Conditions Contributing to Positive and Negative Outcomes of Children’s ICT Use: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the first half of the paper reads well. 

The author may need to make it clearer that this is a protocol for a scoping review (review has not yet been completed), rather than a completed scoping review. This is because I was anticipating the findings from applying the protocol but this is not presented in the paper.

In the Methods section (pg. 6-12), the author describes the scoping review process. I feel this section lacks originality as the process described appears to be quite a standard process for conducting a review.

The digital ecosystems model is interesting. If the author proposes to use this model to conduct the scoping review, this needs to be made clearer - how? what results do we anticipate to find? etc.

Overall, I think the main contribution of this paper needs to be made clearer. Perhaps also a preview of what the findings may look like from applying this "protocol" will be helpful as the manuscript ends quite abruptly.

Author Response

First, of all, the authors would like to thank reviewer 1 for valuable comments. These are our responses to the comments: 

Response to reviewer 1 comments:

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Can be improved.

• The author may need to make it clearer that this is a protocol for a scoping review (review has not been completed), rather than a completed scoping review. That is because I was anticipating the findings from applying the protocol but this is not presented in the paper.

Changes have been made:

The original abstract (line 7-22) states clearly that the paper is a protocol for a scoping review. We have added one sentence in the “Introduction” paragraph (line 40-43) repeating this.

• In the Methods section (pg. 6-12) the author describes the scoping review process. I feel this section lacks originality as the process described appears to be quite a standard process for conducting a review.

No changes have been made:

We have made no revisions in the text to accommodate this opinion of reviewer 2. On the contrary, we would argue that describing the standard process for conducting a scoping review (with original wording and complete references) may actually substantiate the quality of the protocol, making this part of the process clear and transparent to the readers. We find that reviewer 2 supports this argument, stating that “Overall, the method is clear, and provided a useful “blueprint” for other researchers to conduct similar searches.”

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Must be improved.

• The digital ecosystems model is interesting. If the author proposes to use this model to conduct the scoping review, this needs to made clearer – how? What results do we anticipate to find? Etc.

Changes have been made:

We agree with reviewer 1 here, and we have revised the text describing the digital ecosystem by showing in more detail how it can be understood against the background of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) original ecological systems theory.

Are the conclusion thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Must be improved.

• Overall, I think the main contribution of this chapter needs to be made clearer. Perhaps also a preview ow what the findings may look like from applying this “protocol” will be helpful as the manuscript ends quite abruptly.

Changes have been made:

We believe that the revision of the text describing the digital ecosystem/ EST serves to place the scoping review within a theoretical framework that not only substantiates our own design, but also points to new potential for investigating and interpreting children’s and young people’s use of ICT from other angles or starting points in the digital ecosystem. We have added a conclusion to the paper addressing these points, and we hope that this will make the overall contribution of the paper clear. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the scoping review protocol. Overall, the methods clear, and provided a useful ‘blueprint’ for other researchers to conduct similar searches.

I have some minor comments to make to strengthen the scoping review protocol for publication. 

* Page 2, lines 60, 61. Sentence: “One of the greatest challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on humans is privacy, here specifically relate to the notion of ownership, consumer patterns and how we devote time to developing skills”. It is unclear exactly how privacy is linked with ownership, consumer patterns, and time devoted to developing skills. Could the author(s) please expand?

* Page 3, lines 99-102. Sentence: “The vulnerability of children and young people can be characterised by the life phase of growing up and finding one’s own place in the world, where overcoming challenges depends on support from others and human beings depending on care and social contacts.” This sentence is a little bit unclear. Could the author(s) please clarify?

* Page 5, lines 175-194 – I am concerned about the narrow definition of family. I wonder how this relates to children in different family/household settings that aren’t characterised by a more traditional family unit? While the author(s) acknowledges the different types of family (lines 179-184), this is not engaged with in the following paragraph (lines 186-194) and the author(s) revert back to the describing children’s experiences in parent-headed families. Is it possible that children in alternative situations may experience ICT use differently? Can this be referred to/acknowledged?

Thank you again, and I look forward to reading the findings from the review. 

Author Response

First of all, the authors would like to thank reviewer 2 for valuable comments. The following are our responses to the review:

Response to reviewer 2 comments:

Page 2, lines 60, 61. Sentence: “One of the greatest challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on humans is privacy, here specifically relate to the notion of ownership, consumer patterns and how we devote time to developing skills”. It is unclear exactly how privacy is linked with ownership, consumer patterns, and time devoted to developing skills. Could the author(s) please expand?

Changes have been made:

We have expanded on this by providing a more detailed explanation and examples of what possible concerns there might be with regard to privacy. We have also tried to link this with the need for skills and competencies concerning privacy, safety and security.

* Page 3, lines 99-102. Sentence: “The vulnerability of children and young people can be characterised by the life phase of growing up and finding one’s own place in the world, where overcoming challenges depends on support from others and human beings depending on care and social contacts.” This sentence is a little bit unclear. Could the author(s) please clarify?

Changes have been made:

We have added a clarification in the text about vulnerability and connected this to the idea of dependency based on the work of Fineman and others.

* Page 5, lines 175-194 – I am concerned about the narrow definition of family. I wonder how this relates to children in different family/household settings that aren’t characterised by a more traditional family unit? While the author(s) acknowledges the different types of family (lines 179-184), this is not engaged with in the following paragraph (lines 186-194) and the author(s) revert back to the describing children’s experiences in parent-headed families. Is it possible that children in alternative situations may experience ICT use differently? Can this be referred to/acknowledged?

Changes have been made:

We have added a further discussion on children for instance in foster and care facilities to provide a more nuanced discussion and to acknowledge different types of “family arrangements.