Digital Citizenship and the Big Five Personality Traits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which I found interesting and topical. There are a few points that I would suggest the authors attend to with a view to making revisions: 

- the authors don't necessarily define key terms such as the civic, the political, participation, or citizenship. More conceptual clarity is needed. 

- Similarly, while they explain how the concept of digital citizenship has been theorised, they argue that they take a different approach to the term - one that focuses primarily on the participatory aspects inherent in the concept. Can the authors better position themselves in relation to the concept and explain why they take such an approach? For example, can the authors explain why they dismiss appropriate behaviour online as one of the key components of digital citizenship? 

- I could argue that personality might relate to aspects of moral/responsible behaviour but the authors are interested exclusively in the participation dimension of digital citizenship - they do so by building on relevant literature, which is fine, but it'd be good if they provide a more solid conceptual rationale as to why they do so.

- Also,  can the authors better explain why it is important to look at the relationship between personality traits and digital citizenship? Can they make a stronger case as the contribution of their paper? What they state in the conclusion is fine but I would suggest they elaborate further on this and discuss the contribution of the paper also from the start.

- The results are interesting and I welcome the ways in which the authors justify the lack of statistical associations. But can the authors say a little more as to role of other variables (gender, age, etc.) in terms of their possible association with digital citizenship? 

- again, it is unclear why the authors use the concept of digital citizenship to then look at this as a proxy for civic, political participation - why would they not simply focus on the relationship between personality and participation if this is, de facto, what they are doing? A more robust conceptual rationale is needed in order to justify their approach.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for providing us with valuable feedback and suggestions to improve our paper. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work and offering constructive comments.

Please find our response to reviewers attached as an MS Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents a pioneering exploration of the relationship between personality traits and digital citizenship. The authors employ the Five Factor Model to examine this relationship, using survey data collected from three different countries. The study hypothesizes and finds that personality traits uniquely map to digital citizenship compared to traditional forms of civic engagement. The research is significant as it provides a new perspective on understanding digital citizenship, emphasizing the role of individual personality traits in shaping online behavior. The study's findings have implications for how we approach digital literacy and citizenship education, and how we understand the role of personality in online behavior. 

Certainly, here are some suggestions for the authors to improve the text:

Firstly, the authors could enhance the presentation of their research by incorporating more visual aids to represent their data and findings. While the text is rich in information, the inclusion of charts, graphs, or infographics could significantly improve the reader's comprehension and retention of the material. For instance, a graphical representation of the relationship between the Five Factor Model personality traits and various aspects of digital citizenship could provide a clear, visual summary of the study's main findings. This would not only break up the text and make the article more engaging but also allow readers to understand the results at a glance.

 

Secondly, the authors might consider providing a more detailed explanation of the Five Factor Model and its relevance to digital citizenship in the introduction. While the model is mentioned, a more in-depth discussion could help readers unfamiliar with this model understand its significance and how it applies to the study. This could include a brief overview of each of the five factors and examples of how they might influence digital citizenship. This would provide a stronger foundation for the reader before delving into the study's methodology and findings.

Lastly, the authors could improve the article by including a section discussing the limitations of their study and potential avenues for future research. While the study's findings are intriguing, acknowledging its limitations would give the research more credibility and show that the authors have a comprehensive understanding of their field. This could also include a discussion of how future research could build upon their work, perhaps by exploring other factors that influence digital citizenship or by using different methodologies. This would not only provide a more rounded conclusion to the article but also inspire further research in this area.

Author Response

Thank you for providing us with valuable feedback and suggestions to improve our paper. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work and offering constructive comments.

Please find our response to reviewers attached as an MS Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The authors try to use a survey to investigate how digital citizenship behaviors relate to exogenous variables. Using the classic Big Five Factor model of personality.

 

The work is well done, and the document size is satisfactory.

 

Some improvement points:

·      Table sizes can be improved, to be more readable to the user.

·      The focus was most in the university public, what not represents well the different public status.  

·      The number of countries in the study can be higher with different cultures.

·      To be more conclusive, the full version of the Big Five factors must be used.

 

Conclusions are good.

Author Response

Thank you for providing us with valuable feedback and suggestions to improve our paper. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work and offering constructive comments.

Please find our response to reviewers attached as an MS Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf