Review Reports - Relationship of Internet Addiction and Gambling Craving with Personality and Psychological Well-Being

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

Consider expanding the explanation about Internet addiciton, including some examples/a description of what this typically looks like. Also consider a more in depth consideration of what is included in the DSM-5/ICD-11, to highlight where Internet addiction sits in the literature. Adding these additional details will mean that when you start to discuss gender, there will be more context available.

Line 33. Review 67,9%

Line 50. More recent literature is needed here, or acknowledgment that there is none if this is the case.

Returning to consideration of DSM-5 is confusing with the introduction of online gambling (starting ine 53). I would suggest revising the introduction to this point for clarity. This is further suggested given the instruments chosen for the study.

Lines 73-80. This section does not establish justification for your study. This section would benefit from expansion, including why the focus has been limited.

The latter parts of the introduction are clearer regarding the purpose of the paper.

Materials and Methods

Line 140. Check for typos, e.g., the ) is missing.

Line 148. I am not sure it can be stated that anonymity and confidenlity ensures honest and sincere responses. Consider re-wording.

Your plan of analysis is brief, and does not make clear which variables will form part of the multiple regression.

Results

Lines 207-212. What is GC, SE, BFO, SWL, BFA? I would suggest these terms are used at this stage of the paper, given they have only been briefly introduced.

Your reader is needing to do a lot of work or scrolling in the results section, to understand what the results mean. For example, what does high GC mean? You make some attempt to specify what these results mean, however I would suggest revising this section for clarity. There are a lot of acronyms for the reader to keep track of, so being more specific with make this section more readable.

Lines 236-237. Sometimes you refer to boys and girls, here you mention men and women.

Line 278. Spacing typo.

Discussion

Consider revising your Discussion in line with changes to your Introduction.

Review your paper to ensure you have complied with the relevant formatting.

There is more recent literature which could be added to this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the wording used was an overstatement. For example, see lines 30-31 "indispensable", and line 289 "confirmed".

Author Response

I'm attaching a file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have a few suggestions for your consideration:

In the introduction part, line 46-48- you have mentioned-"< !--StartFragment -->Studies indicate that differences in motivation exist by gender, whereby boys tend to experience more addictive behavior when they play games related to power and controlling or exploring sexual fantasies online."- please add references here.< !--EndFragment -->
In line 52, you have mentioned stidues, but you have used only one reference; please check it.
Could you please specify how you have collected the data, any specific inclusion or exclusion criteria, and whether there is any missing data? How have you handled that?
Line 289-292: You mentioned in the discussion. Additionally, the results show that Internet addiction relates positively with online gambling, in line with previous studies that indicate that Internet addiction is closely linked to pathological online gambling, given that the availability of the Internet today provides novel and ample opportunities to gamble online. - Are there any other factors that trigger it? Could you mention any neurological or social factors?< !--EndFragment -->
Line 329-332: < !--StartFragment -->Girls scored higher than boys in the personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness; however, boys scored higher than girls in emotional stability. Furthermore, although no differences were found in self-esteem between girls and boys, girls scored higher than boys in satisfaction with life.- Could you please provide more detailed explanations?< !--EndFragment -->

Author Response

I'm attaching a file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes a straight forward cross-sectional study with the strength of use of validated questionnaires and scales. However, there are several weaknesses that need to be addressed:

Introduction

It is insufficiently explained why a stratified analysis for males and females in necessary. Expand this one sentence and explain what is meant with "gender being a risk factor": “Additionally, studies reveal that the association between Internet addiction and related factors (e.g., low self-esteem, attention deficit) is higher in boys, with gender being a risk factor in Internet addiction (Liang et al., 2016).”

In the entire introduction it is unclear whether the findings are related to adolescents or to young adults. The sample consists of university students, but most of the literature does not fit to this population group. Please discuss the topic more specificly for university students.

Do not call the male and female university students in your sample “boys” and “girls”.

Sample

The sample is not very large. What is the participation rate? How many of the students present in the lectures have filled in the questionnaire?

Statistical analysis:

In order to stratify the analysis, some interaction with gender should be tested before.

The multiple linear regression analyses are unadjusted for relevant confounding factors. The analyses should at least be adjusted for age.

Results:

The Abbreviations should be explained in the legends of the tables.

Discussion

The discussion falls short in discussing the gender differences with respect to current literature or own hypotheses.

The limitation discussion is limited. Each argument should be addressed in a separate sentence with a discussion of the relevance for the robustness of the findings. What kind of objective measures could be used instead?

Conclusions for prevention and public health action (with emphasis on gender-sensitive interventions) are lacking in the discussion.

Author Response

I'm attaching a file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

The objective of the study is still not clear. Why are you using personality and wellbeing? Why is it measured through self-esteem and satisfaction with life? You will likely not be able to explain this in the abstract, therefore consider explaining less and leaving it to the paper itself. Simplify this to make it more engaging to the reader. Similarly, the list of results means very little. Can you reframe this to make it more relevant to the real world or overall purpose of the study. At the moment the abstract includes the results without interpretation to make it a paper someone would want to stop and read.

Introduction:

The introduction still takes a few paragraphs to get to the point of the study. Is it relevant that it is not in the DSM? You have cited research already that indicates it is an issue. You discuss issues related to gender before you have really outlined what your study is about. Perhaps move the section about gambling earlier, if this is the main focus. Everything before line 87 could be reduced to a few sentences. The addition from lines 101 makes the study clearer, although the introduction as a whole needs rewriting.

Discussion:

This needs revision, in line with the suggestions for the Introduction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the wording used was an overstatement. For example, "proof".

Author Response

Reviewer Comment:

Abstract:

Similarly, the list of results means very little. Can you reframe this to make it more relevant to the real world or overall purpose of the study. At the moment the abstract includes the results without interpretation to make it a paper someone would want to stop and read.

Response 1

Thank you for the comment. The abstract has been revised to make it more engaging to the reader. The results section has also been reframed to highlight its broader relevance and improve the overall clarity and appeal of the abstract

Reviewer Comment 2

Introduction:

Response 2

Thank you for your observation. Although the fact that it is not included in the DSM-5 may not be of particular relevance, we have considered this information to be pertinent, as it helps to better contextualize the problem under study.

Following your recommendations, we have moved the section about gambling first and reduced the section before line 87.

Finally, we have revised the whole introduction, enhancing the expression and correcting the mistakes

We believe that these changes improve the overall coherence of the study.

Reviewer Comment 3

Discussion:

This needs revision, in line with the suggestions for the Introduction.

Response 3

We have reviewed the discussion section to improve the expression and correct the mistakes