Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0280306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280306

Facebook addiction and affected academic performance among Ethiopian university students: A cross-sectional study

Aman Dule 1,*,#, Zakir Abdu 1,#, Mohammedamin Hajure 1,#, Mustefa Mohammedhussein 2,#, Million Girma 1,, Wubishet Gezimu 3,, Abdissa Duguma 3,
Editor: Md Tanvir Hossain4
PMCID: PMC9901753  PMID: 36745630

Abstract

Addiction is an extreme craving for and commitment to something, physically or psychologically. Currently, addiction to social media is the main emerging technology addiction, especially among the young generation. The main aim of the current study was to evaluate the status of Facebook addiction and its relation to academic performance and other correlates among university students. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 422 students from December 1–30, 2021, and Facebook addiction was examined with the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Study Habit Questionnaire (SHQ) were employed to assess self-esteem, anxiety and depression symptoms, and study habits, respectively. Systematic random sampling was used to recruit the subjects, and the data were analyzed by SPSS version 23.0. Statistics such as percentages, frequencies, mean ± SD, and mean differences were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was performed, and all the required assumptions were checked. The statistical significance was declared at a p-value < 0.05 and a 95% CI. Results revealed that, the mean age of the students was 23.62 (SD = ±1.79) and 51.6% of the participants were male. The majority of the participants were addicted to Facebook, and Facebook addiction was positively linked with factors like lower academic achievements and the symptoms of anxiety and depression. In conclusion, Facebook addiction was found to be higher among study participants, and it is negatively affecting their academic performances. Similarly, it was associated with affected mental well-being and reduced self-esteem. It is better for the legislative body of the university to put firm policies in place for promoting safe use and reducing the detrimental effects of this problem among students.

Introduction

In a medical context, addiction is defined as an extreme craving for and commitment to something, either physically or psychologically [1]. In the current era, internet addiction is the main emerging technology addiction [2]. Serving as ways of connection among people, addiction to the internet and social media has become a pandemic globally [3].

Among available social media, Facebook has become the chief means of interaction, especially among university students [4]. Despite its usage as the bridge of connection, it is considered an emerging challenge in different aspects, especially among the young generation [5] and university students, partly because of its heavy and aimless usage [6]. As its users are currently increasing, controlling the detrimental effects of Facebook is becoming more challenging, specifically in developing countries with unconfirmed regulatory policies [7].

As the studies revealed, extended use of Facebook has led to poor academic performance, bullying activities, decreased face-to-face contact, sleep disruptions, and mental health disturbances [8, 9]. Log-in-related distractions such as uploading, commenting, and chatting with friends are leading to procrastination of learning activities [8] and sinking academic success among university students currently [10].

The previous study revealed that too much use of Facebook was related to a lower grade point average (GPA) and disturbances in daily routine activities [9]. It has been reported that students who are more addicted to Facebook have poor study habits and lower academic achievements [11]. Similarly, those adolescents who were addicted to Facebook demonstrated poor study habits, which resulted in deprived academic performances [12]. Another study has shown that students with high Facebook addiction had disturbed social interactions and relationships that could affect their future careers [11].

It has also been reported that extensive use of Facebook is related to behavioral disturbances and poor academic performance among university students, which influences their ways of life and interactions with others [13]. On the other hand, Facebook addiction has been directly linked to anxiety and depression among university students and has impacted their social lives and mental well-being [14].

Nowadays, the extensive use of social media could cause substantial disruptions in the academic achievements of university students. Hence, knowing the magnitudes of facebook addiction and highlighting its predictors is so vibrant in forwarding the ways to challenge this problem. However, no study had examined Facebook addiction and its correlates in Ethiopia as far as we could reach, and this study was considered a pioneer in Ethiopia. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the extent of Facebook addiction and its relation to the academic performances of regular undergraduate university students.

In the current study, multiple variables were assessed by standardized tools, which makes its findings sounder. In different previous studies, various variables were evaluated in relation to Facebook addiction. The combination of these different variables in the current study makes it unique.

Contribution of the current study

Considering this purpose, the findings from this study will contribute in serving as baseline for future studies. Additionally, it will add value to existing knowledge and help provide evidence-based practices. Furthermore, the results of this study will help planners and policymakers in the context of university education.

Methods and materials

Participants and study setting

The study was conducted at Mettu University’s College of Health Sciences among 422 undergraduate students. Mettu University is one of the public universities found in the southwest of Ethiopia, about 600 km away from the capital city of the country.

Study period and design

The current study utilized a cross-sectional design and was conducted from December 1–30, 2021.

Eligibility criteria

Those students who enrolled in the regular program and were active Facebook users were included in the study. Daily active Facebook users were those who logged in at least once per day via the mobile app or a web or mobile browser [15]. First-year students were excluded because of the current Ethiopian educational roadmap [16], where first-year students are not placed in a specific department but stay on common courses until they reach their second year.

Sample size determination and sampling procedures

The required sample was estimated using the single population formula, considering a 95% confidence interval (CI), a 5% margin of error, and a 50% proportion of occurrence. Consequently, 422 samples were obtained after consideration of an additional 10% nonresponse rate, which was proportionally allocated to each included batch using Bowley’s proportional formula (nh=nNhN) [17], where;

nh–sub-sample from each batch

n–The final sample size of the study = 422.

Nh–The total number of students in each batch

N–The total number of students in the college (source population) = 883.

After proportional sub-samples were calculated, the required number of participants from each batch was recruited using a systematic random sampling technique, considering the “K” value, which was computed depending on the registration number of the students (Table 1).

Table 1. Sampling procedures used to recruit the study participants.

Year level Nh Nh K
2nd 298 422*298/883 = 142 298/142 = 2.10 ≈ 2
3rd 295 422*295/883 = 141 295/141 = 2.10 ≈ 2
4th 290 422*290/883 = 139 290/139 = 2.10 ≈ 2

Nh—Total number of the students in each batch, nh—Sample from each batch

K–Interval to include study unit from study population

Data collection instruments and procedures

Structured and pretested original English questionnaires were administered to the participants. The questionnaire contained socio-demographic information and questions to assess the status of Facebook addiction, anxiety, depression, and study habits of the study participants.

Demographic characteristics such as age, sex, academic year, and grade point average (GPA) of the students were collected. Facebook addiction was considered an outcome variable and was examined with the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS). The tool was developed by Andreassen et al. and was constructed on six essential elements of addiction (mood modification, silence, conflict, tolerance, withdrawal, and relapse) [18]. The tool had six self-report items that corresponded to each basic component of addiction and were scored on a Likert scale of 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often) [19]. The tool yields a score of 6–30, in which a higher score indicates greater addiction to Facebook, and the cut-off point for Facebook addiction was suggested by authors as a score ≥ 3 on at least four items (polythetic scoring) [18]. The tool has been widely validated [2023] and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91 in this study.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) was employed to assess the global self-esteem of the participants. This tool had 10 items, out of which 5 were stated negatively (items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9) and reversely scored [24]. For items 1, 3, 4, 7, and 10, the tool scored on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (3), and the inverse for the remaining items. Accordingly, the higher the score, the greater the self-esteem [25]. The tool was widely validated [2527] and has excellent internal consistency in the current study (CA = 0.95).

The occurrence of depression and anxiety symptoms was examined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). This tool contained seven items for each sub-scale, which were scored on a scale of 0–3 points [28], and it was previously validated in Ethiopia [29]. The Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.79 and 0.84, respectively, for the depression and anxiety subscales, and the higher score indicates a higher level of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Study habits were examined by the Study Habit Questionnaire (SHQ) developed by Thomas et al. [30]. The tool had 12 items that were worded positively and scored on a Likert scale of 4, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alphas were 0.81 [30] and 0.90 in the original and current studies, respectively.

Statistical analyses

For all analyses, SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used. To present categorical variables, percentages and frequencies were employed, while mean and standard deviation (SD) were considered for continuous variables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test analyses were used to compute the groups of variables with normal distributions. For post-hoc group analysis, the Tukey HSD test was performed. Multiple regression analysis was performed, all the required assumptions were checked, and no violations were detected. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to test for multicollinearity, and no significant collinearity was found. To determine residual independence, the Durbin-Watson test was used, and statistical significance was declared at a p-value of less than 0.05 and a 95% CI.

Ethical approval and informed consent

All participants had signed written consent before data collection, and all information from participants was kept confidential. An ethical clearance letter (reference number: RPG/100/14) was obtained from the ethical review committee of the College of Health Sciences at Mettu University, and the Helsinki Declaration principles were followed to perform the study.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants

The data from four hundred and three study subjects were fully analyzed, giving a response rate of 95.5%. The participants had a mean age of 23.62 (SD = ±1.79), and 51.6% of them were male. On average, students spend more than an hour (66.97 minutes ± 48.24) daily using Facebook; 50–400 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) were spent monthly for Facebook use, and 42.9% of participants spent ≥ mean value (Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of study participants (n = 403).

Variables Categories Frequency (%) Frequency within facebook addiction
Addicted (%) Non-addicted (%)
Sex Male 208 (51.6) 63.9 36.1
Female 195 (48.4) 70.8 29.2
Academic year Second 134 (33.3) 67.2 32.8
Third 136 (33.7) 64.7 35.3
Fourth 133 (33.0) 69.9 30.1
Variables Mean ± SD
Age 23.62 ± 1.79
Time spent (in minutes) per day in using facebook 66.97± 48.24
Money spent* (ETB) monthly for facebook use 174.64 ± 99.89
Grade Point Average (GPA) of the last semester 3.19 ± 0.44

Note: ETB–Ethiopian Birr SD—Standard Deviation

*The amount of ETB that need for the purpose of buying data to utilize for facebook

The independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare Facebook addiction to the mean score of the groups by sex and academic year, respectively, and no significant differences were found among the groups.

Psychosocial characteristics of study participants

The participants in the current study had a mean self-esteem score of 14.74 (8.23), and the mean scores for anxiety and depression symptoms indicated an abnormal (case) level for the study subjects, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean distribution for different psychosocial characteristics of study respondents.

Variables Mean (± SD) Minimum Maximum
Self-esteem 14.74 (± 8.23) 3.00 27.00
Anxiety symptoms 13.09 (± 5.47) 1.00 20.00
Depression symptoms 13.18 (± 4.97) 1.00 20.00
Study habits 29.99 (± 8.53) 17.00 43.00

Note: SD—Standard Deviation

The pattern of facebook use among study participants

The mean score of the BFAS was 16.47 (SD = 5.95), indicating that the average number of study participants were addicted to Facebook. As per the suggested cut-off points (score ≥ 3 at least four items), the majority (67.2%) of the students were addicted to Facebook.

Factors associated with Facebook addiction

Bivariate and multivariable regression analyses were done to detect the predictors of Facebook addiction among students. In the bivariate analysis, anxiety and depressive symptoms showed a positive association with Facebook addiction, whereas the last semester’s GPA, study habits, and self-esteem showed a negative correlation with Facebook addiction at a significant level (Table 4).

Table 4. Bivariable linear regressions for facebook addiction among study participants.

Variables R2 Β 95% CI P-value
GPA of the last semester 0.657 -10.87 -11.65 –(-10.12) 0.000
Self-esteem 0.130 -0.261 -0.327 –(-0.194) 0.000
Anxiety 0.126 0.386 0.286–0.485 0.000
Depression 0.108 0.393 0.282–0.504 0.000
Study habit 0.157 -.276 -0.339 –[-0.213] 0.000

Note: GPA–Grade Point Average

In the multiple linear regression analysis, the last semester’s GPA [β: -10.01, 95% CI: -10.85, -(-9.18)], self-esteem [β: -0.091, 95% CI: -0.139, -(-0.044)], anxiety symptoms (β: 0.104, 95% CI: 0.024–0.183), depressive symptoms [β: 0.026, 95% CI: 0.06–0.112], and study habits [β: -0.008, 95% CI: -0.041, -(-0.056)] showed a statistically significant association with Facebook addiction. In the final model, these predictors contributed a total of 69% of the variance in Facebook addiction among university students (R = 0.829, R2 = 0.687, F = 174.08, P <0.001) (Table 5).

Table 5. Multivariable linear regression model for facebook addiction among students.

Variable Unstandardized coefficients P-value at 95% CI 95% CI for β
Lower Upper
Constant 47.81 0.000 44.73 50.89
GPA of the last semester -10.01 0.000 -10.85 -9.18
Self-esteem -0.091 0.000 -0.139 -0.044
Anxiety 0.104 0.029 0.024 0.183
Depression 0.026 0.006 -0.06 0.112
Study habit -0.008 0.000 -.041 -.056
Final Regression Model
R R 2 Adjusted R 2 F P-value at 95% CI
0.829 0.687 0.683 174.08 <0.001

In the current study, there was a significant negative correlation between the GPA of the students and Facebook addiction, in which one unit increase in the student’s GPA from the last semester decreased Facebook addiction by 10.01 (p<0.001). Similarly, as the mean score of students’ self-esteem increased by one unit, the Facebook addiction decreased by 0.091 (p<0.001). On the other hand, a point increase in the mean score of anxiety and depressive symptoms, respectively, resulted in a 0.104 and 0.026 (p<0.05) unit increase in the total score of the Facebook addiction scale among university students.

Discussion

Due to the rising trends of social media usage among university students, Facebook addiction has been examined in many countries. However, this study, which identified Facebook addiction and its correlation to academic performance and other psychosocial variables, was assumed to be the first of its kind in our country. As the study revealed, 67.2% (95% CI = [62.3–72]) of the students were addicted to Facebook. This finding appeared higher than in the previous studies [13, 3133]. The difference in the findings probably resulted from the difference in the study settings and the year of the studies. On the other hand, because the current study was conducted recently, a higher level of Facebook addiction is expected as evidence indicating the increasing use of social media in the current era [34].

The study found that Facebook addiction has negative relationship with academic performance of the students, as indicated by the last semester’s GPA report [β: -10.01, 95% CI: -10.85,-(-9.18)]. This finding is in agreement with the previous studies conducted in India [11], Iraq [9], Pakistan [35], and Sri Lanka [10]. Although various studies have found that Facebook addiction has negative effects on university students, a study from Pakistan [4] found that Facebook could help with communication and information gathering. In another study, Saleem et al. [14] reported the absence of a correlation between Facebook addiction and the academic performance of the students. The discrepancies among these findings might be due to the result of the parameters used to measure academic performance and the tool used to assess the participants. For instance, in the study that reported the usefulness of Facebook use among students, they employed the qualitative (in-depth interview and focus group discussion) means of data collection, in which the drawing of accurate and reliable data is difficult [36]. Moreover, in the later study, the authors considered the previous year’s GPA to measure academic performance, which may mask the real effects of current Facebook addiction.

A significant negative relationship between Facebook addiction and self-esteem was discovered in the current study [β: -0.091, 95% CI: -0.139,-(-0.044)] and a positive correlation with the academic achievements of the students. This finding is consistent with the study conducted in Malaysia [37], where non-addicted students had reported higher self-esteem and better academic performance. The finding seems logical, as individuals with high self-esteem are more confident and likely to perform well. A supportive finding has been reported by Blachnio et al. [38], in which individuals with Facebook addiction had lower self-esteem and poorer life satisfaction. Similarly, the study conducted in Iran [39] revealed that lower self-esteem predicted an increase in Facebook addiction among university students.

In the current study, the scores of anxiety and depression symptoms showed a statistically significant positive relationship with Facebook addiction. This finding is supported by a prior study [31], in which up to 20% of Facebook-addicted students reported anxiety and depressive symptoms. Similarly, the study conducted among Pakistani students [11] revealed a strong positive relationship between Facebook addiction and the symptoms of anxiety and depression. Furthermore, we identified a number of previous studies [32, 3942] that reported the negative correlation of Facebook addiction with anxiety and depressive symptoms in university students.

Even though empirical findings were reached during this study, some limitations are inevitable. For instance, the cross-sectional nature of the current study could limit the cause-effect inference between the outcome variable and its predictors. On the other hand, socio-demographic factors such as the living situation of the students and psychosocial factors were not included. Additionally, only the pattern of Facebook use was examined without consideration of other confounding social media addictions. Lastly, as this was a developing research area in Ethiopia, robust data were not available to compare and contrast the findings.

In spite of these limitations, the results of this study pointed out some imperative findings about the studied problem. Therefore, the current findings could pave the way for any concerned researcher to carry out a future study with a more sophisticated design and to deduce the causal ability of the included and other predictors. The study’s utilization of standardized, validated, and widely used tools was considered a strength.

Conclusion

Although it is considered a major tool of communication, extended use of Facebook causes addiction, which was found to negatively affect the academic performances and mental well-being of the students. To promote the safe and healthy use of Facebook among university students, appropriate behavioral interventions are crucial. To ensure this, it is better for the legislative body of the university to forward a firm policy to control such sites in the compound to overcome their detrimental effects. Moreover, culturally accepted, adolescent-friendly psychosocial interventions are important for the prevention and management of the problem.

Supporting information

S1 File

(SAV)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the data collectors and study participants.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Simsek Ali, Kemal Elciyar TK. A Comparative Study on Social Media Addiction of High School and University Students. Contemp Educ Technol. 2019;10(2):106–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Veronica SA, Samuel AU. Social Media Addiction among Adolescents with Special Reference to Facebook Addiction. IOSR-JHSS. 2012;72–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rabadi L, Ajlouni M, Masannat S, Bataineh S, Batarseh G, Yessin A, et al. The Relationship between Depression and Internet Addiction among University Students in Jordan. J Addict Res Ther. 2017;8(6):1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Murad A, Gul, Changezi R, Naz A, Khan N. Effects of Facebook Usage on the Academic Performance on the Undergraduate Students of Quetta City. Clin Soc Work Heal Interv. 2019;10(2):70–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chakraborty A. Facebook Addiction: An Emerging Problem. Am J Psychiatry Resid J. 2016;11(12):7–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hosen MJ, Eva SA, Rahman MM, Ibrahim M, Lira UF, Hossain AB, et al. Health impacts of excessive use of Facebook among university students in Bangladesh. Heliyon [Internet]. 2021;7(6):e07271. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hasnain Ahamad M, Chandra Das B. Facebook Addiction among College Going Students: An Exploratory Study at Patuakhali District in Bangladesh. Soc Sci Humanit J SSHJ [Internet]. 2018;2(10):617–23. Available from: http://sshj.in/index.php/sshj [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gafni, Ruti MD. Costs and Benefits of Facebook for Undergraduate Students. Interdiscip J Information, Knowledge, Manag. 2012;7:45–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.M-saleh HM, Abdul ZK, Ameen AA. The Effect of Facebook on Academic Performance for Undergraduate Students. Int J Comput Technol [Internet]. 2016;16(2):7597–602. Available from: www.cirworld.com [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Thuseethan S., Kuhanesan S. Influence of Facebook in Academic Performance of Sri Lankan University Students. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vashishtha S, Ahuja S. Impacts of Facebook Addiction Disorder (FAD) on study habits and academic achievement of adolescents. MIER J Educ Stud Trends Pract. 2017;7(2):195–207. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ezeji PO, Ezeji KE. Effect of Social Media on the Study Habits of Students of Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education, Owerri. Int J Educ Pedagog Sci. 2018;12(1):220–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rouis S, Limayem M, Salehi-sangari E. Impact of Facebook Usage on Students ‘ Academic Achievement: Roles of Self-Regulation and Trust. Electron J Res Educ Psychol. 2011;9(25):961–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zaffar M, Mahmood S, Saleem M, Zakaria E. Facebook Addiction: Relation with depression, anxiety, and loneliness and academic performance of Pakistani students. SciInt(Lahore). 2015;27(3):2469–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Facebook Inc. Facebook Q4 2019 Results [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3/FB-Q3-2019-Earnings-Release.pdf
  • 16.MOE. Ethiopian education development roadmap: An integrated executive summary. Policy Draft Document. 2017. p. 1–101.
  • 17.Pandey R, Verma MR. Sample allocation in different strata for impact evaluation of developmental programme. Rev Bras Biom. 2008;26(4):103–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Andreassen CS, Brunborg GS. Development of a Facebook Addiction Scale. Psychol Rep. 2012;110(2):501–17. doi: 10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.501-517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ferreira G, Sotero L, Pontes HM, Relvas AP. Emerging Adults and Facebook Use: the Validation of the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS). Int J Ment Health Addict. 2019;17:279–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Salem AAMS, Almenaye NS, Andreassen CS. A Psychometric Evaluation of Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS) of University Students. Int J Psychol Behav Sci. 2016;6(5):199–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ahmed O, Hossain MA. Validation Study of the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale On a Sample of Bangladeshi People. J Addict Res Ther. 2018;9(6):2–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Phanasathit Muthita, Manwong Mereerat, Hanprathet Nitt, Jiraporn Khumsri RY. Validation of the Thai version of Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (Thai-BFAS). J Med Assoc Thai. 2015;98(2):108–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Soraci P, Ferrari A, Barberis N, Luvarà G. Psychometric Analysis and Validation of the Italian Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2020;1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martín-albo J, Núñez JL, Navarro JG, Grijalvo F. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Translation and Validation in University Students. Span J Psychol. 2007;10(2):458–67. doi: 10.1017/s1138741600006727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Robins RW, Hendin HM, Trzesniewski KH, Robins RW, Hendin HM, Trzesniewski KH. Measuring Global Self-Esteem: Construct Validation of a Single-Item Measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001;27(2):151–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Galanou C, Galanakis M, Alexopoulos E, Darviri C. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Greek Validation on Student Sample. Psychology. 2014;5:819–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Park J, Park E. The Rasch Analysis of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sut HK. Anxiety, depression, and related factors in pregnant women during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Turkey: A web‐based cross‐sectional study. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2020;1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.AA R. Reliability and Validity of the Ethiopian Version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in HIV Infected Patients. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):1–6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Thomas O. A., Omotoke O., O., Ademola OK. Assessment of Social Media Utilization and Study Habit of Students of Tertiary Institutions in Katsina State. J Educ Pract [Internet]. 2016;7(3):178–88. Available from: http://www.iiste.org [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Suppiah Subapriya, Nasser Nisha Syed, Ling Loh Jia, Rashid Aida Abdul, Sharifat Hamed, Hamid Suzana Ab, et al. Assessment of problematic facebook use among undergraduate students in UPM correlated with depression, anxiety and stress. IJPHCS [Internet]. 2019;6(4):113–32. Available from: 10.32827/ijphcs.6.4.113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sayeed A, Hassan N, Rahman H, El S. Facebook addiction associated with internet activity, depression and behavioral factors among university students of Bangladesh: A cross- sectional study. Child Youth Serv Rev [Internet]. 2020;118:1–6. Available from: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105424 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Khan NT. Facebook Addiction and its Association with Academic Performance. Biomed J Sci &Tech Res. 2018;3(5):3523–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ghulami HR, Roesh AS, Ibrahim MR, Mohammadi H. Facebook Addiction among Afghan University Students: A Structural Equation Modelling. IJDCN. 2021;1(2):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Khan NT, Ahmed S. Impact of Facebook Addiction on Students Academic Performance. Res Med Eng Sci. 2018;5(2):424–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Almeida F. Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative nad Quantitative Research Methods. Eur J Educ Stud [Internet]. 2017;3(9):369–87. Available from: www.oapub.org/edu [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Busalim AH, Masrom M, Normeza W, Wan B. The impact of Facebook Addiction and self-esteem on students’ academic performance: A multi-group analysis. Comput Educ [Internet]. 2019;142:1–14. Available from: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Agata B, Przepiorka A, Pantic I. Association between Facebook addiction, self-esteem and life satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. Comput Human Behav. 2016;55:701–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bahrainian SA, Alizadeh KH, Gorji OH, Khazaee A. Relationship of Internet addiction with self-esteem and depression in university students. J prev med hyg. 2014;55:86–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Brailovskaia J. Facebook Addiction Disorder (FAD) among German students-A longitudinal approach. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017;1–15. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Foroughi B, Griffiths MD, Iranmanesh M, Salamzadeh Y. Associations Between Instagram Addiction, Academic Performance, Social Anxiety, Depression, and Life Satisfaction Among University Students. Int J Ment Heal Addict among. 2021;1–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Haand R, Shuwang Z. The relationship between social media addiction and depression: a quantitative study among university students in Khost, Afghanistan. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2020;25(1):780–6. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Md Tanvir Hossain

19 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-11967Facebook addiction and affected academic performance among Ethiopian university students: A cross-sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dule,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Md. Tanvir Hossain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1 - The abstract is long, and the authors should shorten it.

2 - Bringing the research results in the abstract is not compatible with the structure of the one standard paper, and the authors should correct it.

3- Authors should explain the reasons for doing this research and the current challenges in the introduction section.

4 - Authors should add the Contribution section at the end of the introduction.

5 - Why there aren't Methodology and Evaluation sections in the manuscript?

Reviewer #2: I am very grateful to the Editor for giving me a chance to review the manuscript entitled “Facebook addiction and affected academic performance among Ethiopian university students: A cross-sectional Study” to the journal of “PLOS ONE”. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the status of facebook addiction and its relation with academic performance and other correlates among university students. I appreciate the time and effort that the authors have dedicated to preparing the manuscript. I read the manuscript very carefully and consequently raised the quarries and suggestions under two headings: major revisions and minor revisions to improve the manuscript which are as follows:

Major Revisions:

1. In introduction a clear explanation is needed why this study is different from other studies.

2. Major revisions are required in methods and materials section particularly, participants and study settings, study periods and design, illegibility criteria, sample size determination and sampling procedures points. Authors have to give logical explanation under each point for instance, under illegibility criteria, authors mentioned that those students who enrolled into regular program and active facebook users were included in the study; while the first year students were excluded. How did they measure active facebook users? As well as why did they exclude first year students? So logical explanation is needed behind excluding first year students in this study.

3. Logical explanation is needed why this study consider university students as respondents under participants and study settings point of methods and material section.

4. Under sample size determination and sampling procedures point, the authors mentioned that systematic random sampling was used to select the sample size. But the authors did not mention the sampling procedures in details like, what is the starting point or sample number and how did they select that sample number and so on.

5. The conclusion is not presented logically supported by the obtained results.

6. Under Ethical approval and informed consent point, the authors mentioned that the ethical clearance was provided by the ethical review committee of college of health sciences, Mettu University and the Helsinki Declaration principles was kept to perform the study (line no. 251-253). However, they did not mention the reference number of ethical approval.

7. The reference section have to revise (reference no. 5, 9, 11, 23, 27, 30) following the guideline of the journal ‘PLOS ONE’. Some references are very old such as reference no. 19 and 20 are in 2001 and 2007. Recent research works have to incorporate.

8. Overall, the writing of the manuscript have to improve following Standard English.

Minor Revisions:

1. Revision is needed in Key words such as, Self-esteem, Anxiety and depression, Facebook addiction, Study habits and University students (Line no. 48-50).

2. In Introduction section (line no. 56-57) have to rewrite.

3. In conclusion (line no. 235-237) As the results indicated, facebook addiction is affecting mental wellbeing of the students and self-esteem has identified as negative predictor of facebook addiction. This sentences have to rewrite.

The author(s) are suggested to rewrite the manuscript accordingly. Hopefully, the aforesaid comments and suggestions would help to enrich this manuscript.

Reviewer #3: “Sheet for Comments”

Overall for the whole paper please see the format of writing for the journal and format your paper.

Abstract

1. Please write the name of the questionnaires sequentially as per your variables addressed in the study.

2. The long descriptions on statistical analyses run for the study is not necessary in abstract rather some values with the main findings are appreciable.

3. The information on ethics needs a reference number.

Introduction

The introduction is written well and concise.

Methods

1. Ethics information is needed to be included in the methodology section.

2. What demographic variables have you collected?? It is needed to have description on the demographic variables. For instance, different demographic information on the students, like which year, subjects, etc.

3. It would be great if you give a consort flow chart on the inclusion of the participants.

4. Please write about the questionnaires used in your study in the way the journal asks. For instance, subscales? How many?? What is Likert of 1?? What is CA (Chronbach alpha)?? Please state Chronbach Alpha for all the scales.

5. In the statistical analyses section it is needed to be described clearly about the how the multi-collinearity of the variables were assessed and how they were managed. How the correlated variables were managed in analyses for the regression.

Result:

1. Descriptive statistics are needed for the Demographic variables in relation to the independent variables in Table 2 (minimum and maximum are not needed)

2. Some of the descriptions are not clearly stated, like, what do you wanted to mean by money spent for FB? Is it money spent for buying data for FB or else?

3. The demographic information given in Table 1 will be better fitted in sample / participant section.

4. The description of the regression analysis is repeated on the result section and conclusion as well.

Conclusions

1. It is needed to be written without repeating the results in the conclusions again.

Reference

1. Many of the references are not in correct format, for instance they are in all capital letters’ in references

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Saman Forouzandeh

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: please see the format of writing for the journal.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0280306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280306.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Nov 2022

Response to Reviewers

First of all, we are very glad to get the soon response which could initiates the authors to work with you even in the future. We would like also to appreciate the reviewers for their valuable and useful feedback which guides us to look the weak parts of our work and improve it accordingly. Saying this, we had tried to correct all the comments and suggestions from the editor and each reviewer point-by-point to the extent that we assumed the response could satisfy the reviewers as appeared below and had highlighted the changes in the manuscript.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

1 - The abstract is long, and the authors should shorten it.

Response 1 – We have found this suggestion useful and the manuscript has shorten accordingly

2 - Bringing the research results in the abstract is not compatible with the structure of the one standard paper, and the authors should correct it.

Response 2 – We had accepted the suggestion and some explanation of the result in manuscript section has been removed

3- Authors should explain the reasons for doing this research and the current challenges in the introduction section.

Response 3 – Accordingly, The logical explanation has been given why we conducted this study and the current challenges has been highlighted in introduction section (Line number 55 - 59 of the revised manuscript)

4 - Authors should add the Contribution section at the end of the introduction.

Response 4 – This section has added as per suggestion (Line number 88 - 92)

5 - Why there aren't Methodology and Evaluation sections in the manuscript?

Response 5 – As per the journal guideline for manuscript formatting, the manuscript has “Methods and Materials” section and we thought that is enough to include all utilized methods and procedures

Reviewer #2:

I am very grateful to the Editor for giving me a chance to review the manuscript entitled “Facebook addiction and affected academic performance among Ethiopian university students: A cross-sectional Study” to the journal of “PLOS ONE”. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the status of facebook addiction and its relation with academic performance and other correlates among university students. I appreciate the time and effort that the authors have dedicated to preparing the manuscript. I read the manuscript very carefully and consequently raised the quarries and suggestions under two headings: major revisions and minor revisions to improve the manuscript which are as follows:

Major Revisions:

1. In introduction a clear explanation is needed why this study is different from other studies.

Response 1 – In general, the underlying importance of this study was that it has considered the first one nationally and its contribution is expected valuable. In addition to this, we had included different variables in the way we considered unique from previous studies in countries other than Ethiopia. We had added logical explanation about this concern in the introduction section of the revised manuscript (Line number 84 - 87)

2. Major revisions are required in methods and materials section particularly, participants and study settings, study periods and design, illegibility criteria, sample size determination and sampling procedures points. Authors have to give logical explanation under each point for instance, under illegibility criteria, authors mentioned that those students who enrolled into regular program and active facebook users were included in the study; while the first year students were excluded. How did they measure active facebook users? As well as why did they exclude first year students? So logical explanation is needed behind excluding first year students in this study.

Response 2 – We would like to thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. As we found it very crucial, these points have been addressed in revised manuscript (Line number 102 - 106)

3. Logical explanation is needed why this study consider university students as respondents under participants and study settings point of methods and material section.

Response 3 – We considered university students as respondents for this specific problem after careful review of previous materials. While we identified this problem as a research topic, we had found that currently university and college going students were the major victims. On the other hands, as the instructors of higher education institutions, authors are facing many challenges with the academic achievements of their students and they found the university students as important population specially for problem related to emerging technologies. The current challenges concerning this population in relation to the problem under study has been explained in the manuscript also (Line number 55 - 59).

4. Under sample size determination and sampling procedures point, the authors mentioned that systematic random sampling was used to select the sample size. But the authors did not mention the sampling procedures in details like, what is the starting point or sample number and how did they select that sample number and so on.

Response 4 – We had found this suggestion useful and we had added the detail of sampling procedures and participant inclusion (Line number 111 - 123 in revised manuscript)

5. The conclusion is not presented logically supported by the obtained results.

Response 5 – The conclusion has been modified as per the suggestion (Line number 269 - 272)

6. Under Ethical approval and informed consent point, the authors mentioned that the ethical clearance was provided by the ethical review committee of college of health sciences, Mettu University and the Helsinki Declaration principles was kept to perform the study (line no. 251-253). However, they did not mention the reference number of ethical approval.

Response 6 – Reference number has been added as per the suggestion (Line number 166 - 167)

7. The reference section have to revise (reference no. 5, 9, 11, 23, 27, 30) following the guideline of the journal ‘PLOS ONE’. Some references are very old such as reference no. 19 and 20 are in 2001 and 2007. Recent research works have to incorporate.

Response 7 – All suggested references has been corrected except reference number 19 and 20 (in first manuscript), but reference number 24 and 25 in the revised manuscript. As this references are indicating the validation of the tool, we didn’t replaced them with other references

8. Overall, the writing of the manuscript have to improve following Standard English.

Response 8 – The whole manuscript has been revised for standard English by the expert as per suggestion

Minor Revisions:

1. Revision is needed in Key words such as, Self-esteem, Anxiety and depression, Facebook addiction, Study habits and University students (Line no. 48-50).

Response 1 – some modification has been made to the keywords in revised manuscript (Line number 47 - 48)

2. In Introduction section (line no. 56-57) have to rewrite.

Response 2 – This has been rewritten as per the suggestion

3. In conclusion (line no. 235-237) As the results indicated, facebook addiction is affecting mental wellbeing of the students and self-esteem has identified as negative predictor of facebook addiction. This sentences have to rewrite.

Response 3 – Over all, the conclusion has been modified and rewritten.

The author(s) are suggested to rewrite the manuscript accordingly. Hopefully, the aforesaid comments and suggestions would help to enrich this manuscript.

Reviewer #3:

“Sheet for Comments”

Overall for the whole paper please see the format of writing for the journal and format your paper.

Response – This suggestion has been accepted and the manuscript has reviewed accordingly

Abstract

1. Please write the name of the questionnaires sequentially as per your variables addressed in the study.

Response 1 – We had just explained the included tools in their order of appearance in the revised manuscript

2. The long descriptions on statistical analyses run for the study is not necessary in abstract rather some values with the main findings are appreciable.

Response 2 – We found this as useful suggestion and we had modified the abstract accordingly

3. The information on ethics needs a reference number.

Response 3 – The reference number has been added in the revised manuscript (line number 166 - 167)

Introduction

The introduction is written well and concise. - Thank you very much for your constructive idea.

Methods

1. Ethics information is needed to be included in the methodology section.

Response 1 – We had shifted the ethical information in to the methods of the manuscript (Line number 163 - 167)

2. What demographic variables have you collected?? It is needed to have description on the demographic variables. For instance, different demographic information on the students, like which year, subjects, etc.

Response 2 – The specific demographic variables has been explained in the revised manuscript (Line number 128 - 129)

3. It would be great if you give a consort flow chart on the inclusion of the participants.

Response 3 – As per the suggestion, the details of participant inclusion with flow chart has been added to revised manuscript (Line number 111 - 123)

4. Please write about the questionnaires used in your study in the way the journal asks. For instance, subscales? How many?? What is Likert of 1?? What is CA (Chronbach alpha)?? Please state Chronbach Alpha for all the scales.

Response 4 – we had tried to explain all scales with respective sub-scales and, for all tools, the Cronbach’s alpha has been explained

5. In the statistical analyses section it is needed to be described clearly about the how the multi-collinearity of the variables were assessed and how they were managed. How the correlated variables were managed in analyses for the regression.

Response 5 – This point has explained well in revised manuscript (Line number 159 - 161)

Result:

1. Descriptive statistics are needed for the Demographic variables in relation to the independent variables in Table 2 (minimum and maximum are not needed)

Response 1 – This table has modified as per suggestion and the descriptive value in respect to dependent variable has also given in revised manuscript (Line number 75, table 2)

2. Some of the descriptions are not clearly stated, like, what do you wanted to mean by money spent for FB? Is it money spent for buying data for FB or else?

Response 2 – This explained accordingly in revised manuscript (line number 177)

3. The demographic information given in Table 1 will be better fitted in sample / participant section.

Response 3 – From this suggestion, we thought as the information included in this table should explained in method section and we had added that in socio-demographic characteristics of the participants in method (Line number 128 - 129).

4. The description of the regression analysis is repeated on the result section and conclusion as well.

Response 4 – This point has addressed in revised manuscript as we made the modification to conclusion part (Line number 169 - 172)

Conclusions

1. It is needed to be written without repeating the results in the conclusions again.

Response 1 – Rewritten accordingly (Line number 169 - 1712)

Reference

1. Many of the references are not in correct format, for instance they are in all capital letters’ in references

Response 1 – All references has been reviewed and necessary correction has made in revised manuscript (Line number 286)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Md Tanvir Hossain

12 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-11967R1Facebook addiction and affected academic performance among Ethiopian university students: A cross-sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dule,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has satisfied our scientific requirements for publication.

However, our editorial team have significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. PLOS ONE requires that published manuscripts use language which is 'clear, correct, and unambiguous', see our criteria for publication at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5. We therefore request that you revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text.

We suggest you have a fluent English-language speaker thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (https://www.aje.com/go/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Please note that we will not be able to proceed with publication of your manuscript until the concerns above are addressed.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

* The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

* A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file)

* A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file)

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steve Zimmerman, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS ONE

on behalf of

Tanvir Hossain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 26 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Md. Tanvir Hossain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I rejected the paper the previous time. I rejected the paper the previous time. I rejected the paper the previous time. I rejected the paper the previous time.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The paper has been significantly improvised.

A big congratulations to the authors.

It is ready to meet the press after rigorus proof reading.

Thank you

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 6;18(2):e0280306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280306.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Dec 2022

Thanks to all reviewers, they all had reported as all previously raised comments has addressed, so we didn’t get any comments at this stage except the editors’ concern of the English language, grammar usage and overall readability of the manuscript and suggested edition. Accordingly, our manuscript has copy edited for English language by professional English language academic instructor and the details of this professional has attached separately. Concerning the other suggestions like changes to financial disclosure and the references, no change has made to financial disclosure and the references were reviewed thoroughly to fulfill the journal requirement and no retracted article has been referenced.

Thank you again and we will wait for your positive response!

Best Regards!

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Md Tanvir Hossain

27 Dec 2022

Facebook addiction and affected academic performance among Ethiopian university students: A cross-sectional Study

PONE-D-22-11967R2

Dear Dr. Dule,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Md. Tanvir Hossain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Md Tanvir Hossain

27 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-11967R2

Facebook addiction and affected academic performance among Ethiopian university students: A cross-sectional Study

Dear Dr. Dule:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Md. Tanvir Hossain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (SAV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: please see the format of writing for the journal.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES