PONE-D-24-41686Research Citations Building Trust in Wikipedia: Reults from a survey of published authorsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burton,

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 Dec 15 2024 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,

Jafar Kolahi

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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please consider the following list of improvements and suggestions to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

1. CROSS Checklist: Consider using the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) to enhance the transparency and rigor of the survey study reporting.

2. Abstract Revision: Rewrite the abstract to clearly delineate the methods and results, adhering to a scientific style for clarity and conciseness.

3. Software/Tools Information: Ensure full details are presented for any software or tools used, including company names, cities, and countries, to provide transparency and allow reproducibility.

4. Sample Size Calculation: Include an explanation of the sample size calculation and any statistical methods used in the estimation to clarify the robustness of the sample.

5. Methods and Search Strategy: Describe the methods and search strategy used to compile the "pre-defined list of publications." This will provide clarity on the selection criteria and comprehensiveness.

6. Flow Diagram: Include a flow diagram outlining the steps taken to reach the total of 21,854 surveys, offering readers a clear visualization of participant selection.

7. Statistical Software: Specify the statistical software used for data analysis to ensure reproducibility.

8. Participant’s Characteristics Visualization: Use a map chart to display the geographic distribution of participants (740 participants from 60 countries). Additionally, use graphs to represent the academic affiliations and h-index of these participants.

9. Publication Analysis: For the analysis of “727 unique publications”, consider:

o Using VOSviewer (https://www.vosviewer.com/) to display hot topics via density visualization.

o The 727 unique publications cited by how many Wikipedia articles? analyze the topics of these Wikipedia articles. Utilize word clouds or other interactive graphics for a clear visualization of topics.

10. Limitations: Add a discussion of study limitations to provide a balanced perspective on the findings.

11. Future Research Topics: Based on the results, suggest some potential topics for future research, which can add depth and context to the study’s implications.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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. It would be good to re-describe the research objectives in a more structured way. In particular, 2. 3 of secondary-objectives seems not to be academic research objectives. It would be all so desirable to add research questions.

2. In this study, presenting statistics by dividing free text analysis into 10 descriptive codes is not a good method. Through the Likert scale, the accuracy was shown as “mean = 246 7.65, SD = 2.56), but in the free text classification, “inaccurate emphasis” took up the largest proportion, so the two analysis results conflict. Therefore, the part that the paper wants to say becomes confusing.

3. It is unclear how the sub-group analysis was conducted. To understand Table 4, it is necessary to describe precisely how the research was conducted. After classifying whether the participants' papers are classified as papers/books, what type of OA they belong to, and what field they are in, were the statistics compiled based on the results of their own evaluations? You need to explain this specifically to the reader.

4. Since the participants are authors of the paper, most of them are researchers who are also providing education, it is inappropriate to distinguish them as “teachers and researchers” as in line 257

5. It is also necessary to present the reasons why social sciences and humanities are relatively undervalued.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

After reviewing the manuscript, I would like to share some feedback. The study explores author sentiment towards Wikipedia citations in scholarly research, based on a survey of 750 authors across 60 countries. The findings indicate positive attitudes overall, but with significant differences between perceptions of books vs. articles and across disciplines. While the manuscript covers an important topic, there are areas that could benefit from further refinement. I encourage the authors to consider the following suggestions.

1. The abstract adequately introduces the study's purpose, methods, and findings, providing useful information overall. However, including specific percentages or statistics regarding positive outcomes could strengthen the abstract.

2. Although the topics discussed in the introduction are relevant to Wikipedia, the connection between the different sections is somewhat weak, indicating a need for more coherence in the structure. The text should be organized in a way that aligns with the main objective of the article and avoids deviating from the core topic.

3. The study benefits from a clear focus on ethical considerations and the use of validated data sources. However, the method of participant selection is not specified. Please clarify the sample size determination. Additionally, as the study only examines items published by two publishers (T&F and UMP), this limitation should be clearly acknowledged, as it may affect the generalizability of the findings.

4. Discussion is well-structured and covers important topics. However, the qualitative analysis relies heavily on the authors' observations, but it could be further strengthened by incorporating references from credible academic sources.

5. In conclusion, some sentences are lengthy and complex, which may hinder readability; simplifying them into shorter, clearer statements would enhance overall clarity. Addressing this concern would significantly improve the quality and impact of the conclusion.

6. Please consider utilizing the following references in your text where appropriate, as they can enhance your arguments and provide greater depth to your analysis:

10.1002/asi.23694

10.22034/ijism.2024.2008175.1196

10.1108/OIR-02-2023-0084

10.1080/0194262X.2016.1206052

10.5195/jmla.2024.1730

10.29024/joa.6

In some instances, the text appears to need additional citations, and integrating such references can strengthen the credibility of your findings and arguments.

Reviewer #3: The paper is well elaborated but some aspects should be considered by the authors and if possible, improved. For example, the results of the study have limitations due to low response rate. This raises questions about the generalizability of the findings. Also the study only targeted publications from Taylor & Francis and the University of Michigan Press, which could have affected the diversity of perspectives, especially in relation to fields of research that are less represented by these publishers.

The Survey Design was conducted in two different systems which, although aggregated later, may lead to inconsistencies in data collection.

While free-text responses were collected, the analysis was somewhat not so relevant. The study acknowledges that the free-text responses were only analyzed at a "surface level." Given the importance of qualitative data, this could be seen as a missed opportunity for deeper insights.

Disparities Across Disciplines: The study reveals significant differences in how Wikipedia citations are perceived across disciplines, particularly between the Physical and Mathematical Sciences (P&MS) and the Humanities., but the paper didn`t offer a strong explanation for why such disparities exist.

Although the study mentions that OA publication did not show statistically significant differences in trust compared to closed access publications, considering the relevance of open access in contemporary academic discourse, this aspect of the analysis feels underdeveloped and would have benefited from further exploration.

The study is based on survey responses collected over a short period. This not provide insights into how trust in Wikipedia citations may evolve over time.

The study relies entirely on survey data without incorporating other methods, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, or case studies

While the paper concludes that there is general trust among researchers towards Wikipedia citations, this statement seems too optimistic given the significant discrepancies noted in the of trustworthiness between books and scientific papers, and across disciplines.

Reviewer #4: The submitted manuscript is of undeniable scientific interest. At the same time, the authors have followed all the conventions of manuscript structuring and established logical connections between paragraphs (all rhetorical moves have been taken into account, and all the signal and marker words used are functional and do not increase the wordiness of the text). The language of the manuscript is clear and well-justified. The authors have presented the manuscript as if they were perceiving it through the eyes of the reader. In other words, they anticipated all possible difficulties in understanding the information and explained them in detail in advance. This is one of those rare cases where it is difficult to suggest any recommendations for improving the manuscript. The only point that I believe requires a bit more clarification is the justification of the study's objectives.

This prospective observational study can serve as a good example for other authors in terms of structuring and transparency of information presentation. The described study was also planned and conducted in strict accordance with the design typical for studies of this kind. Data analysis enabled the authors to validate all the conclusions drawn. This study serves as an initiating step in the investigation of a complex and controversial process, which reflects the transforming paradigm of modern scientific communication. The framework for perceiving reality is shifting, and such studies are necessary for the international scientific community to be able to perceive scientific knowledge through a unified, consolidated understanding.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Elena Tikhonova

**********

[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.

Research citations building trust in Wikipedia: results from a survey of published authors

PONE-D-24-41686R1

Dear Dr. Burton,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Jafar Kolahi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE