Time Perspective and ICT Use: A Descriptive Study with Secondary School Adolescents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript used the related data of ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) and Social Media, and Attitudes Towards Technology among adolescents to study the topic of Time Perspective and technology use among adolescents. The overall quality of the research work is high, and the research idea is innovative, and the methods are systematic. However, the following aspects need to be addressed before acceptance for publication:

1. Please discuss whether there is any kind of selection bias or measurement error in the study. If so, please elaborate whether any kind of statistical methods have been applied to address related issues.
2. Please discuss why the statistical analysis was conducted using three different software, and what the relative strengths and drawbacks of each of them are. 
3. Please elaborate on why the Modified One-Step M-Estimator is used here and why the 20% trimmed mean is selected. Have you considered any other values other than 20%?
4.  Instead of using MANOVA, have you considers any type of model-based statistical models to conduct the analysis?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

The manuscript used the related data of ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) and Social Media, and Attitudes Towards Technology among adolescents to study the topic of Time Perspective and technology use among adolescents. The overall quality of the research work is high, and the research idea is innovative, and the methods are systematic. However, the following aspects need to be addressed before acceptance for publication:

Comments 1: “Please discuss whether there is any kind of selection bias or measurement error in the study. If so, please elaborate whether any kind of statistical methods have been applied to address related issues.”.

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. Specifically, no selection bias or measurement errors were found, but as the study is based on a convenience sample of secondary school students, we acknowledge the inherent risk. In this way, information was added to the limitations, in the “conclusions” section to describe how the analyses performed can help mitigate a possible impact on the results. You can find this information between lines 1020 and 1036.

Comments 2: “Please discuss why the statistical analysis was conducted using three different software, and what the relative strengths and drawbacks of each of them are.”.

Thank you for emphasizing this point. The three software’s used serve different purposes. To maintain clarity regarding the specific use of the software mentioned, the beginning of the "Statistical Analysis" section has been reworded, with the changes located between lines 260 and 278.

Comments 3: “Please elaborate on why the Modified One-Step M-Estimator is used here and why the 20% trimmed mean is selected. Have you considered any other values other than 20%?”.

Thank you for your question which is quite pertinent. In order to maintain clarity about the methodological use of the Yuen Robust Test, more detailed information has been added to the “Statistical Analyses” section, between lines 334 and 349.

Comments 4: “Instead of using MANOVA, have you considers any type of model-based statistical models to conduct the analysis?”.

Thank you for your question. We opted for MANOVA as the primary analytical approach because it aligns well with the nature of our research question. The MANOVA used offers a robust framework for detecting multivariate differences while simultaneously controlling for Type I error inflation. But we agree that model-based statistical approaches, such as Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), may also be suitable for answering the same question.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I read with great interest your scientific study of 32 pages, in which you really comprehensively address an issue that is extremely important for the development of today's youth. I really appreciate your efforts.
At the same time, I appreciate that you respected the MDPI instructions and the article is appropriately structured, the individual chapters logically follow each other and create a homogeneous whole.

My recommendations for additions and are essentially negligible.
In the introduction, it would be helpful to clearly state the research questions and/or hypotheses that you would answer in the discussion, which is really very extensive and complex.

I recommend strengthening the theoretical basis with current scientific works in the field of access to information, its authenticity, verifiability, and the like. I recommend that you also consider works such as:

Zakharchenko, A., Peracek, T., Fedushko, S., Syerov, Y. & Trach, O. (2021). When fact-checking and 'bbc standards' are helpless: 'fake newsworthy event' manipulation and the reaction of the 'high-quality media' on it. Sustainability, 13 (2), 573. doi:10.3390/su13020573

Popa Tache, C.E., Vâlcu, E.N. 2025 Artificial Intelligence and Corporate Liability Towards a New Legal-Ethical Contract in the Dynamics of Emerging Global Human Rights Convergences. Juridical Tribune Review of Comparative and International Law, 15(2), pp. 281–305, doi: 10.62768/TBJ/2025/15/2/04

In the methodological chapter, devote a few sentences to the basic scientific methods of investigation for you, such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction, including a brief description of them and justification for their use for each chapter of the manuscript. This will complete the comprehensive view of the methodological part.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We have carefully considered each point and provide our detailed responses below.

Dear authors,

I read with great interest your scientific study of 32 pages, in which you really comprehensively address an issue that is extremely important for the development of todays youth. I really appreciate your efforts.

At the same time, I appreciate that you respected the MDPI instructions and the article is appropriately structured, the individual chapters logically follow each other and create a homogeneous whole.

Comments 1: “My recommendations for additions and are essentially negligible. In the introduction, it would be helpful to clearly state the research questions and/or hypotheses that you would answer in the discussion, which is really very extensive and complex.”.

Thank you for your suggestion. We clarified in the introduction the paragraphs where we state the research questions. You can find them in the "The Present Study" subsection, right after the objectives, between lines 153 and 161.

Comments 2: “I recommend strengthening the theoretical basis with current scientific works in the field of access to information, its authenticity, verifiability, and the like. I recommend that you also consider works such as:

Zakharchenko, A., Peracek, T., Fedushko, S., Syerov, Y. & Trach, O. (2021). When fact-checking and 'bbc standards' are helpless: 'fake newsworthy event' manipulation and the reaction of the 'high-quality media' on it. Sustainability, 13 (2), 573. doi:10.3390/su13020573

Popa Tache, C.E., Vâlcu, E.N. 2025 Artificial Intelligence and Corporate Liability Towards a New Legal-Ethical Contract in the Dynamics of Emerging Global Human Rights Convergences. Juridical Tribune Review of Comparative and International Law, 15(2), pp. 281–305, doi: 10.62768/TBJ/2025/15/2/04”.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions of further readings. We read and added Zakharchenko et al. (2021) and Popa & Vâlcu (2025) in the introduction. You can find the added information between lines 128 and 134.

Comments 3: In the methodological chapter, devote a few sentences to the basic scientific methods of investigation for you, such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction, including a brief description of them and justification for their use for each chapter of the manuscript. This will complete the comprehensive view of the methodological part.

Thank you for your comment. We added the suggested description in the Methodological chapter. You can find the information in the new subsection 2.1.1 "Underlying Scientific Methods", between lines 168 and 184.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully read your revised manuscript. I am glad that you accepted my comments and qualitatively supplemented your manuscript. Based on the changes made, I agree to its publication in the submitted form.

Best regards, Reviewer