores or marginal predictions would provide a more precise understanding of the findings.

3. Discussion of Limitations and Confounding Variables: While you acknowledge some limitations, a more comprehensive discussion of possible unmeasured confounding variables that may influence the observed correlation between phone use and mood would be valuable. This would not only deepen the discussion but also provide a clearer path for future research.

4. Consider External Effects: The analysis appears not to include considerations of the effects of the day of the week or time of day. These factors could significantly impact adolescents' mood and behavior and, therefore, could be important variables to explore in future analyses.

5. Technical Specifications: The absence of specification of the software used for analysis can affect the replicability of the study. Providing these detailed pieces of information would help other researchers better understand and potentially reproduce your work.

6. Expansion of Discussion: The discussion on the use of the phone as a mood management tool and potentially addictive behaviors is a strong aspect of the paper. Expanding this discussion to include practical implications and recommendations for future interventions or policies could increase the practical impact of the study.

In summary, your study makes a significant contribution to the field and has the potential to inform future research, policies, and practices. I hope that the feedback form reivewers could be considered in the next round.

Sincerely,

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 2024 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: https://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,

Ricardo Limongi

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Yes

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: This paper reports results from momentary assessments of smart phone use and mood among U.S. adolescents. The authors find that smart phone use was associated with increases in positive mood. The study has some strengths, however there are also limitations, some of which are acknowledged. My main concern is in the presentation of the methods and results.

Introduction

1. Although somewhat lengthy, the introduction does a good job of reviewing the literature and highlighting the limitations of previous research.

Methods

2. Measures of phone use and time on the phone were self-reported. The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Although the immediacy of the assessment obviates any significant recall bias, other self-report bias may be present.

3. Mood before smartphone use was self-reported when the EMA captured an episode of smart phone use. This could be seen as problematic. An alternative approach could be to use mood reported at the previous EMA, although this might not capture very short-term effects.

4. Authors state: “To account for the possibility that some individuals used their phones more often than others, we modeled a random intercept for using smartphone.” and “We also modeled a random intercept and slope for length of smartphone use, for similar reasons” This is unclear, as intercepts are not attached to the independent variable. I assume the authors mean that they included a random subject intercept (which accounts for intra-person correlation of mood observations), and random slopes for smart phone use and length of smartphone use. Perhaps the authors could explain how including a random intercept accounts for variation in frequency of phone use.

5. On the analysis for RQ2, authors state “we conducted a two-tailed single-sample t-test on change in mood scores to determine whether they were significantly positive or negative.” Again this is unclear. I must assume the authors mean that they conducted a paired t-test on mood reported at EMA vs. reported mood prior to phone use. This would not adjust for intra-person correlation of repeated mood observations.

6. The analysis did not include day of week or time of day effects.

7. Software used for analysis was not specified.

Results

8. It would be helpful to include tables of the model results, including random effects parameters.

9. On figure 1, is this based on raw scores or marginal predictions?

Discussion

10. The authors do not discuss possible unmeasured confounders that may explain the correlation between phone use and mood.

11. The discussion of phone use as mood management and addictive behaviors is appropriate.

Reviewer #2: This study presents findings derived from immediate assessments of smartphone use and emotional states among American adolescents. Researchers identified a relationship between smartphone usage and an increase in positive mood. Although the study demonstrates merits, it also faces several limitations, some of which are explicitly acknowledged by the authors. My primary concern falls on the manner in which the methods and results were detailed and explained.

In the introduction, despite being somewhat lengthy, the literature review is effectively conducted, pointing out the restrictions identified in previous research. This establishes a solid background for the current study, albeit prolonging the initial section.

Regarding the methods, the authors indicate that both the phone use and the time spent were reported by the users themselves, a limitation recognized due to the possibility of self-report biases, despite the reduction of memory biases due to the immediacy of data collection. The mood before smartphone use was also reported by the users at the moment the Event-Contingent Self-Monitoring (EMA) detected device use. This method could be problematic, and an alternative suggested would be to employ the mood reported at the previous EMA to capture mood variations, although this might overlook very rapid fluctuations.

The authors mention that they modeled a random intercept to account for individual differences in the frequency of smartphone use, as well as a random intercept and slope for the duration of use, which may have been confusing due to a lack of clarity on how these intercepts relate to the independent variable. They could have offered a more detailed explanation of how this modeling helps to consider variations in frequency and duration of use among individuals.

Furthermore, the analysis for the second research question apparently involved a two-tailed single-sample t-test, though the description is ambiguous. It is presumed that the authors applied a paired t-test, comparing the mood reported at the EMA with the mood reported previously, a technique that does not account for the intra-personal correlation of repeated mood observations.

Interestingly, the analysis did not consider the effects of the day of the week or the time of day, and the authors did not specify the software used for the analysis. This might impact the interpretation of the results and the replicability of the study.

In the results, it would be beneficial to include tables detailing the model findings, especially the parameters of the random effects. There's also a question about whether Figure 1 represents raw scores or marginal predictions, a detail that could clarify the interpretation of the data.

In the discussion, the authors omitted a consideration of possible unmeasured confounding variables that could influence the observed correlation between phone use and mood. However, they aptly address the use of the phone as a mood management tool and discuss potentially addictive behaviors, a relevant aspect given the study's focus on adolescents.

In summary, while the study offers valuable insights into the relationship between smartphone use and mood among adolescents, clarity in the presentation of methods and a more comprehensive discussion on limitations and implications could further strengthen the research's contribution.

**********

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: Mary E. Mackesy-Amiti

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.

Real-world adolescent smartphone use is associated with improvements in mood: An ecological momentary assessment study

PONE-D-23-00811R2

Dear Dr. Minich,

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,

Ricardo Limongi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: