Effects of Digital Game-Based Learning on Students’ Cyber Wellness Literacy, Learning Motivations, and Engagement
and Yunxiang Zheng *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript presented here deals with a topic of interest to the scientific community. Although and with a view to improving its overall quality, some proposals or suggestions are made.
In this sense, it is recommended to add review the references, these do not conform to the standards of the journal. In the same way, when citing some inconsistency is also observed, in this sense, if the references that are cited are followed, a hyphen should be placed in the middle and not a comma, for example 38-29 instead of 38,29.
Similarly, it is recommended to review and add or remove spaces where necessary, there are some cases where they are very close together. Likewise, it is suggested to review the use of the tables... it is convenient not to abuse it or at least not to be very close to each other to facilitate the understanding of the speech.
Also in Figure 2, it would be convenient to include the number of subjects in each group. Similarly, it is recommended to remove the 0's in front of the .
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? This study has the following research questions (RQs) guided our study: RQ1: Do the students who participate in game-based learning have better cyber wellness literacy than those who learn in the traditional way? RQ2: Do the students who participate in game-based learning show higher learning motivation than those who learn in the traditional way? RQ3: Are the students who participate in game-based learning more engaged in 87 learning than those who learn in the traditional way? 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Yes, but in the manuscript it isn't clear the specific gap.3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? This aspect should be reviewed and improved.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
In this sense, it is recommended to review the references, these do not conform to the standards of the journal. In the same way, when citing some inconsistency is also observed, in this sense, if the references that are cited are followed, a hyphen should be placed in the middle and not a comma, for example 38-29 instead of 38,29.
Similarly, it is recommended to review and add or remove spaces where necessary, there are some cases where they are very close together. Likewise, it is suggested to review the use of the tables... it is convenient not to abuse it or at least not to be very close to each other to facilitate the understanding of the speech.
Also in Figure 2, it would be convenient to include the number of subjects in each group. Similarly, it is recommended to remove the 0's in front of the .
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? No exactly. This aspect should be reviewed in the manuscript. Add new relevant citations.6. Are the references appropriate? No, the references should be reviewed and improved.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Also in Figure 2, it would be convenient to include the number of subjects in each group. Similarly, it is recommended to remove the 0's in front of the .
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Please find below a number of comments that I have associated with your article. Although I believe the idea of this article to be sound, there are a number of improvements that need to be taken. Generally, the context of this study focuses in China and is supported by Chinese literature. if this is what the authors aim to do it should be made very clear.
Good luck with your amendments of the article and I look forward to reading a revised version
- It is recommended that the author provides a definition for the term "Internet user" in the text.
- The text contains grammatical errors, including incorrect capitalization of "internet" and inconsistent use of abbreviations. The author should correct these errors and use abbreviations consistently throughout the text.
- It would be beneficial if the authors could provide data on Internet addiction in more developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
- The rationale for preventing Internet addiction should be reconsidered, as its consequences can affect all individuals in society, not just teenagers. The author should rephrase these statements to be more accurate and factual, and add a follow-up sentence stating that the focus of the article will be on teenagers.
- In line 55, the author should clarify where cyber wellness is implemented in school education, whether it is in China or worldwide. If it is only in China, this should be explicitly stated in the abstract, aims, and title of the article.
- The article's flow must be improved. Often the readers are pulled back and for the between ideas. For instance, by including the literature review in the introduction and following it with the research questions in Section 2.
- The article's context may be unclear to a global audience, such as the meaning of K-12. This should be explained explicitly.
- The article contains some generalisations that could be considered concerning, such as "teenagers are not mature enough to control themselves well." The author should avoid such generalisations and present more nuanced arguments.
- Several statements in the text lack quantitative evidence to support them, such as the claim that DGBL increases student learning engagement. The authors should provide more quantitative evidence to support their arguments.
- The authors should clearly state the research gaps that their study aims to address, rather than simply stating that their study “attempts to fill in the afore-mentioned gaps in the research literature”.
- It is unclear from the text whether the authors considered ethical considerations when recruiting participants, such as whether students were aware that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any stage. Additionally, it is unclear whether the responses were anonymous.
- The authors should explain how they validated the questionnaire, whether the survey was piloted first, and if it was subject to peer review.
- The authors should clarify how they performed the data analysis for their study.
- The results of this study were poorly analysed and have not clearly highlighted the major take homes from this study.
- Further, table titles were not sufficiently descriptive.
- Due to the lack of appropriate data analysis the discussion was vague and failed to create how this study contributes to current literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for making the required improvements to your article. I do think there is still room for improvement but I am now happy to support your publication
Author Response
Thank you so much for your great support. And we double checked the whole paper to minimize grammatical errors.
