Structured PREreview of Beyond Screen Time: How Technology is Building the Preschool Brain
- Published
- DOI
- 10.5281/zenodo.20574110
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?
- Yes
- The introduction is well written, the flow is clear, the argument is well stated. Towards the end, a clear objective and intention is seen. The only concern that the research needs to address is the evident lack/missing of citations to serious claims. Academically, literally every statement or claim should be backed by an authority.
- Are the methods well-suited for this research?
- Highly appropriate
- The methodology started with a quantitative method and later a qualitative approach to justify the mixed methodology. The sequence is clear and justified.
- Are the conclusions supported by the data?
- Highly supported
- The researcher is aware of the limitations of the study especially for the 74 for a quantitative aspect of the study. The conclusions however support the data obtained according to the initially prepared for themes. The bias of techno-optimists as participants is acknowledged which potentially increases bias.
- Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?
- Highly appropriate and clear
- Yes the visualizations are well suited.
- How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?
- Very clearly
- Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?
- Highly likely
- The study is unique and if made available in the academic fraternity, this preprint offers significant contribution.
- Would it benefit from language editing?
- Yes
- It is well written, but some of the sections are mixed up for example ethical sections of obtaining IRB approvals at the beginning of the methodology section, yet there is a separate ethical section. That is one example, so proof reading and minimal language editing can make this work much better.
- Would you recommend this preprint to others?
- Yes, it’s of high quality
- It is a very good study, interesting, good use of language and a unique perspective.
- Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?
- Yes, as it is
- It is ready
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.