To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).
Authors have fully addressed all issues raised previously by reviewers.
The authors have done a satisfactory job of responding to my comments. Congratulations on the fine paper and contribution to the field!
Please provide a point by point response that describes how and where in the revised manuscript each issue raised by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 was addressed.
This is a clearly and succinctly written paper. It is appropriately structured, with adequate background. The length of the paper, and number and content of tables, is appropriate.
This is an observational study that uses data from a cross-sectional national (Canadian) survey (the HBSC). The study question is fairly clear. One question is how families with non-parent caregivers (e.g., grandparents) are categorized. The statistical methods appear to be appropriate, but the description of methods has some gaps: what is the imputation model (e.g., what variables are included) for the multiple imputation? how many multiple imputed datasets were used? how many comparisons were included in the Bonferroni correction (e.g., were males and females, computer use and video game use counted separately or together)? were the CIs themselves adjusted for multiple comparisons? (This would be appropriate as they are apparently being used for tests.)
While the broad thrust of the conclusions seem reasonable, more care should be taken to avoid statements that assert a null result (as the methods were not geared to such a conclusion). An example (line 197) is "Youth from non-traditional families were also not more likely to exceed screen time...". A more well-founded statement would be "...not significantly more likely...", or "...not found to be more likely...".
A couple suggested edits:
Line 117: It seems weak to say "for the purposes of logistic regression". Rather the scientific question should determine the statistical model.
Line 124: "Potential covariates.." should presumable be "Potential confounders...", alternatively, "Potential covariates for the model of the relationship..."
Lines 127-128: The description for the classification of "other" is confusing. I am assuming that to be considered other, both criteria of being of mixed race and self-identification as other is what is meant, but it reads as if someone could be classified as other if they meet only one of those criteria. If both criteria must be satisfied to be "other," it might read better as "which includes those of mixed ethnicity and who also self-identify as other."
Lines 212-215: Relating emotional well-being to screen time in families that include visitation with non-residential parents seems to be a more speculative leap as it is written. It would be helpful to that argument to include a source that has demonstrated a relationship between emotional well-being and screen time. Otherwise, I would consider not using the word "consistent" when tying the concepts together, and try something like "could be related to."
This is an interesting study. I recognize the limitations of the available survey data, but I would be interested for the future in what the results might look like if a wider age range were able to be included, particularly with inclusion of younger children. It would also be interesting to look at what the outcomes would be if controlling for body mass index (BMI). Lastly, there is no mention of same-sex parenting. I would consider identifying a reason for that, such as it is information not available in the survey data (another limitation of the study), or if there was purposeful exclusion, I would include a validated rationale as to why.
Line 49: space missing between boys and (Gorely)
Line 112: missing parenthesis after etc and before the closing quotation mark
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.