PONE-D-24-52159Exploring the Influence of Social Media Use Motivations on Acculturation Orientations and Psychological Adaptation Among Chinese Students in MalaysiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. wenwen,

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:

• Please address all the comments and suggestions given by the reviewers.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 22 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,

Kashif Ali, 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. 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.

(2) Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://hrmars.com/papers_submitted/17668/social-media-usage-and-cultural-identity-of-chinese-students-in-malaysia.pdf?

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by Humanities and Social Science Project of Guangdong Ocean University: Study on social media use and acculturation of sojourn (Grant No. 030301142302)”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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.

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

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.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 abstract mentions that motivations (information seeking, social, and entertainment) improve psychological adaptation but does not specify which motivations are most influential. Providing this detail could enhance understanding.

-You need to mention the software you used for the study

-The phrase "help Chinese students improve their psychological adaptation in Malaysia" is repeated in slightly different forms. Condensing these repetitions can improve readability.

The upcoming content is very good.

Reviewer #2: Dear author (s) please incorporate with following suggestions:

The study focuses exclusively on Chinese students in Malaysia, limiting the generalizability of findings to other international student groups or host countries. This limitation should be more explicitly acknowledged in the conclusion.

The literature review is comprehensive but leans heavily on studies conducted in Western contexts. Including more references from Asian or Malaysian studies would improve regional relevance.

While hypotheses H7a and H7b are rejected, the manuscript does not adequately explore why entertainment motivations have no significant effect on acculturation orientations. This needs further elaboration in the discussion.

The manuscript notes that respondents use both Chinese (e.g., WeChat) and Malaysian (e.g., WhatsApp) platforms but does not explore how platform-specific usage influences adaptation. This could add depth to the analysis.

Strengthen the discussion of the rejected hypotheses (H7a, H7b, H10a, H10b) by providing theoretical or empirical justifications.

Highlight the potential implications of specific social media platforms (e.g., cultural proximity in WeChat vs. global networking in WhatsApp).

Consider revising the conclusion to emphasize the broader applicability of findings while acknowledging limitations more explicitly.

The visual presentation of findings, such as path analysis and conceptual frameworks, could be more detailed and visually engaging.

There are occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. For instance, "social media use motivations includes three dimensions" should be corrected to "social media use motivations include three dimensions." A thorough language edit is recommended.

Reviewer #3: Peer Review Report

Manuscript Title:Exploring the Influence of Social Media Use Motivations on Acculturation Orientations and Psychological Adaptation Among Chinese Students in Malaysia

Overall Assessment:This manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic, exploring the relationship between social media use motivations, acculturation orientations, and psychological adaptation of Chinese students in Malaysia. The research is well-conceived and contributes to the growing body of literature on cross-cultural adaptation and social media's role in psychological well-being. However, there are several areas that require clarification and improvement to ensure the manuscript meets the scientific and editorial standards expected by this journal.

Strengths

1. Timeliness and Relevance:The topic aligns with current research trends, addressing the psychological adaptation challenges of international students, a growing population globally.

2. Methodological Rigor:The study employs CB-SEM, an advanced statistical method, to investigate the relationships among variables, providing robust empirical support for the hypotheses.

3. Theoretical Contribution:The manuscript expands acculturation theory by incorporating social media use motivations as predictors and exploring their mediated effects on psychological adaptation.

Major Comments

1. Abstract:The abstract should better emphasize the urgency and significance of the research, particularly its relevance to the growing population of international students.Include details on the sampling method and briefly highlight the implications of the findings.Avoid vague language and strengthen the concluding statements to emphasize the study’s practical applications.

2. Language and Grammar:The manuscript contains grammatical and syntactical errors that hinder readability. A thorough language revision is necessary to improve clarity and academic tone. For example. Original: “Information support can enhance life satisfaction and contribute to a sense of happiness.” Revised: “Accessing informational support through social media enhances life satisfaction and fosters well-being.”

3. Methodology: Sampling Method.The manuscript does not clearly specify the sampling technique (e.g., random, convenience). This information is crucial for evaluating the generalizability of the results.COVID-19 Justification.The claim that the questionnaire was distributed online due to the COVID-19 pandemic is not valid for the timeframe of data collection (November–December 2022). The justification should be revised to focus on logistical or methodological advantages. Questionnaire Adaptation.Clearly explain the rationale for adapting the scales and the specific modifications made to ensure validity in the current context.

4. Findings and Preliminary Analysis.Include descriptive statistics (e.g., skewness, kurtosis) to confirm the normality of the data, as CB-SEM requires normally distributed data. Consider presenting descriptive statistics before the measurement model analysis to align with standard reporting practices.

5. Discussion:Expand on the theoretical implications by linking findings more explicitly to acculturation theory and cross-cultural adaptation literature.Practical implications should offer actionable insights for stakeholders such as educators, social media designers, and policymakers.The discussion should explicitly address the rejected hypotheses (e.g., entertainment motivations’ lack of effect) to provide a balanced and comprehensive interpretation of the findings.

6. Reference Formatting:The manuscript currently follows APA 7, which does not adhere to the referencing style required by PLOS ONE. Reformat all references according to the journal’s guidelines.

7. Data Availability:To comply with PLOS ONE policies, ensure that raw data is publicly available or accessible upon request. Include a data availability statement with a repository link or detailed instructions for access.

Recommendation

Minor Revisions:The manuscript has significant potential but requires substantial improvements in methodology, data reporting, discussion, and formatting to meet the standards of publication in this journal.

Detailed Suggestions for Revision:

1. Revise the abstract to emphasize urgency, significance, and methodological rigor.

2. Conduct a thorough language review to eliminate grammatical errors.

3. Clarify the sampling method and revise the justification for online data collection.

4. Add descriptive statistics and discuss the data distribution.

5. Expand the discussion to address rejected hypotheses and practical implications.

6. Reformat references to align with PLOS ONE guidelines.

7. Provide data.

**********

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:  Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  xinxiang gao

**********

[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: Abstract.docx

Exploring the Influence of Social Media Use Motivations on Acculturation Orientations and Psychological Adaptation Among Chinese Students in Malaysia

PONE-D-24-52159R1

Dear Dr. wenwen,

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,

Kashif Ali, PH.D

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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: I am currently conducting a peer review of your manuscript and have identified two specific areas requiring attention:

Firstly, the provided DOI link (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28379111) does not appear to contain the dataset referenced in your manuscript. Upon accessing this link, no associated data or files could be located. Ensuring accurate and accessible data sources is essential for transparency, reproducibility, and credibility of your research findings. I strongly recommend verifying the DOI link provided or uploading the dataset correctly to ensure reviewers and future readers can access the necessary information.

Secondly, I suggest standardizing the formatting of all headings throughout the manuscript. Currently, inconsistencies in heading style, capitalization, and numbering negatively affect readability and professional presentation. Adhering to a clear hierarchical structure—such as consistently using bold or italicized fonts, sentence case or title case capitalization, and sequential numbering (e.g., 1., 1.1, 1.1.1)—would significantly improve manuscript clarity. Consistent heading formatting aligns with publication guidelines and enhances the overall coherence and professionalism of the manuscript.

**********

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 #3: Yes:  Xinxiang Gao

**********