Review Reports - Digital Youth and Their Acquisition of Values When Using the Internet

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In table 3 the word idetification is cut
Minor errors in English are detected in row 336 (especially) and in row 337 add “and” responsibility
Improve the structure recommended by the journal in the references:

- Reference 1: Change amp by Amp
- Put in the references; between the authors and remove & o and
- The title of the magazines and the volume are in italics
- Reference 9: remove the words Vol. And num.
- Remove quotes in references
- Place well the year of publication in the references.
- Reference 34: put the title of the book and add the publisher location (city and country)
- Reference 36: remove the colon before the publication date
- Before DOI put a colon
- Reference 39 and 65: change the period to a comma before the pages.

Author Response

We have done a table where we have explain all the changes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much to the editor-in-chief for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. I appreciate the effort the researchers have put into the study, however, the manuscript suffers from several shortcomings. Please refer to my comments as follows:

Introduction

Overall, I do not see a clear problem that is worth investigating for this study. In others words, I do not find any originality in the study. Moreover, the argument of the need to study is too vague.

Theoretical Background and hypotheses development

Overall, the presentation of literature is relatively under-discussed and is not organized around major ideas and research theme. Extensive improvement should be focus in this section.

Methodology

There is no discussion for the pre-testing of the questionnaire.
How are the respondents being selected? Any control criteria?
There is no justification for the sample size for this study.
There is no discussion on the sampling technique used for this study.
Any effort in addressing Common Method Bias?

Analysis

To report respondents’ profile.
There is a need for the researchers to address the convergent and discriminant validity for the constructs adopted in this study.

Theoretical Contributions and Managerial Implications

Overall, the discussion on the theoretical and practical contributions are too brief and vaguely presented. I would appreciate it if the researchers could improve the discussion in this section.

Language and references

A proof checking is needed for the manuscript and the references list needs to be updated with the recent evidence.

Author Response

We have done a table where we have explain all the changes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, do look upon the notes and make the needed changes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have done a table where we have explain all the changes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I did notice slight improvement in the paper. However, the current revision is not what I expected. Please see my feedback as follows:

1) I still do not see a clear problem that is worth investigating for
this study.

2) I still don't see much improvement in the presentation of the literature
review.

3) I don't understand what the authors intend to explain here "The sampling technique was non-probabilistic, which made it possible to select the 151 cases that were available and that voluntarily participated in the study [55] and that 152 agreed to be included in the research [56]. "

4) The questionnaire development for social values is inappropriate. Which method did the researcher follow?

5) I do expect the researcher to deal with convergent and discriminant validity using SEM method.

6) Please report the normality based on skewness and kurtosis value. Apart from that, please address multivariate normality as well.

7) The discussion is the result and the implication of the study is still minimal and under-discussed.

Author Response

All the changes are explained in this word

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, check the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All changes are explained in the word

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your effort in improving the manuscript. However, please find my feedback on the revision that you have made:

1) As much as the literature review is concern, I would expect the researcher/s to have his/her “own voice” in the discussion. From what I noticed here, is all about reporting the past studies and your idea/voice is missing here. The literature review is about synthesizing and not reporting the past work. Most importantly by telling me that you have 89 references is not going to show me you have conducted an extensive review.

2) As for the research problem, I really hope that you can include some of your justification in your response to reviewer feedback in your write-up. That is what I am looking for.

3) As much research methodology and my understanding is concerned, I only came across the term "non-probability" and not "non-probabilistic". Perhaps you can share with me which methodology book/s that you refer to?

4) As much as scale development is concerned, please read the following paper for a better understanding of how to develop a new measurement scale and the analyses involved.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10548408.2016.1208789
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19388160.2020.1734514

5) Regardless of which discipline you came from, it is required for you to report the convergent and discriminant validity. Apart from that, multivariate normality is a must since that SEM is dealing with multivariate analysis. Whatever you presented below is the univariate normality and not multivariate normality. Please see the following papers for your reading pleasure.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10705511.2021.1933987?casa_token=xab3S0oIszgAAAAA:mkbxwY0P_YqK6M4nBseOEOoEL2VGZ_CfhVk-TcUhsI3ByErblX1eZiTDWsL2JVV4jrr8iFsNGQ1ali9t
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15434303.2011.582203
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ainur-Amira/publication/299430159_Sample_Size_and_Non-normality_Effects_on_Goodness_of_Fit_Measures_in_Structural_Equation_Model/links/59116e5d458515bbcb8de257/Sample-Size-and-Non-normality-Effects-on-Goodness-of-Fit-Measures-in-Structural-Equation-Model.pdf

Thank you.

Author Response

Changes are explained in the document attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, check out recommendations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Changes are explained in the attached document

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The lit review presented in the Introduction is relevant for the topic and covers more than a decade of academic research on the subject focusing, however, on the literature published in Spanish by native academic speakers. Only 7 articles out of the 75 in the Reference section are written in English by international authors. Depending on the readers’ point of view this can be a plus or a minus. For me personally it is a plus as it gives me an insight into the research of the Spanish speaking world.

Here are some of the points that have to be addressed in editing this article:

- proof-reading by a native speaker is highly recommended.

Use of article issues – line 37 (Internet has become a tool …) ; lines 447 – 448 with a following hypothesis

Usage – the abbreviation pp is used for a range of pages. For a single page – it’s p. – see lines 37, 46, 60 etc. In line 75 the actual page number is missing - [20] (pp.), a fact that …

Word order – line 76: “At this point is where the value of use should be emphasized, since technology in itself is not pernicious…”.

Suggestions:

At this point the value of use should be emphasized, …
This is the point where the value of use should be emphasized…

Lines 314 – 315: Likewise, observing the evaluation made in Table 8, in which it was analyzed (H6) There is a relationship between …

Length of paragraphs – the second paragraph is much too long (lines 34 to 83).

Length of sentences – making them difficult to be understood by English readers.

See lines 120 – 125 A project that, …
Also lines 191 – 195
Sentence in lines 272 – 276 needs rephrasing

Unclear antecedents and rephrasing to clarify – lines 101-103

university students, future professionals who must be agents of change in which they must be educated in ethical, social, and civic values. These are skills that the digital society demands from the so-called millenials [31] or the so-called by Children`s Space, Generation T;

Lack of subject – probably “they” in line 56 - …, should seek an active role in their processes of knowledge acquisition and learning.

Typos –

a United Narionsreport (2016), - line 96
According to what is shown in Table 4, in which it was contrasted that (H3) There is a relationship between the use of the Internet and the dimension Internet promotes values, … lines 249 – 250; lines 302 – 304
Line 412 - This fact can be attributed to the fact that values emerge and develop, …

Paragraph coherence

Lines 407 – 411 In addition, young people frequently use the Internet and social networks. – this doesn’t add anything new to the paragraph.

The last paragraph of section 4 (lines 479 – 492) needs rephrasing clarifying.

Section 6 Patents actually presents Author Contributions. This should be reflected in the title of Section 6.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents some important problems, especially related to the methodology and data analysis, which should be addressed.
Introduction
- Include hypotheses and objectives clearly at the end of it.
Methodology
- Instruments: the authors must provide the items that adhere to each dimension, as well as the α value per factor. It should also include a sample item per instrument, and the Likert scale (qualitative) ranges.
- Data analysis: the authors state that they use T-test and ANOVA to determine relationships between variables (THEY ARE DIFFERENCES). Also, reviewing the results does not apply these tests, so there is an inconsistency. Nor are CIs specified for the analyzes.
- Figure 1 is not well understood. I think information is missing.
Results
- The authors do not perform normality analysis of the sample.
- As mentioned, the statistical tests described in the data analysis are not observed.
- The authors report a total of 12 tables, which I think is excessive. It is recommended that they be synthesized. For example, Tables 7-12 only report significance for “purpose of using the internet to communicate”.
- Additionally, the authors should not only mention the significance of the correlations, but also the strength of the correlation. In many cases this value is close to 0 (0.160, 0.164, etc.) which determines a weak correlation.
Discussion
- It is recommended not to provide statistical data in this section. Just discuss the findings.
References
- There are problems in the bibliographic references. They do not adapt to the regulations in many cases.

Reviewer 3 Report

The research problem of this study focuses on the analysis of Internet use and its potential relationship with the communicative presence of social values in university students. With this objective, a correct design and type of study is proposed (non-experimental, cross-sectional and correlational), and two ad hoc questionnaires are designed ('Social values questionnaire' and 'Internet use questionnaire'). The review of the scientific literature is acceptable and the results could increase the body of studies on a research problem that already has a large volume of international scientific publications. However, it is necessary for the authors to address the following weaknesses in a forthcoming rethinking and redrafting of your manuscript:

1. Please, describe the type of sampling performed, whether the instrument was self-administered and its response rate.

2. The inclusion of empirical evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, on the reliability, consistency and scientific validity of the instruments applied is necessary. The calculation of Cronbach's Alpha is not sufficient to guarantee its scientific rigor.

3. Why is it stated that "the analysis to verify the reliability of the instrument was not performed, because the questions are ordinal scale (qualitative)"? Although the type of variables in the "Internet use questionnaire" are not numerical, we remind the authors that neither is the Likert scale (also ordinal in nature). Even assuming this type of scale as a numerical scale, this circumstance (qualitative nature of the variable) should not prevent the analysis of its reliability, consistency and/or validity.

4. Although this is indeed a bivariate relational study, it is recommended to clarify that what is really sought is to identify intergroup differences, in addition to a correlational/relational interdependence between variables.

5. The tables do not present the results of the procedures apparently applied (chi-square, t-test and ANOVA) and no empirical evidence is presented on the fulfillment of the statistical assumptions required for the application of parametric statistics. Its presentation, deeply confusing, seems to be based on Spearman's ρ (although, in the end, this is not the case) and, at no time, are they useful:

a. What does it mean (and what use is it to the researcher-reader) the existence of a relationship between variables according to certain population groups, if it is not made clear that what is intended is the identification of group differences? Even if this way of applying and interpreting the bivariate relationship is maintained, no descriptive data are incorporated to help its usefulness.

b. In what differential terms does this relationship materialize? Between which population groups? With what magnitude (effect size)?

Consequently, a complete rewriting of this manuscript, its presentation and interpretation is recommended.