Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read an interesting article titled: "Among adult students, nomophobia (no mobile phone phobia) was associated with symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress, but not with insomnia and symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorders." The aim of this study was to analyze the association of nomophobia with variables that are most often indicated in meta-analyses.

The strengths of the manuscript presented for evaluation are the very large sample size of over 500 respondents, the statistical analyses used and the citation of current literature mostly from the last 10 years.

The reviewer's job, on the other hand, is to help improve the article so that it meets the highest possible standards of the journal, therefore I will focus on its weaknesses.

 

[1]. In line 78, please provide the names of cited authors, not just a footnote number.

[2]. The notation of cited authors should be standardized, as once all authors are given (e.g., lines 72-73) and once the first author is given (e.g., line 112).

[3]. The research questions and hypotheses posed should be highlighted for better perception.

[4]. Section 1.1. should first present the research questions and then the corresponding hypotheses.

[5]. Information from lines 127-130 should be in sections 2.1. - 2.4.

[6]. I believe that the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Section 2.2.) should be given in Section 2.1. while Section 2.2. should only characterize the subjects in terms of socio-demographic variables.

[7]. In line 157, there is an error in the abbreviation of the questionnaire - it is "NNP-Q" and should be "NMP-Q."

[8]. Section 2.3 should include both the Cronbach's α of the questionnaires and those obtained in the current study.

[9]. The description of the DASS-21 scale should be improved because each subscale is analyzed separately, and the description indicates some sort of total score.

[10]. Section "2.4. Statistical analysis" should only describe the statistical analyses used.

[11]. The information in section "2.4.1. Preliminary calculation" should be included in section "3. Results".

[12]. The information in Section 3.1. should be included in the description of the subjects, not in the Results section.

[13]. The titles of the tables should be highlighted, as they currently merge with the text, making the text difficult to read.

[14]. Section 3.2. should be rewritten because as it stands, little is made of it and the description is not very clear.

[15]. Statistical test designations should be in italics: "p", "t", "R", "R²", "α", etc.

[16]. Section 4. should be rewritten to show in detail the differences or similarities to previous studies.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #1 for their valuable and important comments, which helped us to improve the quality of the revision. Please find the detailed point-by-point-response attached as a separate file. Thank you once again for all your kind efforts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #2 for their valuable and important comments, which helped us to improve the quality of the revision. Please find the detailed point-by-point-response attached as a separate file. Thank you once again for all your kind efforts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The research title is quite lengthy and contains multiple components, making it challenging for readers to quickly grasp the main focus of the research. Also, the original title presents information in a somewhat disjointed manner. It introduces nomophobia and its association with anxiety, depression, and stress first, and then it negates associations with insomnia and symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorders. This order might confuse readers and hinder the clarity of the message. The title doesn't clearly emphasize the significance of the research or highlight the main takeaway of the study. It's essential for a title to immediately convey the essence and importance of the research.

The study design lacks details on how 537 students were approached to participate. Information on the recruitment process, such as the method used and any inclusion/exclusion criteria, is missing. While it's mentioned that the study was conducted between March and April 2023, there's no explanation for why this timing was chosen or how it relates to the research aims. 

Should improve the researchers' academic English.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #3 for their valuable and important comments, which helped us to improve the quality of the revision. Please find the detailed point-by-point-response attached as a separate file. Thank you once again for all your kind efforts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is excellent and is a very interesting contribution to science.

Some details to be improved:

1-The proposed title looks like a conclusion. It is requested to make a title. Reduce the number of words in the title. Introduction: 2-Explicitly add a main question that addresses the research of the manuscript. 3-The topic is original and relevant to the field, but the authors should try to address in the introduction the emotional (dys)regulation to internet addiction. 4-The manuscript contributes the association of nomophobia to symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress or not with insomnia and symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder in adult students. The contribution is original and important. The methodology is careful. It would be interesting if the authors added ω of each instrument. 5-The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, but it would be convenient that they be expanded with 1 more paragraph, thus answering the main research question. 6-The discussion should address problematic internet use and resilience. 7-The references are appropriate, but check that they all meet the journal's standards. 8-The title of table 1 should be above table 1.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #4 for their valuable and important comments, which helped us to improve the quality of the revision. Please find the detailed point-by-point-response attached as a separate file. Thank you once again for all your kind efforts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the authors' efforts to improve the manuscript. However:

1)     Since research problems are questions that we try to find answers to in the course of scientific research, and hypotheses are certain assumptions that we make about the research problem (based on the literature), section 1.1. should be structured as follows: research question 1, hypothesis 1, research question 2, hypothesis 2, and so on. Hence, I consider the approach of the authors who believe that "... hierarchical organization might also be a question of taste and judgement." to be wrong.

2)     In Table 1, the authors should report either the mean scores of the individual dimensions of the NMP-Q (giving their full names), or the counts for the overall score according to the key: no nomophobia, mild, moderate, severe. And not as stated: Inability, Loss, No comfort, Lack.

3)     When describing the scales used (section 2.3.), in addition to the Cronbach's alpha for the current study, Cronbach's alpha for the tool itself should be provided.

4)     Before section 3.2. there is a redundant mysterious table.

5)     When discussing the results of the correlation (lines 281-297), it is necessary to provide the results presented in the table.

Author Response

Again, we thank Reviewer #1 for the comments, which helped us to improve the quality of the revision.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

OK

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Again, we thank Reviewer #2 for the comments, which helped us to improve the quality of the revision.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf