Research Trend on the Use of IT in Digital Addiction: An Investigation Using a Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find  the review comments for this article for improving your paper.

- In line 51, the preposition "of" is incorrect in this context, consider changing it to "to"

- As study A is the study of paper [32], so each study (A-M) section description from page 10th/20 to 12th/20 should be added the paper reference for that studying.

- Figure 3-7, Graph figure should have the graph title and x-axis & y-axis title for the graph.

- Check the Header and footer of the paper format, (page 6th/20 - 20th/20).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor,
Thank you for review the paper "Research Trend on the Use of IT in Digital Addiction: An Investigation using A Systematic Literature Review", Manuscript ID: futureinternet-942318.

Such review is important for IT field. The authors presented relevant topic but the flow and methodology of the paper should be better organized. There are important limitations of the paper listed below. Hope the authors will solve the issues in the next round.
- I believe that the goal should be clarified, more detailed.

- What are your motivations for this review. You should clarify this to the readers.

- Table 1 - It is not enough just to present one table on 3 pages. All papers should be analysed and based on that analyse you should define gap. Where is the gap? And you should clearly why it is a gap? Once again, if you say that it is a gap, then try to build a case for the gap.

- It is an uninteresting goal and from the scientific point of view it is weak. Why you research this topic? What will the results of this research bring to new science? What is the novelty?

- Your focus should be on the papers published in last four-five years. In present version of the paper some important references in the field are missing.

- You should add discussion section and present limitations and advantages of existing approaches. This should be essential part of your paper.

- Gaps and future scopes are not defined based on deep analyse. Looks like this conclusions are defined based on authors perceptions and not based on deep analyse of the papers.

- The conclusions are rather obvious, which contradicts the need for such a study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

- In line 51, the preposition "of" is incorrect in this context, consider changing it to "to"

- As study A is the study of paper [32], so each study (A-M) section description from page 10th/20 to 12th/20 should be added the paper reference for that studying.

- Figure 3-7, Graph figure should have the graph title and x-axis & y-axis title for the graph.

- Check the Header and footer of the paper format, (page 6th/20 - 20th/20).

Reviewer 2 Report

I read through the paper and thought most of my concerns were well addressed, thus it was acceptable from my side.