Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Weaknesses and Suggestions for Improvement Contradiction in gender analysis: The conclusion claims significant differences between genders, but the results indicate weak correlations and trivial effects. This inconsistency should be clarified.

Superficial qualitative analysis: Despite open-ended data collection, the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped. Examples of participant responses and clearer thematic categorization should be included.

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Weaknesses and Suggestions for Improvement Contradiction in gender analysis: The conclusion claims significant differences between genders, but the results indicate weak correlations and trivial effects. This inconsistency should be clarified.

Response 1: We have reformulated the paragraph as follows: 

Regarding gender differences (H4), although statistically significant results were detected, the observed effects were negligible, suggesting that practical disparities in perceptions of digital well-being are minimal. These findings indicate that male and female students experience digital stress and related challenges in broadly similar ways (Vieira and Carlotto, 2024). Nevertheless, descriptive trends hint at subtle variations, which aligns with prior studies suggesting that gendered experiences of digital technology may exist but are often context-dependent. Thus, while gender-sensitive strategies may still be valuable, their design should be cautious and informed by effect sizes that reach thresholds of practical significance.

Comment 2: Superficial qualitative analysis: Despite open-ended data collection, the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped. Examples of participant responses and clearer thematic categorization should be included.

Response 2: 

 

3.5.1. Effects of Technology on Students’ Physical and Mental Health. Thematic Analysis

A total of 197 valid student responses were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis framework. From these responses, distinct codes were generated, reflecting the multifaceted nature of participants’ answers, as many included multiple perspectives within a single response. To complement the quantitative findings on digital well-being, stress, and screen time, descriptive statistics were employed to quantify the frequency of responses within each thematic category. This approach allows for a richer understanding of students’ experiences, linking numerical patterns with the underlying qualitative insights that highlight both the physical and psychological impacts of technology use, as well as coping strategies and perceptions of control.

Physical impact (Frequency, n = 144): Participants reported musculoskeletal discomfort, eye strain, sleep disturbances, and fatigue. Example responses included: “Physically, my eyes feel tired and I get headaches after prolonged use” and “After 3–4 hours at the screen, I experience fatigue and sleep problems.”

Psychological impact (positive: Frequency, n = 58, negative: Frequency, n = 79): Responses ranged from relaxation, entertainment, and social connection to anxiety, stress, concentration difficulties, and feelings of guilt. For instance, some noted: “Technology helps me relax through a movie or staying in touch with friends”, while others reported: “Mentally, I experience lack of motivation and difficulty concentrating.”

Dependence and loss of control (Frequency, n = 74): Participants described compulsive checking of devices, time loss, and emotional attachment. Example: “I feel like I’m losing part of my day, part of my life.”

Social comparison and self-image (Frequency, n = 48): Participants highlighted feelings of inadequacy and reduced self-confidence due to social media comparisons. Example: “Social media makes me compare myself and lowers my self-esteem”.

Coping strategies and awareness (Frequency, n = 43): Participants described setting limits, alternating with offline activities, and moderating technology use consciously. Example: “It is necessary to disconnect sometimes to appreciate other things, like taking a walk in the park”.

These themes demonstrate that while digital technology offers functional and social benefits, it also carries potential risks for physical health, mental well-being, and emotional regulation.

We have integrated these revisions into the manuscript, with the changes highlighted in red. Additionally, we have added the reference to Braun and Clarke (2006) as reference number 8, also highlighted in red.

Thank you for your valuable feedback and guidance!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My review is based on five aspects: clarity, references, experimental design, completeness of the methods section, and ethical statements, as well as data presentation.
First, the manuscript’s theme focuses on the impact of digitalization on technical university students, which is relevant to the field of education sciences. The structure is reasonable and adheres to a standard empirical research format.
Second, the cited references are generally recent and relevant. However, minor issues exist in the use of key scales and the integration of literature. For example, (1) The research topic centers on digital well-being and psychological well-being, with an emphasis on the influence of digital engagement in education. The manuscript effectively distinguishes between positive and negative aspects of the relationship between digital engagement and psychological/digital well-being. However, the content is predominantly focused on digital well-being, lacking comparisons and integrations of related theories. Additionally, specific manifestations of digital engagement in higher education contexts are underrepresented.(2) The cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. As the authors themselves state in the literature review and conclusions, “digital well-being is best conceptualized not as a static trait, but as a dynamic outcome,” yet this is not further reflected in the study. In fact, the latest advancements in this type of research are concentrated on longitudinal experiments and measurements, and the manuscript would benefit from supplementing relevant literature.
Third, for an empirical paper, the design of this article is overly simplistic. (1) It is a cross-sectional survey using purposive sampling conducted at only one university, which may raise questions about sample homogeneity. (2) From the perspective of questionnaire design, although Ryff’s scale has been validated, it is nearly 30 years old, and its validation in the Romanian language context is approaching 10 years. It is essential to note that the concept of psychological well-being itself has evolved, particularly in the post-pandemic context highlighted by the authors.
Fourth, the methods section is reported relatively completely, and the conclusions are mostly consistent with the evidence, supporting the research hypotheses. I am curious about the discussion section’s emphasis on “the very strong association between perceived work–life balance and general psychological well-being.” However, individuals’ perceptions of work–life balance seem to vary. For instance, some define “balance” as a strict equal division of work and life time, while others can accept high-intensity work as long as private time is guaranteed. Does this heterogeneity in perception affect the strength of the association between “perceived work-life balance” and “happiness”? Therefore, the manuscript may overlook the complexity of this subjective perception, thereby limiting the generalizability of the conclusions. It would be better if the manuscript could further explore the sources of individual differences in perceived work-life balance and how these differences lead to varying psychological well-being outcomes.
Fifth, the ethical statement is sufficient and detailed, and the figures/tables are directly linked to the results. However, there are some grammatical errors in the text, such as in line 396 of the results section, “as we seen,” which appears to be a grammatical error.

Author Response

Please find attached a document containing the reviewer’s comments alongside our detailed responses. We hope these clarifications and revisions address all points raised and demonstrate our efforts to improve the manuscript in line with your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made thorough and commendable revisions to the article.

Below are my comments:  

1. The introduction now includes the latest longitudinal studies and specific manifestations of digital engagement in higher education. It would be beneficial to assess whether these additions more effectively highlight the significance of this study. As noted by the author on line 202 (“However, most existing research, including the present study”), the unique contribution of this work remains underexplored.  
2. In the 2.1. Sample section, lines 321-323 can be removed, as this information is redundant with earlier content.  
3. The revisions on lines 368-372 and 408-410 appear somewhat abrupt and could benefit from smoother integration.  
4. I observe that the author introduced thematic analysis on line 515, which is a promising approach. Should this method of data handling be elaborated upon in the 2. Materials and Methods section?  
5. The discussion section has been well revised, yet its coherence and readability could be further enhanced. For instance, lines 714-718 seem to repeat content from lines 653-656, and this is not an isolated instance.  
6. Overall, the study, which examines the correlation between digital well-being and psychological well-being among technical university students in Romania, offers valuable insights for regional research. However, its theoretical significance requires deeper exploration, particularly regarding recent findings on “digital well-being,” “psychological well-being,” and “subjective well-being.” The content could also be streamlined for greater impact.

Author Response

We thank you for the valuable suggestions. Please find attached our detailed responses addressing each of the comments provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx