Social Media Reporting: How to Do It Right for Strategic Decision Making
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report
Dear Author/s
It was a pleasure to review your paper. I read your article and found it to be an interesting topic. However, I have some concerns that would improve it more, as follows:
Abstract
The abstract is well structured and encompasses all the essential components typically required in an abstract.
- Introduction
Although the introduction is lengthy, it is well structured as it clearly presents the background and rationale, identifies the research gap and problem statement, and outlines the objectives and research questions. - Materials and Methods
The methods section is well organized, as it systematically addresses the eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis.
- Results and Discussions; 4 Conclusion
Also, these two sections of the study are well organized
- Limitations, Future Research Directions, and Implications
Although the limitations and future research directions are presented, the theoretical and practical implications in this section require further enhancement to more clearly reflect the main objectives of the article and its overall contribution.
- General notes:
- Kindly make sure that abbreviations are introduced properly by writing the full term first, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses when it appears for the first time in your study. Refer to Page 1, line 12; Page 10, line 376, and so on…
- Kindly ensure that in-text citations are applied consistently, whether in chronological or alphabetical order, and maintain this approach throughout the entire manuscript.
- Please use the past tense when presenting the results of previous studies and apply this consistently throughout the entire manuscript. Kindly refer to page 2, line 59; page 8, line 282; page 9; line 327; page 10 , lines 373,375 & 376, and so on…..
- Kindly ensure that page numbers are included in in-text citations whenever sentences are presented within quotation mark. Kindly refer to page 9, lines 324 and 325.
Best of Luck.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Manuscript ID: journalmedia-3801244
Title: Social Media Reporting: How to Do It Right for Strategic Decision Making
We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading of our manuscript and their constructive feedback. We appreciate the positive evaluation of the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and conclusion sections. Below we provide detailed, point-by-point responses to each comment, and we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All revisions are highlighted in the resubmitted version.
Reviewer Comments and Author Responses
Comment 1 – Limitations, Future Research Directions, and Implications:
Although the limitations and future research directions are presented, the theoretical and practical implications in this section require further enhancement to more clearly reflect the main objectives of the article and its overall contribution.
- Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the Limitations, Future Research Directions, and Implications section to more explicitly highlight both the theoretical and practical contributions. Specifically:
- On page 23, paragraph 3, we strengthened the theoretical implications by linking our findings to the broader discourse on strategic integration of social media reporting, public value, and decision-making frameworks.
- On page 23–24, we expanded the practical implications to emphasize how managers, policymakers, and communication professionals can apply our proposed framework to improve decision-making, citizen trust, and strategic alignment.
“This research contributes to theory by framing social media reporting as an integrated strategic tool that links technical capabilities with organizational decision-making and public value creation. Practically, the framework provides managers, policymakers, and communication professionals with concrete guidance on selecting tools, structuring reports, and embedding analytics into strategic objectives.”
Comment 2 – Abbreviations:
Kindly make sure that abbreviations are introduced properly by writing the full term first, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses when it appears for the first time in your study. Refer to Page 1, line 12; Page 10, line 376, and so on.
- Response 2: We agree with this comment and have carefully revised the manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations are properly introduced at first use. For example:
- On page 1, line 12, “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)” is now fully written before abbreviation.
- On page 10, line 376, “Customer Relationship Management (CRM)” has been clarified.
We reviewed the entire manuscript to apply this correction consistently.
Comment 3 – In-text citations order:
Kindly ensure that in-text citations are applied consistently, whether in chronological or alphabetical order, and maintain this approach throughout the entire manuscript.
Response 3: We appreciate this observation. We have standardized all in-text citations to follow chronological order, as recommended by the journal style. For instance, citations in page 2, paragraph 2 and page 8, line 282 have been revised to reflect this. We also checked the full manuscript to ensure consistency.
Comment 4 – Verb tense in literature references:
Please use the past tense when presenting the results of previous studies and apply this consistently throughout the manuscript. Kindly refer to page 2, line 59; page 8, line 282; page 9; line 327; page 10, lines 373, 375 & 376, and so on.
Response 4: Thank you for this correction. We revised all instances where present tense was incorrectly used for past studies. For example:
- On page 2, line 59, “Zeng et al. (2023) identify” has been revised to “Zeng et al. (2023) identified.”
- On page 9, line 327, “Sussman et al. (2023) highlight” is now “Sussman et al. (2023) highlighted.”
- On page 10, lines 373–376, all verbs referring to prior studies were corrected to past tense.
We have carefully applied this change consistently throughout the paper.
Comment 5 – Page numbers for quotations:
Kindly ensure that page numbers are included in in-text citations whenever sentences are presented within quotation marks. Kindly refer to page 9, lines 324 and 325.
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have corrected all in-text citations with quotations to include page numbers. Specifically:
- On page 9, lines 324–325, quotations now cite the author and year followed by the page number (e.g., p. xx).
We reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure that all quotations now include page references consistently.
Response to English Language/Style Comments
We have proofread the entire manuscript to ensure clarity, consistency, and grammatical accuracy. Verb tense, citation order, and abbreviation consistency have been corrected as noted above.
Additional Clarifications
We also cross-checked all references against the reference list to ensure accuracy and completeness. Where necessary, formatting was revised to meet MDPI style guidelines.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe role of social media reporting in improving public value and organizational strategy is a significant and topical issue that is covered in this paper. The abstract offers a logical summary of the objectives and conclusions, and the study is well-structured.
The literature review is thorough, but at times it feels longer than necessary. Streamlining this part and keeping the focus on the concepts that directly support the study’s aims could make the paper more concise and engaging for the reader.
The manuscript highlights the importance of public value, particularly in the abstract (lines ~40–50) where it mentions enhancing transparency, responsiveness, and citizen trust. However, this concept remains somewhat isolated in the discussion. It would strengthen the paper if the authors explicitly connected these insights back to the broader theoretical framework introduced earlier, linking public value to concepts like transparency, trust, and citizen engagement.
The methodology section could be expanded to clarify sampling, interview design, and analytical procedures.
Although the results are presented in an understandable manner, the paper would gain from taking it a step further and connecting them to the theoretical framework. Currently, the findings are primarily described rather than fully connected to the literature.
The conclusions do a good job of summarizing the key findings, but they could be improved by clearly pointing out the theoretical and practical ramifications in a more cohesive manner.
Some terms (e.g., “vanity metrics”) could be more clearly defined.
Rather than only describing the gap between tools and interpretive capacity, linking this finding to prior studies on data literacy and decision-making would give the argument more weight.
The paper is generally well written, but some sentences could be shortened for clarity and flow. Minor editing would enhance readability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
All revision highlight in yellow colour.
Comment 1 ; The literature review is thorough, but at times it feels longer than necessary. Streamlining this part and keeping the focus on the concepts that directly support the study’s aims could make the paper more concise and engaging for the reader.
Answer : We agree to reduced version of literature review , keeping the key arguments and tool overviews concise while trimming repetition and excess detail.
Comment 2 :
Answer : We already explicitly show how transparency, trust, and citizen engagement are advanced (or undermined) by the practices being observed. in findings section last paragaraph.
Comment 3 : The methodology section could be expanded to clarify sampling, interview design, and analytical procedures.
Answer 1 : We already added to methods section last paragaraph.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
