PONE-D-24-45013Sleep problems were unrelated to social media use in the late COVID-19 pandemic phase: a cross-national studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bonsaksen,

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 Feb 09 2025 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,

Javier Fagundo-Rivera, 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 a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  

Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. 

Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Please note that 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. 

5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

6. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

7.  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 delete it from any other section. 

8. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

Three reviewers have evaluated your investigation.

Please, respond to all their comments so we can reach a final decision after carefully considering your responses.

Thank you.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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: The article stands out for its quality of exposition. The analysis of the questionnaire is conducted rigorously and contributes to developing a homogeneous and coherent argument in line with the research question formulated in the paper. However, I would suggest emphasizing the gender differences in the text, as the sample shows a significant imbalance in this area. Additionally, I would recommend updating the literature section with more recent references and including a brief paragraph that informs the reader about the current line of research exploring the link between social media addictions (such as Instagram, TikTok, and WhatsApp) and difficulties in falling asleep.

Reviewer #2: This research explored the association between social media use and sleep problems approximately two years after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic through a web-based survey.

However, the significance of this research is unclear due to the limited information provided about the main variables, namely sleep problems and social media use. Below, I have outlined specific concerns for each section.

METHODS

� The authors should explain the social circumstances (e.g., restrictions) in each country where the survey was conducted during the research period. Additionally, the appropriateness of the survey period (November–January) should be considered, as social media use might increase, and physical activity might decrease during the winter season (except in Australia).

� Sampling bias might be present, as the participants were recruited through social media. This could mean the study sample was limited to active social media users.

� The validity of the sleep problem question is questionable. The question provides only limited information about sleep issues, despite there being many types of sleep problems (e.g., insomnia, delayed sleep phase, sleep deficit). Similarly, the question on social media use also appears limited in scope. The authors mentioned in the introduction that motives for social media use may be more relevant to health outcomes than the actual time spent using them, but no data on these motives were collected.

RESULTS

� The means of time on social media (4.4 and 4.1) is unclear. Does it mean 4.4 hours? Given the response option, it is not thought to be continuous value. If so, calculating average is not appropriate.

� The data were collected from four countries, where the seasons and pandemic circumstances are different between the countries. This factor should be considered for analysis.

Reviewer #3: * General Aspects

We appreciate the opportunity to review this article because it is, in fact, a very relevant topic. Regarding originality, it can be considered that the article does not make a particularly relevant contribution in this field of study, although it proposes to analyze the relationship between the use of social networks, sleep problems and mental health in the adult population in general, in the context of the covid-19 pandemic.

The manuscript is written in a clear and coherent way, and the theme is very important, especially if we consider that technology and social networks are part of our days and can greatly affect our well-being and quality of life.

Therefore, here are some aspects that may strengthen the arguments presented and improve the article.

*Title:

It is consistent with the content presented, clear and objective. It arouses the reader's interest, because it is a cross-national study.

*Summary:

The abstract is clear and well organized, following the structure of the article. The introduction can, however, be improved by deepening the relationship between the use of social networks, sleep problems and mental health in the adult population in a pandemic context. It may also be useful to include more clearly the contribution/implications of the study for research in this area.

*Introduction:

The introduction adequately presents the context and importance of the study. It is clearly worded, but perhaps it is a little shorter than desirable in terms of existing research on (1) people's motivations for using social media and (2) personal experience of using it. As the authors point out, these can be very relevant aspects for mental health outcomes (even more than the time spent using social networks).

It is important that the introduction situates the existing knowledge on the topic under study, helping to formulate the hypotheses/arguments that will be developed in the article. There is also a need to make a link between the previous work and this article, so it would be interesting to explore further why the approach adopted is innovative. In other words, it could be useful to clarify the originality and relevance of the study, since the innovative nature of the study is not entirely clear.

It would also be appropriate for the study to have a theoretical perspective that would allow a reading and interpretation of the results obtained. The study seems atheoretical.

The introduction ends with the presentation of the purpose of the study – which is very appropriate.

*Methodology:

The authors adequately describe how they obtained the data, and the methodology used to analyze them. There are some reservations about the measures used to assess the daily use of social networks (using only one question to assess the amount of time people spent on social networks during a typical day during the last month can be reductive), not least because it would have been very interesting to also evaluate people's motivations for using social networks and personal experience of using it. In addition, I did not understand exactly the purpose of questioning whether the person was infected with covid-19.

Finally, from a methodological point of view, the fact that data collection took place approximately two years after the pandemic outbreak may have greatly affected the results obtained.

From the point of view of the characteristics of the participants, and in the case of a cross-national study, it may make sense to present a brief characterization of the participants by country as this can be useful to understand the results obtained. As regards the sample size, it is considered an acceptable size.

*Results

The results section is interesting and focuses on the essentials. However, the results obtained do not seem to add anything very relevant to research in this field. In addition, the pandemic context seems not to have been considered or had no effect on the results obtained.

The results of the logistic regression show that time spent on social networks is not statistically associated with sleep problems, nor are there differences between men and women. That said, the question that arises is whether the results obtained are relevant to the advancement of knowledge in the field?

*Discussion

The discussion begins with a synthesis of the main results, which is appropriate. There is room, however, for a deeper discussion about the results obtained because some arguments would make more sense in the introduction of the article and not in the discussion. At this point, one would expect a more in-depth critical analysis of the main results of the study.

It is suggested, therefore, a greater robustness of the theoretical and empirical framework in the introduction so that in the discussion it is possible to adopt a more analytical and critical lens on the results obtained.

Regarding the main limitations of the study, the composition of the sample may be a weakness (the fact that it includes mainly people of young age and more educated) and this has, as mentioned by the authors, implications for the generalization of the results. Likewise, it would have been useful to use more robust and complete data collection procedures/tools to explore other possibilities in data analysis.

It could also be useful to analyze cultural influence as this is a cross-national study.

It is also essential to make a clear statement about the contribution and/or implications of the study in relation to existing knowledge. What are, in fact, the main conclusions of the study and what implications do they have for the advancement of knowledge in this field?

*Conclusion

Based on the results of the study, it is concluded that the time spent on social media was not related to people's sleep problems during the final phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering that this result does not meet expectations (as mentioned by the authors), it is important to deepen the study and analyze the complexity associated with the use of social networks (e.g., time of day, content of interactions, associated stress experience) regarding the sleep patterns and problems of adults.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

Sleep problems were unrelated to social media use in the late COVID-19 pandemic phase: a cross-national study

PONE-D-24-45013R1

Dear Dr. Bonsaksen,

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,

Javier Fagundo-Rivera, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your responses and comments to the Reviewers.

Suggestions have been considered and all the comments have been discussed successfully.

Given my opinion and that of the Reviewers, this manuscript could be accepted.