All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The paper can be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The problem is presented clearly, and the reference literature appears to be reported consistently: the binge-watching problem is compared to other behavioural addictions.
The experimental design is sound and valid
The changes the authors implemented increase the quality of the work.
I think now the paper deserves to be published
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors did a good job and improved the quality of the manuscript. I have no other suggestions.
Congratulations!
The paper is interesting but needs revisions carefully following reviewers' suggestions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The problem is presented clearly, and the reference literature appears to be reported consistently: the binge-watching problem is compared to other behavioural addictions. In this vein, the authors collected a series of parameters aimed at describing the phenomenon of binge-watching. However, at a certain point in the discussion, the authors introduce the i-pace model, which sounds to give reason and frame the data.
The protocol capitalised on a series of standardised questionnaires. The data were collected via an online platform guaranteeing the anonymity of the responders.
The data analysis appears critical to me: the authors carried out a series of ANOVA for each construct they collected data for. However, the ipace model, which is reported in the conclusion, drove me to think that the questionnaire might be selected differently and that the data might be analysed differently, with a more integrated, model-driven, vision. In fact, no correlation matrix has been proposed, and no result about collinearity is reported.
I would understand why the authors recalled a theoretical model at the end of the work, and not at the beginning. Such a way to recall theory at the end casts a shadow of weakness on the paper.
I would like to see a new analysis of the data in light of the model. I might be wrong, but I suppose that some variables might appear redundant (in fact, no collinearly is reported, or correlational matrix is discussed) or not significant, helping authors to propose a new/adapted model of the phenomena.
The topic is interesting and overall, the work is well-written. However, I suggest the authors check all the typos throughout the text. Here are some I noticed:
- Abstract: after subheadings, according to PeerJ standards, there should be a period (not colons).
- Lines 48-50: a round bracket is missing at the end maybe? In any case, all that text in the brackets might be excessive. Please, consider revising it.
- Line 55: “CAMART”.
- Line 71: comma after “Similarly”.
- Line 141: “questionnaire” should be plural.
- Line 160: “pn2” is ηp2.
- Line 262: round bracket before “Flayelle et al., 2020”
- Figure 3a: “(TAS-20” lacks a round bracket
Line 56-60: this sentence is ambiguous and should be written more clearly.
References: please, remember to provide the references’ DOI if available.
The experimental design and statistical approach are adequate and provide meaningful and robust data that answer the research question. I think it would be also interesting to verify if some of the psychological aspects you studied can predict the problematic BW phenotype. Did you consider running a multiple regression with mental health dimensions as predictors and BW as a response variable?
Material and methods: please, specify the cut-off of BWAQ that discriminate each BW profiles.
no comment
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.