Dear Dr. Zhu,

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 Oct 25 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.

• 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,

Hua Pang

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. As required by our policy on Data Availability, please ensure your manuscript or supplementary information includes the following: -->--> -->-->A numbered table of all studies identified in the literature search, including those that were excluded from the analyses.  -->--> -->-->For every excluded study, the table should list the reason(s) for exclusion.  -->--> -->-->If any of the included studies are unpublished, include a link (URL) to the primary source or detailed information about how the content can be accessed. -->--> -->-->A table of all data extracted from the primary research sources for the systematic review and/or meta-analysis. The table must include the following information for each study: -->--> -->-->Name of data extractors and date of data extraction -->--> -->-->Confirmation that the study was eligible to be included in the review.  -->--> -->-->All data extracted from each study for the reported systematic review and/or meta-analysis that would be needed to replicate your analyses. -->--> -->-->If data or supporting information were obtained from another source (e.g. correspondence with the author of the original research article), please provide the source of data and dates on which the data/information were obtained by your research group. -->--> -->-->If applicable for your analysis, a table showing the completed risk of bias and quality/certainty assessments for each study or outcome.  Please ensure this is provided for each domain or parameter assessed. For example, if you used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, provide answers to each of the signalling questions for each study. If you used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence, provide judgements about each of the quality of evidence factor. This should be provided for each outcome.  -->--> -->-->An explanation of how missing data were handled. -->--> -->-->This information can be included in the main text, supplementary information, or relevant data repository. Please note that providing these underlying data is a requirement for publication in this journal, and if these data are not provided your manuscript might be rejected. -->--> -->-->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. 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.-->--> -->-->5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.-->?>

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Comments to the Author(s):

Reviewer Comments on Manuscript ID: PONE-24-20428 (research article)

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This study investigated the correlations between social media addiction and various psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, fear of missing out (FOMO), loneliness, and self-esteem through a meta-analysis. Below are suggestions to further improve this interesting and well-written study.

Overall:

1. This is an interesting study and a well-written manuscript.

2. A few grammatical errors were identified that can be addressed through language editing.

3. Adding more literature to the rationale (introduction) and discussion sections will strengthen the manuscript.

The title:

1. The title is clearly formulated and unambiguous, effectively conveying the focus of the study.

The abstract:

1. The abstract clearly outlines the research problem, research methodology, research processes followed in the study, relevant findings, and the implications of the study.

2. There are no page numbers in this manuscript, which may make it difficult to highlight areas for potential revision. Please consider page 1 as where the abstract is located, with page 22 marking the beginning of the reference list. Suggestions for the abstract are:

a. Page 1, line 16: Avoid using the phrase “and so on” as it lacks academic tone.

b. Page 1, line 16: Please clarify what “It” refers to. Does “it” refer to the Internet, social media usage or social media addiction?

c. Page 1, line 16: Replace “tight links” with more academic language such as “significant associations”.

d. Page 1, line 16: Please remove the “the” before psychological issues.

e. Page 1, line 17: Consider using “mental health concerns” instead of “psychological issues”.

f. Page 1, line 18: First mention social media addiction, then follow with the abbreviation (SMA).

g. Page 1, line 19: Please clarify what “these factors” refer to.

h. Page 1: Consider explaining why the combination of anxiety, depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and FOMO was investigated. This should also be clarified in the rationale and discussion sections.

i. Page 2, lines 9 – 13: Please rephrase these sentences for clarity, as the arguments currently do not make sense. Language editing may help here.

Introduction:

1. The introduction/rationale section was approached with interest. Thank you.

2. The rationale section presents valid arguments and the importance of the study is clearly indicated and well-argued.

3. Please ensure that important arguments are supported by citations. Please see:

a. Page 2, line 22.

b. Page 2, line 28.

c. Page 2, line 29.

d. Page 3, line 7.

e. Page 4, line 4.

f. Page 17, line 27.

g. Page 18, line 6.

h. Page 18, line 7.

4. Page 3: An argument is made that the number of social media addicts is increasing. What studies or statistics support this argument? The authors have not provided any statistics or references to substantiate this important argument.

5. Page 3, line 7: Please avoid the phrase “hot topic”, as it lacks academic tone. Instead, refer to it as “a subject of significant interest”.

6. Page 3, line 12: The phrase “are fewer opportunities” should perhaps be “there were fewer opportunities,” as the lockdown is now over

7. Is social media addiction a global concern regardless of COVID-19? The rationale has a strong focus on the pandemic period, but it would be beneficial to highlight whether SMA is a global concern outside of the COVID-19 context. It is unclear whether the authors intend to focus solely on the COVID-19 period.

8. Page 4, lines 17 to 18: Please rephrase for better clarity.

9. Page 4, line 22: Why is the emphasis only on developing effective interventions for teenagers? Many studies indicate that university/college students are the highest users of social media. Why not also advocate for effective interventions for these students?

10. Page 3, line 20: Consider using “mental health issues” rather than “mental issues”.

11. The rationale for the combination of anxiety, depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and FOMO remains unclear after reading this section.

12. Strengthen the rationale section by incorporating more literature to support the arguments presented.

Methodology:

1. The methodology section was discussed properly.

2. Page 5, line 10: Clarify what the six elements refer to. Please elaborate.

3. Page 5, line 24 and line 27: Reference is made to self-esteem in line 24 and then again in line 27. Should self-esteem be replaced with FOMO in line 27?

4. The manuscript indicates that 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. However, only 31 studies are listed in Table 1.

5. Discrepancies exist between Tables 1 and 2. In Table 1, a study is listed as Fabris (2022) – Italian, which does not appear in Table 2. In Table 2, two studies are listed as Kitiş (2022) – Turkey, and Koc (2013) – Turkey, which do not appear in Table 1. Please ensure that the correct studies are reported on.

Results:

1. The presentation of the results was done in a systematic and structured manner. The results were presented using figures and tables and were discussed properly.

2. Page 12, line 18: Rather refer to the fact that 1315 studies were excluded rather than “should not have been included”.

3. Page 13, line 1: Rather refer to “screening” the titles and abstracts of the sources rather than “browsing”.

4. Page 13, line 2: What does “researches” mean”

5. Page 13, line 5: Reference is made to 27 studies whereas 32 studies are referred to in the manuscript.

6. Page 13, line 13: … nine studies that reported….

7. The rationale for combining anxiety, depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and FOMO remains unclear in this section as well.

8. Page 16, line 13: Is the abbreviation SMA missing from the title of the figure?

Discussion:

1. The discussion of the findings was done well.

2. Page 16, line 22: Refer back to the earlier comment regarding the use of the term “hot topic”.

3. Page 17, line 1: Use “results” instead of “result”.

4. Page 17, line 1: Clarify what the authors consider to be weak correlations. For instance, a correlation of .41 could be considered moderate.

5. Page 17, line 1: What does MPA refer to?

6. Page 17, lines 9 and 10: Should FOMO not form part of this argument?

7. Page 17, line 20: Provide brief information on the countries where the studies were conducted, as well as the sample sizes, similar to how it was done in other sections.

8. Page 19, line 4: Please rephrase.

9. Page 19, line 17: Do you mean the RSES?

10. Page 21, line 2: Consider using the term depression throughout instead of terms such as sadness or despair.

11. Including more literature to support the arguments presented would enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Thank you, author/s, for coming up with such interesting topic. In order to further improve the manuscript please try to address the following points.

General comments

1. I strongly suggest the author/s to follow the journal guideline. Please start each main heading on new page, use continuous line number, do not start on each page, use Fig instead of Figure.

2. Do not use abbreviation in Title and Abstracts. If abbreviations are used in the main text, it should be used consistently and expanded at first appearance.

3. In order to help readers meaningfully understand their work, authors are expected to present their result in a more clear and intelligible fashion. Look at these sentences taken from this document

‘’Instruments measuring loneliness were limited to…’’ ‘’Instruments measuring self-esteem were limited to...’’ ‘’Instruments measuring depression were limited to..’’ ‘’Instruments measuring anxiety were limited to.

‘’Nine studies mentioned the meaningful correlation coefficients between SMA and anxiety, with the number of the samples was 8839’’

‘’Nine studies mentioned the meaningful correlation coefficients between SMA and depression, with the number of the samples was 9600’’.

‘’Eight studies mentioned the correlation coefficients between SMA and loneliness, with the meaningful number of the samples was 7592’’ So, author/s are suggested to revise the document in this regard.

Abstract

Methods: is both random effect model or fixed effect model used in this study?

Conclusion: I think conclusion should be drawn from the result/finding. However, the conclusion is overstated in both abstract and main text. For e.g. look at these sentences ‘’This meta-analysis can offer prevention for the social media overuse through observing the correlation between these factors and SMA. The viewpoints also can give the direction for correct interventions for the social media addiction’’. As currently written, it seems that the authors have evaluated some intervention methods and suggesting the best among them, which is out of the scope of the study.

Methods

2.2 Study selection criteria: the sentence ‘’Social media addiction was assessed by accepted scale’’ what do you mean by accepted scale? I suggest the author to use more appropriate words

please revise: (h)Self-esteem measures were limited to the FOMO-S

Results

There was contradicting information on the number of articles included in the final analysis, 27 or 32? Please go through your document and revise it. the number of records excluded after full text assessed for eligibility =169 in narration and 168 in diagrammatic flow chart, please revise the inconsistency

I didn’t see any subgroup analysis carried out by authors despite there is significant heterogeneity between studies. to identify the source of this heterogeneity I think the author/s have to conduct sub group analysis for e.g. based on country, measuring scale, educational status etc.

3.8 SMA and self-esteem: please revise this sentence ‘’To start the meta-analysis about the relationship between SMA and self-esteem, were ten studies that have 7962 students in total’’.

Discussion

4.3 SMA and FoMO: line number 3 “The result was significantly higher than other factors’’ instead you can consider to discuss in terms of the strength of correlation without comparing it to other factor and saying lower or higher.

In line number 4 and elsewhere in discussion please try to avoid unnecessary detail for e.g such as the following ‘’The potential explanation for this correlation were discussed further below’’

In discussion section please try to avoid the term “ firsly, secondly’’ hence, it seems you are giving order/rank

4.4 SMA and self-esteem

‘’Studies from ten countries were included in this meta-analysis with a research

16 sample of 7692 students from seven literatures.’’ 1. Please replace literature with articles 2. How seven articles from ten countries?

Strength and limitation

please delete ‘’one strength of this MA’’

Line 5 please delete ‘’especially in terms of statistical analysis of the data and a large enough sample size’’

‘’Additionally, the number of countries engaged (including Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Lebanon, Athens, China, Belgium, Spain, England, Serbia, Poland, Iran, Lebanon and Bangladesh) makes it easier to comprehend partial national trends in relevant factors regarding SMA’’. Please modify it as follows: The included articles were from diverse countries which makes it easier to comprehend partial national trends in relevant factors regarding SMA

Line 11-14 ‘’there was significant heterogeneity in the estimation of the relationships between anxiety, depression, loneliness, FoMO, self-esteem and SMA. This heterogeneity may be due to differences between research methods (including research design and research methods)’’ 1. I think it is not appropriate place to discuss the source of heterogeneity 2. How research design could be the source of heterogeneity when all included articles were cross sectional?

**********

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:  Jacques Jordaan

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Zhu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One. After careful consideration, we feel that it has satisfied our scientific requirements for publication.

However, our editorial team have significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. PLOS One requires that published manuscripts use language which is 'clear, correct, and unambiguous', see our criteria for publication at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5. We therefore request that you revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text.

We suggest you have a fluent English-language speaker thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (https://www.aje.com/go/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Please note that we will not be able to proceed with publication of your manuscript until the concerns above are addressed.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

* The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

* A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file)

* A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file)

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

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.

• 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 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,

Marianne Clemence, Staff Editor, on behalf of

Tailson Mariano

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Comments to the Author(s):

Reviewer Comments on Manuscript ID: PONE-24-20428R1 (research article)

Thank you for the opportunity to review the resubmission of this manuscript. I am satisfied with the changes made by the authors, but I identified some minor errors that they could correct.

• Page 5, line 113: I think the word “and” is missing in the sentence. “…have been examined more and were chosen….”

• Page 5, line 123: Remove the word “used” as the word “using” already appears in the sentence.

• Page 5, line 127: I think RSES is omitted from the sentence. Should the sentence read “…were restricted to RSES or SISE….”

• Page 5, line 129: Replace the full stop with a semicolon for consistency.

• Page 5, line 130: Replace the full stop with a semicolon for consistency.

• Page 15, line 180: Replace showed with shows.

• Page 20, line 283: Did you collect 8839 student participants from seven countries?

Reviewer #2: Dear Author/s, thank you for your detailed attention to concerns and suggestions raised to improve the manuscript. I feel the manuscript is substantially improved according to raised concerns and suggestions. please consider minor comments listed below

1. line 197: please carefully revise " state mindfullness" to SMA

2. line 204: "significative" to significant

3. in figure 2,3,4,5 caption what is abbreviated as PUSM? I think this need revision

4. I suggest the author/s go through the document and edit for some typos, grammatical error, and coherence

**********

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

**********

[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

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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 Jun 06 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.

• 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 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,

Tailson Mariano, Ph.D.

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The article has scientific and mainly social relevance, considering the phenomenon of problematic behavior related to social networks. It is a topical issue that needs attention due to its negative effects on individuals. Understanding the variables involved in this construct is important for us researchers; however, in the text, these variables need to be better stitched together. Below are some suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Introduction:

Line 58: Introduce global data and then specify China.

Lines 62 and 64: The phrase "On the one hand" is repeated.

Line 79: The sentences dealing with depression and self-esteem need to be better connected.

Line 86: A linking paragraph is needed to talk about loneliness. The transition is abrupt.

Line 99: Provide social, theoretical, and methodological justification for the study. The variables of interest need to be better connected. The objectives need to be clearly presented.

Discussion:

Line 249: Start by restating the objectives of the study.

Limitations:

Present the limitations and also the possible solutions, and how they can be remedied.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #4: 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

Correlations between social media addiction and anxiety, depression, FOMO, loneliness and self-esteem among students: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-24-20428R3

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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,

Tailson Evangelista Mariano, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #4: Dear authors,

First and foremost, I would like to commend you for your dedication and effort in improving the manuscript. I am pleased with the revisions made, as it is evident that you have thoughtfully considered my suggestions. I would like to reaffirm the significance of this article for both the scientific community and society as a whole. I encourage you to continue investigating these important topics that have a profound impact on modern society.

**********

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 #4: No

**********