The thing that actually is surprising is how many researchers don't even mention why they've excluded the possibility of a reverse correlation in their studies.
I haven't followed the field, but it's hard for me to imagine published research in serious academic journals where causation claims are made without at least some discussion about the direction of causation and hidden confounders.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/173276/is-it-corre...
https://study.com/academy/lesson/negative-correlation-in-psy...
> If the researchers make no causation claims
But sentences like "kids using their phones more than x hours a day are on average sadder" very much imply one.