Review Reports - An Investigation on the Use by Academic Researchers of Knowledge from Scientific Social Networking Sites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work explored correctly the relationship between researcher’s attitudes to the scientific social media and also, the use of knowledge in their work. In my opinion, there is not a lot researches about this topic, even though it is a currently subject. For this reason, I considered that it is properly issue. The social media had been studied in order to give it more visibility and reputation but also, as environments to sharing knowledge. This study is one of the first researches around the actual use of knowledge obtained from SSNS by researchers and the impact of this kind of platforms on the scientific research. The quantitative and qualitative results are very interested and confirm the role of the SSNS in the researcher’s practices and the impact in the scientific work at the present time.

In the other hand, it would be interesting if they can include the most significative questions did it in the summary tables. The methodology they used had been appropriated but perhaps, in the future, they could also use a perception survey.

The bibliographic references are updated and precise, but I suggest, to the future works, review 3 recently articles have been published to provide a relevant information.

Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers?. Computers in human behavior, 55, 1001-1006

Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112(1), 241-254.

Deng, S., Tong, J., Lin, Y., Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). Motivating scholars’ responses in academic social networking sites: An empirical study on ResearchGate Q&A behavior. Information Processing & Management, 56(6), 102082.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the generous comments and for the suggestions provided.

Below we provide replies to the observations.

Thank you, we share this view and hope our paper contributes to the development of this area of research.

Thnk you for the suggestion. We have mentioned in the section on limitations and future studies that in future research perception surveys might be used.

The bibliographic references are updated and precise, but I suggest, to the future works, review 3 recently articles have been published to provide a relevant information.

Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers?. Computers in human behavior, 55, 1001-1006

Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112(1), 241-254.

Thank you also for the suggestions about these additional references. We have found them useful and mentioned the papers int the article.

Overall we have much appreciated the comments and found them useful to improve the paper.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript investigates the relationship between attitude of researchers towards SSNSs and the use of knowledge in their scientific work. To my opinion, the topic of the manuscript is very interesting and can catch eyes of scholars in many scientific research fields. The research model, analysis methods, results, and the conclusions are all sound enough for the publication in the journal. I particularly liked the authors’ speculation about the reasons for the unsupported hypotheses which highlight the difference of scientific researchers from other professions.

However, the manuscript should go through very minor revision. First, authors should check whether there are any mistakes in the literature review (from line 109-145 <p.3>). Please check whether the explanations for ‘platforms as a whole’ and ‘specific features’ are reversed. Second, Figure 1 must be revised. The construct at the top left corner, I guess, must be ‘Transactional Attitude’ and ‘Knowledge Availabillty’.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the generous comments. We agree that scientific research is a peculiar profession. Given its relevance it deserves more attention.

Below we reply to the reviewer's observations:

Thanl you for your very muche appreciated comments.

However, the manuscript should go through very minor revision. First, authors should check whether there are any mistakes in the literature review (from line 109-145 <p.3>).

We double-checked the references. Apparently they are correct. We took the opportunity to revise the format and correct some minor errors.

Please check whether the explanations for ‘platforms as a whole’ and ‘specific features’ are reversed.

Thank you for this comment. The two sections were not reversed, but we noticed that that sentence was misleading and, as a consequence, we deleted it.

Second, Figure 1 must be revised. The construct at the top left corner, I guess, must be ‘Transactional Attitude’ and ‘Knowledge Availabillty’.

Thank you for pointing out this error. We substituted the figure with the correct version.

Overall we would like the reviewer for the comments that helped us improve the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for asking me to review this excellent article. I actually cannot see any places for improvement. It is well written, it uses data effectively, it is clear on what can be said and what cannot be said based on the research. The writing is very clear. The literature review is excellent.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the generous comments. We have put much effort in this study and this paper so we are glad the opinion of the reviewer is that it can be accepted without modifications.