Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 10, 2024
Decision Letter - Jindong Chang, Editor

PONE-D-24-03488The relationship between Short Video Usage and academic achievement among elementary school students: the mediating effect of attention and the moderating effect of parental short video usagePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gao,

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 Aug 21 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,

Jindong Chang, Ph.D.

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 note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

4. 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. 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

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: 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

********** 

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

********** 

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: 1. The purpose of the study should be stated at the end of the introduction.

2. Please introduce the theoretical basis of the research hypothesis in the first section and begin to describe the research hypothesis in the second section.

3. Please complete the citation of this report "Research Report on Internet Usage among Minors in China 2021".

4. The EFA is not necessary as the scale has already been validated and it is recommended to delete Table 1.

5. The literature base for the selection of control variables should be explained.

6. in section 3.2, in addition to describing the informed consent statement, it is necessary to describe the ethical approval status.

7. As the SEM has already been carried out, it is not necessary to present a correlation analysis. I therefore propose that Table 5 be deleted.

8. Table 6 should be placed before the figure 3.

9. In the discussion it was suggested that the secondary headings should be based on the hypothetical results of the study instead of using "main findings".

10. The following literature is relevant to the study and is provided for reference:

Predicting the learning avoidance motivation, learning commitment, and silent classroom behavior of Chinese vocational college students caused by short video addiction.

The association of short video problematic use, learning engagement, and perceived learning ineffectiveness among Chinese vocational students.

The relationship between short video flow, addiction, serendipity, and achievement motivation among Chinese vocational school students: The post-epidemic era context.

Effects of short video addiction on the motivation and well-being of Chinese vocational college students.

********** 

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

**********

[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.

Revision 1

Point by Point Response

I am writing this letter on behalf of my coauthor regarding our manuscript Ms. No. PONE-D-24-03488, entitled "The relationship between Short Video Usage and academic achievement among elementary school students: the mediating effect of attention and the moderating effect of parental short video usage." We want to express our appreciation to the respected editors and reviewers for providing us the constructive comments and suggestions to shape our manuscript for quality publication. According to our original reviewer's last review, we have obtained critical and rational minor suggestions to complete the manuscript's structure and content before the official publication. As you can see below, we have responded to each comment given by the reviewer corresponding to each page's revision has been made.

Reviewer #1:

Comment 1: The purpose of the study should be stated at the end of the introduction.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. As suggested, we added the purpose of the study at the end of the introduction.

Comment 2: Please introduce the theoretical basis of the research hypothesis in the first section and begin to describe the research hypothesis in the second section.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added the information in separate headings, such as “ 2. Theoretical Basis of the Research Hypothesis” and “ 2.4. Research hypothesis”.

Comment 3: Please complete the citation of this report "Research Report on Internet Usage among Minors in China 2021".

Response: Thank you for the comment. We added the citation of the research report “" (CYLC, CNNIC, 2023)”.

Comment 4: The EFA is not necessary as the scale has already been validated and it is recommended to delete Table 1.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion; we deleted Table 1 with the EFA scale.

Comment 5: The literature base for the selection of control variables should be explained.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have added the control variables, and Table 1 contains a detailed description of each control variable.

Comment 6: in section 3.2, in addition to describing the informed consent statement, it is necessary to describe the ethical approval status.

Response: Thank you for your observation; we added the ethical approval reference under section 3.2.

Comment 7: As the SEM has already been carried out, it is not necessary to present a correlation analysis. I therefore propose that Table 5 be deleted.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion; we deleted the table.5 with correlation analysis.

Comment 8: Table 6 should be placed before the figure 3.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have considered it, and changes have been made.

Comment 9: In the discussion it was suggested that the secondary headings should be based on the hypothetical results of the study instead of using "main findings".

Response: Thank you for the suggestion; replace the ‘main findings’ subheading with “Exploring the Interplay of Short Video Usage, Attention, and Academic Performance among Elementary School Students: The Role of Parental Influence,” representing the study's hypothetical results.

Comment. 10: The following literature is relevant to the study and is provided for reference:

i) Predicting the learning avoidance motivation, learning commitment, and silent classroom behavior of Chinese vocational college students caused by short video addiction.

ii) The association of short video problematic use, learning engagement, and perceived learning ineffectiveness among Chinese vocational students.

iii) The relationship between short video flow, addiction, serendipity, and achievement motivation among Chinese vocational school students: The post-epidemic era context.

iv)Effects of short video addiction on the motivation and well-being of Chinese vocational college students.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We added all four citations to our paper to elaborate on our literature and discussion.

Decision Letter - Jindong Chang, Editor

The relationship between Short Video Usage and academic achievement among elementary school students: the mediating effect of attention and the moderating effect of parental short video usage

PONE-D-24-03488R1

Dear Dr. Tao,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Jindong Chang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jindong Chang, Editor

PONE-D-24-03488R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tao,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Jindong Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .