Risk Perceptions on Social Media Use in Norway

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. This study attempted to contribute to exploring risk perceptions of Social Media use in Norway.

First of all, I congratulate the authors on the development of this interesting research study. Although I like the topic and the research approach is valid, there are a few inconsistencies that must be corrected.

Paper research gap: This part is very general and lacked alignment to the research findings, no discussion was provided to derive the implications indeed. Theoretical and pragmatic implications are vague and need to be better aligned with this paper's theoretical underpinnings. The Paper research gap and originality should be improved at the end of the introduction section. Citing more references to establish research questions and objectives should be enough. Now, the papers just present 18 references, this is not enough to justify the proposed objectives and theoretical framework.

The Literature Review is not enough. There is no analysis of previous articles, the authors just summarise the studies but did not compare them with the proposed study and approach. This part should be improved. What about a Table indicating similar studies and highlighting similar characteristics of this study versus similar studies? This will add value to the research.

Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature.

The discussion should be presented separated from the results.  The discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular and help us see the relevance of what you have found to the wider world.  The author needs to contextualize the findings in the literature and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. This is the section that needs the most work.

Questions to be answered in the conclusion section:
What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature. The authors should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the research work. This should be stated in the final conclusion paragraphs.

Also in the Conclusions part, the authors should include a final paragraph describing the “practical implications or industry implications" and "originality or value" of this research study.

Also, I advise the following structure for the manuscript final part:
Discussion
Conclusions
Managerial Implication
Practical/Social Implications
Limitations and future research

I would also urge the author to read the articles listed below before completing the manuscript revision therefore cite them. The author will understand that the article structure and hypothesis development section could be improved in deep as well as the research justifications and literature review section:

Saura, J.R. (2020). Using Data Sciences in Digital Marketing: Framework, Methods, and Performance Metrics, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 1(2020). doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2020.08.001

Xie, B., Watkins, I., Golbeck, J., & Huang, M. (2012). Understanding and changing older adults' perceptions and learning of social media. Educational gerontology, 38(4), 282-296.

Smith, E. E. (2016). “A real double-edged sword:” Undergraduate perceptions of social media in their learning. Computers & Education, 103, 44-58.

Saura, J.R., Debasa, F., and Reyes-Menendez. (2019). Does User Generated Content Characterize Millennials Generation Behavior? Discussing the Relation between SNS and Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(4), 96. doi: 10.3390/joitmc5040096

 

Author Response

Taking into consideration the reviewers comments we have enhanced both the introductory and main sections of the paper. We expanded the background and related work sections, also providing clarrifications with resspect to the method and how this influenced the results. Specifically, the modifications of the paper include:

1- Improvement in the paper summary at the end of the introduction.

2- Enhancement of the related work and background sections, through the addition of relevant references that draw a broader picture of the investigated areas

3- Inclusion of additional information about the data collection process (method section)

4- Inclusion of additional information about implications arrising from the paper results (conclusions section)

5- Enhancements into the discussion section to be more tightly coupled with the literature

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Risk perceptions on Social Media use in Norway

 

The topic is current and interesting, the paper is well structured and the case study is appropriate, but the literature review is insufficient and somewhat out of date. Think of the journal as focused on the future of the Internet. That's why I recommend some improvements:

 

It is necessary to expand the literature review with research from the last two or three years. To begin with, I suggest an article and three communications that give a current insight into the evolution of the problem on social media:

 

- Social Media, Quo Vadis? Prospective development and implications (FI, 2020).

- Examining the adoption and abandonment of security, privacy, and identity theft protection practices (CHI, 2020).

- Threats against information privacy and security in social networks: A review (ResearchGate, 2020).

- The effect of privacy policies on information sharing behavior on social networks: A systematic literature review (HICSS, 2020).

 

The findings of the new research you add in the literature review section will also serve to enrich the discussion section.

 

Author Response

Taking into consideration the reviewer’s comments we have enhanced both the introductory and main sections of the paper. We expanded the background and related work sections, also providing clarifications with respect to the method and how this influenced the results. Specifically, the modifications of the paper include:

1- Improvement in the paper summary at the end of the introduction.

2- Enhancement of the related work and background sections, through the addition of relevant references that draw a broader picture of the investigated areas

3- Inclusion of additional information about the data collection process (method section)

4- Inclusion of additional information about implications arising from the paper results (conclusions section)

5- Enhancements into the discussion section to be more tightly coupled with the literature

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper addresses and interesting topic. I found the related work section comprehensive, even thought a more-in-depth analysis was needed in terms of tools used for modeling the and analyzing the elements presented in the selected references. The Method section should be extended. In my opinion, the section lacks of methodology. The authors should use a validation process for their questionnaire, such as the  structural equations modelling analysis. Some indicators to be followed should be also presented here. Additionally, the entire questionnaire should be provided in the annex - in the current or the questionnaire only gives a hint of the elements analyzed and possible answers, but cannot be used by other researchers to reproduce the work from the present paper. In section 3 please present information related to data collection, e.g. period and please explain how you have determined the number of possible users in Table 1. Last, a comparison with other works from the field is needed - possible with other regions or countries. 

Minor observations:

• please start your sections from 1 instead of 0
• please add a summary of the rest of the paper at the end of the introductive section which briefly describes the remainder of the paper

Author Response

Taking into consideration the reviewer’s comments we have enhanced both the introductory and main sections of the paper. We expanded the background and related work sections, also providing clarifications with respect to the method and how this influenced the results. Specifically, the modifications of the paper include:

1- Improvement in the paper summary at the end of the introduction.

2- Enhancement of the related work and background sections, through the addition of relevant references that draw a broader picture of the investigated areas

3- Inclusion of additional information about the data collection process (method section)

4- Inclusion of additional information about implications arrising from the paper results (conclusions section)

5- Enhancements into the discussion section to be more tightly coupled with the literature

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have applied some of the recommendations. However, I think the study is now too long and readers will lose the reference to the main objectives.

The authors should read the paper and remove those parts that they do not consider important and that do not add anything new to the literature. Vague arguments and paragraphs containing similar content should be modified.

The authors should also consider the literature recommended by the reviewers to improve their research.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for her/his time. However, according to our understanding, the proposed references are infinitesimally relevant to the scope of the paper, especially the two of them authored by Jose Ramon Saura. Additionally, given the content of the 2nd-round review comments, it is unclear why the evaluation in most aspects has decreased; including elements that had (and could have) no alteration after the first review (i.e. Is the research design appropriate?). We would be happy to accommodate all further suggestions that allow us to improve the current version of the paper, within its original scope.

Reviewer 2 Report

Risk perceptions on Social Media use in Norway

 

The paper has improved but I don't see that you have followed my recommendations on adding updated related literature:

 

It is necessary to expand the literature review with research from the last two or three years. To begin with, I suggest an article and three communications that give a current insight into the evolution of the problem on social media:

 

- Social Media, Quo Vadis? Prospective development and implications (FI, 2020).

- Examining the adoption and abandonment of security, privacy, and identity theft protection practices (CHI, 2020).

- Threats against information privacy and security in social networks: A review (ResearchGate, 2020).

- The effect of privacy policies on information sharing behavior on social networks: A systematic literature review (HICSS, 2020).

 

The findings of the new research you add in the literature review section will also serve to enrich the discussion section.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your input. We have added the suggested articles.

Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the new version of the paper and for addressing the reviewer's comments. I have no further observations. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions on improving our article.

Best regards.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer has no additional comments.