Abstract

Purpose - Users' search logs are implicit feedbacks on how searchers interact with online information retrieval (IR) systems. The purpose of this paper is to analyze search query reformulation (SQR) patterns of University of Dar es Salaam remote OPAC users.Design/methodology/approach - Qualitative and quantitative analysis of transaction logs were employed to ascertain the characteristics of search queries and the patterns in which remote OPAC users reformulate their search queries. The study covered a period of six months, commencing from January to June 2019.Findings - A total of 30,474 search hits were submitted by remote OPAC users during the period under study. Individuals from academic and research institutions, computing consortia, and telecommunication companies are the main users of the system. Most of the searches originated from North America and Europe, with few searches coming from China and India. Besides improving search results, SQRs are linked with the existence of multiple information demands as manifested by the use of heterogeneous headwords within individual search episodes.Research limitations/implications - Data collected covered only six months. Similarly, it was however not possible to analyze users' search query formulation within specific contexts such as task-based information searching.Practical implications - A query recommendation system should be integrated into the OPAC functionalities to improve users' search experiences. Alternatively, there should be a migration to a new system that offers more advanced search features and functionalities.Originality/value - The study has contributed new insights in SQR studies particularly on how noninstitutional affiliated users translate their information needs into search queries during information searching processes.


Authors

Ndumbaro, Faraja

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 1 author
  • 2 reviewers
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2022/04/19

    19/04/2022

    Dear Ndumbaro, Faraja

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-09-2020-0389.R2, entitled "Remote OPAC users search query reformulation (SQR) patterns: A transaction log analysis" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Online Information Review, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    Co-Editor
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie


    Tell us how we're doing! We’d love to hear your feedback on the submission and review process to help us to continue to support your needs on the publishing journey.

    Simply click this link https://eu.surveymonkey.com/r/F8GZ2XW to complete a short survey and as a thank you for taking part you have the option to be entered into a prize draw to win £100 in Amazon vouchers. To enter the prize draw you will need to provide your email address.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2022/04/07

    Dear author
    Since the results of your study are tapplied. Therefore, it is eligible for publication in this journal.
    good luck

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2022/02/07

    Dear Chief Editor,

    I am so appreciative of the comments on the manuscript ID OIR-09-2020-0389.R1 entitled "OPAC Remote users search query reformulation (SQR) patterns: A transaction log analysis.” My appreciation also goes to the reviewers for taking their time to review the manuscript and provide their comments. I am kindly submitting the revised version of the manuscript. The changes that have been incorporated are presented in detail in the responses to the reviewers. Additionally, all changes made to the manuscript have been highlighted with different text color [light blue]. Once again thank you so much for the positive look on the manuscript.

    Reviewer #1
    Comment #1: Since this article was not used new sources. and the paper does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and not cite an appropriate range of literature sources. the literature was not review up - to - date. in this paper not identify what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill. and it was not explained about influencing results of paper on the public attitudes, affecting quality of life. Therefore, this article is not eligible for publication in this journal.

    Response to comments #1
    From comment #1, issues were raised: (a) “article was not used new sources” (b) paper does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature / not cite an appropriate range of literature sources, (c) not identify what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (d) and [the paper] “not explained about influencing results of paper on the public attitudes, affecting quality of life”
    Response to comment # 1. I respectfully disagree with these observations. The manuscript has cited a wide range of relevant sources related to transaction log analysis and search query reformulation practices in Online Public Access Catalogue and web-based information retrieval systems.

    a. On the failure to use new sources: It is evidence that several sources have been reviewed and incorporated in the manuscript. These sources are relevant within the context of the study and up to date. Specifically, there are only one publication which was published in 1980’s [Fidel, 1985] and three sources [De Cock, 1993; Kalin, 1991; Slon, 1991] published in early 1990’s. The remaining cited sources [ Li, and Lijke, 2017; Hassan, 2013; Liu, Gwizdka, Liu, Xu, and Belkin, 2011; Huang and Efthimiadis, 2009; Jansen, Booth, and Spink, 2009; Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics, 2009Jensen, 2008; Mastro, Monopoli, and Kapidakis, 2008; Bergsma, and Wang, I. 2007;Groves,2007] were published in 2000’s with a substantial number of them being published in late 2000’s. Additionally, the other sources [Du, Arif, and Hansen, 2019; Jiang, and Wang, 2018; Ndumbaro, 2018; Jiang, and Ni, 2016; Na, and Lee, 2016; Niu, Zhang, and Chen, 2014; Oduntan, 2014; Dang, and Croft, 2010] were published in 2010’s.

    In additional to that the final review has included the following sources: Chen, Mao, Liu, Zhang, Zhang, Ma, (2021a); Chen, Liu, Mao, Zhang, Sakai, Ma, Zhang, Ma, S. (2021b); Ndumbaro, and Kassim, (2021), Fischer, Iglesias, Daugherty, Jiang, (2021); Wachira and Onyancha, (2017); Ford, (2015)

    b. On lack of adequacy of understanding of the relevant literature in the field / and not cite an appropriate range of literature sources. The review of the related literature [pp.2-5] has clearly discussed a wide range of relevant issues on SQR. The section explicitly discusses the following relevant themes as they emerge from the existing body of knowledge: (a) Transaction log analysis (TLA) as an area of research inquiry and methodology. The discussion also intersects the relationship between TLA and search query reformulation analysis. The review also includes the relevance and limitations of TLA. Generally, the first section intends to provide a general overview of log search studies in the information seeking and retrieval domain. (b) In the second sub-section, “search query characteristics” the reviewed literature is in consonant with research questions 1 and 2 of this study. The following characteristic features of search queries have been incorporated in the review: search episodes/search sessions, search query length, search query segmentation to identify semantic and lexical relationships. (c) The search query reformulation patterns section contains literature that relates to research question no 3. In this section SQR patterns discussed in previous studies have been thoroughly discussed. The review has gone further to discuss the intentions for reformulating search queries.

    c. Failure to identify research gap in knowledge. The following statements, as they have been used in the manuscript, clearly articulate the existing research gap, which the current study addressed: “Despite the growing number of studies on search query formulation and reformulation, much research attention has been paid to understanding search query reformulation in web search engines (Wu et al., 2018; Behnert and Lewandowski 2017; Hassan, 2013, Huang and Efthimiadis, 2009). While there are some previous empirical inquiries on search query reformulation among library OPACs and discovery tools (Wu et al., 2018, Wu and Bi, 2017; Niu et al., 2014; Meadow and Meadow, 2012), there has been little discussion on how remote OPAC users in academic libraries reformulate their search queries during information searching and retrieval processes.”

    d. On “…results did not explain influence [I presume implications] in “public attitudes, affecting quality of life”. This study is purely based on an analysis of OPAC search logs. The method is unobtrusive, meaning does not directly involve human subjects. In this regard, there are no direct researcher’s interactions with human subjects. It is from this perspective, issues on “the public attitudes, affecting quality of life” cannot be studied using search log analysis. On the contrary, the possible practical implications from which the results of this study can be used have been discussed at the end of this manuscript.

    Comment #2: The research or equivalent intellectual work has not on which the paper is not based been well designed. Generaly, these issues have received some attention.

    Response to comment # 2: While I face a hard time comprehending the first part of the comment which reads “…equivalent intellectual work has not on which the paper is not based been well designed”, the second part suggests that issues presented in this paper have received some attention. Apparently, in the introduction and literature review sections, the author has clearly explained that a lot has been written on search query analysis. Despite such coverage, we have little understanding of how remote OPAC users retranslate [reformulate] their search queries in an attempt to retrieve information. In addition to this, it has been emphasized that it is important to underline the fact that studies that directly discuss usage of OPAC by “non-affiliated” institutional users are rare. Such paucity of literature is the research gap addressed by the current study.

    Comment #3: results was not presented clearly and extensive and analyzed appropriately.

    Response to comment # 3: The results presented reflect three research questions underpinned the study: The presentation and discussion of the results take into consideration three aspects: the methodological orientation of the study; the research questions informed that study and the reviewed literature. With regards to the relationships between the results and methodological orientation of this paper, a clear crossover of the two has been demonstrated in the results section. The paper incorporates qualitative and quantitative data with the intention of analyzing qualitatively and quantitatively users’ location, characteristics of search queries, search query reformulation patterns. Through the use of the query segmentation approach, speculation on the rationale for search query reformulation has been provided.

    Comment #4: the paper does not present a robust and coherent argument [in relation to the discussion of results…this is what I have understood the comment]

    Comment #5: in this paper not identify what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill. it was not explained about influencing results of paper on the public attitudes, affecting quality of life

    Response to comment #5: Studies on search log analysis do not focus on users’ attitudes or affection. Besides, this study intends to contribute to knowledge on searchers’ behavior and experiences when interacting with OPAC. Such knowledge is essential in improving system performance and searchers’ experiences. At the end of the manuscript such practical implications are discussed.

    Comment #6: This paper provided the quality of communication of the journal, optimally

    Response to comment #6: No response to the comment.

    Reviewer #2

    Comment #1: Great research, you have made an original and good contribution. But you need to review some misspellings and a lot of words are join together in your pdf version. You also wrongly interpreted your result in page 7 line 24. From your result, (Figure 2) the highest hit is in February and March and not "March and April". Also, Figure and tables are not appearing were their captions are placed. These need to be reviewed and corrected before final copy is published please

    Response to comment 1 #: With regards to the “word merging” problem, I presume, it is caused by version compatibility. The original document which I am working on does not have such a problem. The document was prepared in Microsoft office version 16. There is a possibility that the document was opened in an older version of MS word. This can easily be resolved by opening the file and saving it by specifying the file version at the “save as type” drop-down menu.

    The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed. The following typos and spelling errors have been corrected as indicated in texts with light blue.

    Interpretation of the results on page 7 as illustrated in figure 2, has been corrected. The sentence now reads: “Most of the search hits were submitted in March and February, accounting for over 54% of all searches”.

    The tables [figures and plate] have been submitted separately as per author guidelines. The Journal guidelines to authors [available at: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/oir?id=oir ] require tables and figure to be submitted “…in a separate file to the main body of the article.” The tables [figures and plate] were automatically merged and placed at the bottom of the manuscript during submission of the manuscript to the ScholarOne Manuscript Central platform.

    The captions are the indicators of where the table will be inserted in the later stage.

    Comment #2: The paper looks original. I could not trace any element of the paper any were. Hence the paper is definitely original.
    Response to comment #2: No response

    Comment #3: The authors have done a great job in reviewing in clear terms the existing work in relation to their research. Also, enough and relevant literature has being cited including works from Online Information Review.
    Response to comment #3: No response

    Comment #4: An acceptable methodology was used. The method used has been used in similar research.
    Response to comment # 4:No response

    Comment #5: The results are clear and address the research questions. However, Figures and tables were not placed where their captions appear in the paper. Instead, the authors placed the figures and tables at the bottom of the paper. I can't understand the rationale behind this as this reduces the readability of the paper since readers have to scroll down to observe figure and table each time. I think this should be corrected before the final copy.

    Response to comment # 5:
    The tables [figures and plate] have been submitted separately as per author guidelines. The Journal guidelines to authors [available at: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/oir?id=oir ] require tables and figure to be submitted “…in a separate file to the main body of the article.” The captions are indicative of where the table will be inserted in the later stage. The tables [figures and plate] were automatically merged and placed at the bottom of the manuscript during submission of the manuscript to the ScholarOne Manuscript Central platform.

    Comment #6: the paper has a good analysis of the findings of previous work. Their findings validate the findings of previous works and conclusion is good enough

    Response to comment # 6: No response

    Comment #7: The authors have shown the real implication of their finding in the society i.e how Search Query Reformulation (SQR) can be used to improve search engines (OPAC) and user's experience. Thus, the paper has a significant contribution.

    Response to comment # 7: No response

    Comment #8: Sentences are constructed in a simple and comprehensive way. However, there are many occasions were two words are join together. eg “isiterative” page 2 line 31 “conceptswhich” page 4 line 34, “includesa” page 4 line 20. There are cases of misspelling too. These should be reviewed and corrected before final copy

    Response to comment #8: With regards to the “word merging” problem, I presume, it is caused by version compatibility. The original document which I am working on does not have such problem. The document was prepared in Microsoft office version 16. There is a possibility that the document was opened in an older version of MS Word. This can easily be resolved by opening the file and save it by specifying the file version at the “save as type” drop down menu.

    The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed. The typos and spelling errors have been corrected as shown in light blue texts.

    Yours sincerely
    Dr. Faraja Ndumbaro- author

    Author response by


    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2022/01/17

    17-Jan-2022

    Dear Dr. Ndumbaro,

    Manuscript ID OIR-09-2020-0389.R1 entitled "OPAC Remote users search query reformulation (SQR) patterns: A transaction log analysis" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    Although the reviewers were divided, I believe the paper has merit pending major revision. Please read their suggestions and prepare a revised manuscript. Any changes that you make to your manuscipt should be highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.

    Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID;=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,
    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    Co-Editor
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Reject

    Comments:
    Since this article was not used new sources. and the paper does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and not cite an appropriate range of literature sources . the literature was not review up - to - date . in this paper not identify what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill . and it was not explained about influencing results of paper on the public attitudes , affecting quality of life . Therefore , this article is not eligible for publication in this journal .

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: The paper not contain significant information adequate and not meets the criteria of this journal .

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: the paper does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and not cite an appropriate range of literature sources the literature was not review up - to - date .

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The research or equivalent intellectual work has not on which the paper is not based been well designed. Generaly, these issues have received some attention.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: No completely. results was not presented clearly and extensive and analysed appropriately.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: the paper does not present a robust and coherent argument.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: in this paper not identify what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill . it was not explained about influencing results of paper on the public attitudes, affecting quality of life .

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: This paper provided the quality of communication of the journal, optimally.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: yes.

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    Great research, you have made an original and good contribution. But you need to review some misspellings and a lot of words are join together in your pdf version. You also wrongly interpreted your result in page 7 line 24. From your result, (Figure 2) the highest hit is in February and March and not "March and April". Also, Figure and tables are not appearing were their captions are placed. These need to be reviewed and corrected before final copy is published please.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: The paper looks original. I could not trace any element of the paper any were. Hence the paper is definitely original.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: The authors have done a great job in reviewing in clear terms the existing work in relation to their research. Also enough and relevant literature has being cited including works from Online Information Review.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: An acceptable methodology was used. Method used has been used in similar research.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results are clear and address the research questions. However, Figures and tables were not placed where their captions appear in the paper. Instead, the authors placed the figures and tables at the bottom of the paper. I can't understand the rationale behind this as this reduces the readability of the paper since readers have to scroll down to observe figure and table each time. I think this should be corrected before the final copy.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes, the paper has a good analysis of the findings of previous work. Their findings validate the findings of previous works and conclusion is good enough.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The authors have shown the real implication of their finding in the society i.e how Search Query Reformulation (SQR) can be used to improve search engines (OPAC) and user's experience. Thus, the paper has a significant contribution.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Sentences are constructed in a simple and comprehensive way. However, there are many occasions were two words are join together. eg “isiterative” page 2 line 31 “conceptswhich” page 4 line 34, “includesa” page 4 line 20. There are cases of misspelling too. These should be reviewed and corrected before final copy.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?:

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/08/10

    Great research, you have made an original and good contribution. But you need to review some misspellings and a lot of words are join together in your pdf version. You also wrongly interpreted your result in page 7 line 24. From your result, (Figure 2) the highest hit is in February and March and not "March and April". Also, Figure and tables are not appearing were their captions are placed. These need to be reviewed and corrected before final copy is published please.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2021/07/18

    Since this article was not used new sources. and the paper does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and not cite an appropriate range of literature sources . the literature was not review up - to - date . in this paper not identify what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill . and it was not explained about influencing results of paper on the public attitudes , affecting quality of life . Therefore , this article is not eligible for publication in this journal .

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2021/05/21

    Dear Editor,
    I am writing in response to the decision letter on manuscript ID OIR-09-2020-0389 “OPAC Remote users search query reformulation (SQR) patterns: A transaction log analysis.” I am submitting the revised version of the manuscript with some few corrections [language editing and proof reading].

    Author response by


    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2021/04/15

    &PHPSESSID15-Apr-2021;

    Dear Dr. Ndumbaro,

    Manuscript ID OIR-09-2020-0389 entitled "OPAC Remote users search query reformulation (SQR) patterns: A transaction log analysis" which you submitted to Online Information Review has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewers have recommended that you make major revisions to your manuscript prior to it being considered for publication. It will need to go back for review.

    Please read their suggestions and if you choose to prepare a revised manuscript ensure that any changes that you make to your manuscript are highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.

    Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

    To revise your manuscript log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions" click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review. I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Yours sincerely,

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    Dear author. Congratulations.
    I think your article has the authority to be published in this journal.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: The paper is contain new and significant information adequate and meets the criteria of this journal, almost.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: The paper was demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources. Also the paper was used new and credible sources to express the introduction.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The methods of research is well designed. And the methods employed are appropriate.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Results are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately. And the conclusions are tie together the other elements of the paper, adequately.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes. These cases have been well considered.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: in this paper identify what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill .researcher explained about influencing results of paper on the public attitudes, affecting quality of life

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes. These cases have been well considered.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: yes

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/02/22

    Dear author. Congratulations.
    I think your article has the authority to be published in this journal.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.