Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a gap in the literature by focusing on sticker use in Western (U.S.) contexts, as previous research has largely concentrated on Eastern cultures. This cross-cultural perspective adds significant value. The manuscript clearly articulates its research questions and hypotheses, providing a solid framework for the empirical investigation.  Methodological approach is relevant. The authors effectively draw upon the lexical hypothesis, dramaturgical theory, and the social compensation/withdrawal hypotheses to contextualize their study, enriching the theoretical foundation. An online survey of U.S. college students is a suitable approach for capturing data on digital communication behaviors among this demographic.

Here are my suggestions: 

• Measuring "likelihood to use stickers" in a hypothetical scenario (e.g., "when you just add a new friend") is a self-report measure of intended behavior, not actual behavior. This is a common limitation in survey research but should be discussed more thoroughly. What participants think they would do might differ from their actual actions, especially in dynamic social interactions. Worth to mention this in the discussion and future research could consider using behavioral trace data or diary studies for more ecological validity.
• The mean values for sticker use for emotional expression (M = 1.73) and self-presentation (M = 1.97) are quite low on the scale used. While statistically significant differences and relationships are found, the practical significance of these findings, given such low overall engagement, should be explicitly addressed. If college students use stickers rarely in this specific new-friend scenario, does it truly represent a robust communication phenomenon? if yes, worth to explain this more. 
• Numerous placeholder citations such as "Author et al.," appear throughout the text. These must be replaced with proper citations before publication.

Author Response

Please kindly find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I believe that the work is clearly structured, methodologically consistent and uses validated instruments, which speaks of a serious approach to research. The topic is current and relevant, and the authors make a good connection between the existing research conducted in East Asia and the Western context, thus justifying the need for this study. Nevertheless, the obtained results are mostly expected and confirm the already established patterns of relationships between personality traits, loneliness, and digital communication. Since the effects are small, I think the interpretation of the results should be tempered and focused on what is really new in the data. For example, the authors empirically documented how emotional expression and self-presentation are manifested in the Western digital context and how loneliness changes the role of stickers in communication. The discussion in its current form is too long and often repeats the results and previously cited literature. I believe that shorter, more focused conclusions with reference to the contribution I have already mentioned would have strengthened the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is generally correct, but the text would be more readable with a simpler style and shorter sentences. Also, the frequent use of transition words such as moreover, furthermore and however should be avoided.

Author Response

Please kindly find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper aims to explore how personality traits influence sticker use for emotional expression and self-presentation among students at a US university. Although the objective is interesting, I have several concerns about this article. First, whether it truly fits within the scope of "Journalism and Media," since its topic has nothing to do with journalism, news, or media. 

2. Moreover, the Introduction addresses the two major purposes of sticker use, but a wider literature review is missing. For instance, you might check the following work: 

• Sampietro, A. (2021). Emojis and the performance of humour in everyday electronically-mediated conversation. A corpus study of Whats­App chats. Internet Pragmatics, 4(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00062.samp 

3. One of the main problems for this article is research design. I am quite afraid to what extent a survey with 300 responses from one single university may be representative of sticker use. In this sense, the context of this university (Northeastern US) could condition the results.  

From a statistical perspective, the study is well defined, based on two hypotheses. Nevertheless, the method applied is briefly presented in terms of the development of the survey.

4. The results show differences in uses when the student interacts with a new friend, meanwhile some practices are related to specific feelings. Besides that, the hypotheses are verified, but they should be also tackled one by one in the conclusions. 

5. Lastly, the discussion contributes to a scholarly debate on online communication, acknowledging limitations, and future lines of research. However, more participants and universities are needed to obtain results that illustrate certain trends. A broader theoretical framework on the use of stickers in digital communication is also necessary, going beyond a single area. 

6. In short, this article requires extensive rework, together with a justification for why it should be published in a journal with this theme. 

Author Response

Please kindly find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a great effort to address all the comments posed by the reviewers. Even though the sample is limited, the article offers interesting results. If the editor and the other reviewers consider it appropriate, it might be publishable.