User concerns regarding information sharing on social networking sites: The user’s perspective in the context of national culture

Ibrahim Mutambik; John Lee; Abdullah Almuqrin; Waleed Halboob; Taha Omar; Ahmad Floos

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263157

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 17, 2021
13 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Luigi Lavorgna, Editor PONE-D-21-28070 User concerns regarding information sharing on social networking sites: The user’s perspective PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lee 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 Jan 27 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, Luigi Lavorgna Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The authors extend their appreciation to Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/233), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’ Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The authors extend their appreciation to Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/233), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The authors extend their appreciation to Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/233), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 6. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary). [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: 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: I am seriously concerned about dual publication of results (e.g., DOI: 10.4018/JGIM.2021050110) and on the general structure of the manuscript, with its length and organization suggesting this is a dissertation rather than a research manuscript. Reviewer #2: Page 3; line 46 : Please give some examples about the application of SNS to professional field. For example in medicine and in neurology there are a lot of implications (Lavorgna L, Lanzillo R, Brescia Morra V, Abbadessa G, Tedeschi G, Bonavita S. Social Media and Multiple Sclerosis in the Posttruth Age. Interact J Med Res. 2017 Sep 27;6(2):e18. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.7879. PMID: 28954717; PMCID: PMC5637067.). PLease discuss it. Page 5; line 88: Sharing information is important to raise awereness about different conditions. Can you underline how important is share information in different fields as in economy or medicine. IN neurology for example the Internet is the major source to obtain information about diseases and their treatments ( Moccia M, Brigo F, Tedeschi G, Bonavita S, Lavorgna L. Neurology and the Internet: a review. Neurol Sci. 2018 Jun;39(6):981-987. doi: 10.1007/s10072-018-3339-9. Epub 2018 Mar 28. PMID: 29594831.) Page 5; line 98: SN was perceived by users to be a useful tool to support health-related coping and social interaction, and may suggest a new kind of therapeutic alliance between physicians and people with chronich deseases in medicine ( Lavorgna L, Russo A, De Stefano M, Lanzillo R, Esposito S, Moshtari F, Rullani F, Piscopo K, Buonanno D, Brescia Morra V, Gallo A, Tedeschi G, Bonavita S. Health-Related Coping and Social Interaction in People with Multiple Sclerosis Supported by a Social Network: Pilot Study With a New Methodological Approach. Interact J Med Res. 2017 Jul 14;6(2):e10. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.7402. PMID: 28710056; PMCID: PMC5533941). Please discuss about SNS are perceived by population. Page 6; line 113: SN was perceived by users to be a useful tool to support health-related coping and social interaction, and may suggest a new kind of therapeutic alliance between physicians and people with chronich deseases in medicine ( Lavorgna L, Russo A, De Stefano M, Lanzillo R, Esposito S, Moshtari F, Rullani F, Piscopo K, Buonanno D, Brescia Morra V, Gallo A, Tedeschi G, Bonavita S. Health-Related Coping and Social Interaction in People with Multiple Sclerosis Supported by a Social Network: Pilot Study With a New Methodological Approach. Interact J Med Res. 2017 Jul 14;6(2):e10. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.7402. PMID: 28710056; PMCID: PMC5533941). Please discuss about SNS are perceived by population. Page 50; line 936: It will be appreciate if the authors show also data for other part of the world making a comparison. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263157.r001
Revision 1
6 Jan 2022 Author Response We very much appreciate the work of the Reviewers, which we feel has helped us to improve the paper substantially. We offer responses to their comments as follows. 1. The argument tries to be clear about how it is based on the data. We have tried to clarify the argument in places. We believe that our procedure is rigorous and sound. 2. We believe that our data and analysis are rigorous and have done what we can to check these. 3. Our data are fully available. 4. The manuscript has been substantially written, and thoroughly edited, by an experienced native speaker of English. We believe there are no major errors. 5. Reviewer #1: The comment is correct, that there is a relationship with another published paper, as noted [full citation: Mutambik I, Almuqrin A, Liu Y, Alhossayin M, Qintash FH. Gender Differentials on Information Sharing and Privacy Concerns on Social Networking Sites. J Glob Inf Manag. 2021 29(3):236–55. DOI 10.4018/JGIM.2021050110], which is closer than was anticipated at the time of submission. We have revised the manuscript (especially on pages 14-20, 27) to make this relationship clear and avoid duplication. The two papers are based on data from the same empirical study, but the focus, analysis and discussion are different. Specifically, the present paper includes in the analysis the construct of Attitude, which we see as important to the argument concerning culture, which does not arise in the other paper. The other paper is focussed on issues of gender: since these are not a central concern in the present paper, we have removed those sections which addressed gender specifically. We feel that this makes the present paper clearer in focus and in structure, as well as a little shorter. The discussion section in the paper is relatively long, but we feel this is necessary to explain how and why our perspective diverges from that which is commonly found in the literature, taking culture into account. We propose a revision of the title of the paper to help emphasise the focus of the paper, to read: User concerns regarding information sharing on social networking sites: The user’s perspective in the context of national culture. Reviewer #2: We recognise the importance of the points raised by this Reviewer, and the appropriateness of the additional references suggested, which we have been very happy to include and for which we are grateful. Our focus is on the concerns of academic users sharing information – perhaps they tend to take unduly for granted the accuracy of the information, and should think carefully about how it will be perceived, but these are large issues that would demand a very thorough discussion. In the paper, we have chosen to focus particularly on privacy because this is a particularly salient concern of the users we have studied. We argue there are cultural specificities in the nature of these concerns, but there is much work still to be done in this area and we do not have data of our own from other cultures for direct comparison. We have revised the manuscript to take the Reviewer’s suggestions into account and to try to clarify the focus and limitations of our discussion (mainly pages 3, 6-7, 45). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263157.r002
13 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Luigi Lavorgna, Editor User concerns regarding information sharing on social networking sites: The user’s perspective in the context of national culture PONE-D-21-28070R1 , 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, Luigi Lavorgna Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263157.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Luigi Lavorgna, Editor PONE-D-21-28070R1 User concerns regarding information sharing on social networking sites: The user’s perspective in the context of national culture Dear Dr. Lee: 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. Luigi Lavorgna Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263157.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .