Analysis of the Effectiveness of Promotion Strategies of Social Platforms for the Elderly with Different Levels of Digital Literacy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper shows an interesting study on how the presence of elderly population in social media could affect to the promotional campaigns of the platforms.

The article is clear and well written, but I found a couple of minor mistakes:

• Page 1: Turcotte, Turcotte, et al. (2015) [13] confirmed...

I guess that this is a mistake defining the reference, probably you meant: Turcotte, Turcotte et al. (2015) [13], confirmed... or  Turcotte et al. (2015) [13] confirmed...

• Table 3: Parameter ?_?,?∈????

Description: Individual's original judgment about the quality of service of AISs. I guess that it is not AISs but PIRs.

• The DOI of reference 4 is broken: https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2005.04.02.009.00
• In reference 16, the DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(98)90015-9. is also broken, but in this case beacuse the hyperlink cut the URL in the first "("
  
  
• Same problem in reference 57: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199603)47:3<193::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-T

In subsection 2.1: Our division method is similar to the reports of Hu et al. (2019) and Zhao et al. (2018)
Both references (39 and 40) link to web pages in Chinese. When I tried to translate them, only some text was translated (assuming a correct translation). And changing the language using the button of the page lost the track of the content.
So maybe it could be useful to explain, at this point, your division method.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the study is extremely timely and relevant (The analysis of the effectiveness of promotion strategies of social platforms for the elderly with different digital literacy). A review of the literature related to the topic provides a very recent, thorough international outlook. At the same time, it indicates well the shortcomings in the theory: “previous literature did not mention individuals’ differences in information activities due to their digital literacy”. The methodology of empirical research fits well with the research topic. Empirical research has been carried out to a high standard and its results are well supported. Visualization of results facilitates elaboration. Bibliographic notations meet the requirements of scientific expectation. Overall, very high quality work.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your appreciation of this study.

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the paper “Analysis of the effectiveness of promotion strategies of social platforms for the elderly with different digital literacy” is timely and valuable to the audience of the Applied Sciences. Researchers build an agent-based model to simulate the process of social platform adoption among the elderly.

Overall, the paper is well structured, reads quite well, and covers the existing literature quite well. The analysis of the data is interesting and well documented. However, in my view, some minor amendments are required prior to publication.

First of all, it’s impossible to point to any particular places in the text since there is a lack of page numbers and line numbers. I have only marked some places in the manuscript regarding the mixture of citation styles.

I also noticed that the quality of the presented figures is not sufficient. Figures have different font sizes, even they present very similar data, like figures from 3 to 12. In figures 1 and 2, characters are slipping over the lines.

Section references needs strong support. The list of references is not well presented. MPDI use own citation style with italic abbreviated journal names and bolded year. MPDI has own citation style, you should use it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx