Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to understand how college students' personal and health-related characteristics are related to their reading behaviors and cognitive outcomes of Facebook health information through eye tracking data and cognitive outcomes.Design/methodology/approach - This study analyzed users' gaze movement data and results of recall and recognition tests to investigate users' reading patterns and their consequences with cognitive outcomes. The gaze movements are analyzed with eye tracking data including the average fixation count and time to first fixation.Findings - The results of reading patterns show that Texts and Images are highly viewed and viewed immediately by participants when the posts were presented. There was no clear pattern with fixation counts to determine cognitive outcomes. However, the findings of study suggest that there is a clear pattern of reading Facebook posts with areas of interest (AOIs). Among five AOIs observed, participants viewed Images first and then Texts when a Facebook post is presented. On the other hand, they read Texts more carefully than Images. The findings of this study suggest that while images contribute to gaining users' attention, a clear and precise message needs to be delivered in text message to ensure readers' correct understanding and application of health information.Originality/value - The user-centered evidence on reading behaviors and cognitive outcomes will make contributions to how health professionals and health organizations can make optimal use of Facebook for effective health information communication.Peer review - The peer-review history for this article is available at: http://publons.com/publon/10.1108/ OIR-05-2020-0177


Authors

Syn, Sue Yeon;  Yoon, JungWon

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

Contributors on Publons
  • 1 reviewer
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2021/03/04

    04-Mar-2021

    Dear Syn, Sue Yeon; Yoon, JungWon

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-05-2020-0177.R3, entitled "Investigation on Reading Behaviors and Cognitive Outcomes of Facebook Health Information" 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,

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@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
    2021/03/04

    Accept

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2021/01/13

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

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    Accept

    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?: Yes

    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?: Yes

    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?: Yes

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and
    analysed appropriately?: Yes

    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

    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?: Yes

    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

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Reject

    Comments:
    The necessary sections are missing.

    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?: Yes

    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?: I think the
    literature review is necessary for a normative academic research
    including experiment-based research. I can give thousands of
    references if necessary.

    References:
    [1] Chi, Y. , He, D. , & Jeng, W. . (2020). Laypeople's source
    selection in online health information‐seeking process. Journal of the
    Association for Information ence and

    [2] Chang, Y. S., Zhang, Y., Gwizdka, Y. (2021). The effects of
    information source and eHealth literacy on consumer health information
    credibility evaluation behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 115,
    e106629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106629
    [3] Wu, D. , & Li, Y. . (2016). Online health information seeking
    behaviors among chinese elderly. Library & Information Science
    Research, 38, 272–279.
    [4] Quinn, S. , Bond, R. , & Nugent, C. . (2017). Quantifying health
    literacy and ehealth literacy using existing instruments and
    browser-based software for tracking online health information seeking
    behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 256-267.
    [5] Zhao, H., Fu, S., & Chen, X. (2020). Promoting users’ intention to
    share health articles on social media: The role of confirmation bias.
    Information Processing & Management,57 (6), 102354.
    doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102354

    ----->>> The paper has been re-structured to clearly deliver literature review within a dedicated section. Additional and relevant literature is included to widen the introduction of study background. The conceptual framework is explained based on the literature review and research design.

    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?: Yes

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and
    analysed appropriately?: Yes

    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

    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?: Implications are not deeply discussed. The authors may discuss
    theoretical and practical implications separately.

    References:
    [1] Agogo, D. , & Hess, T. J. . (2018). 'how does tech make you feel?'
    a review and examination of negative affective responses to technology
    use. European journal of information systems, 27(5), 570-599.
    [2] Diaz, Estrella, Esteban, Agueda, Martin-Consuegra, & David.
    (2017). Sales agents vs the internet understanding service sabotage
    based on the conservation of resources theory. Internet Research:
    Electronic Networking Applications and

    ---->>> On page 8, we have a section of “Implications and Limitations” where both practical implications and research implications are presented.

    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



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 3)
    Decision Letter
    2020/12/15

    15-Dec-2020

    Dear Dr. Yoon,

    Manuscript ID OIR-05-2020-0177.R2 entitled "Investigation on Reading Behaviors and Cognitive Outcomes of Facebook Health Information" 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 are divided in their view about this manuscript. While one of them was happy with the revisions the other raised a few points and provided examples of literature that could be used to enhance and deepen the article's engagement with the issues. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. 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.

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

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

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    Accept

    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?: Yes

    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?: Yes

    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?: Yes

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes

    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

    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?: Yes

    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

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Reject

    Comments:
    The necessary sections are missing.

    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?: Yes

    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?: I think the literature review is necessary for a normative academic research including experiment-based research. I can give thousands of references if necessary.

    References:
    [1] Chi, Y. , He, D. , & Jeng, W. . (2020). Laypeople's source selection in online health information‐seeking process. Journal of the Association for Information ence and
    [2] Chang, Y. S., Zhang, Y., Gwizdka, Y. (2021). The effects of information source and eHealth literacy on consumer health information credibility evaluation behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, e106629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106629
    [3] Wu, D. , & Li, Y. . (2016). Online health information seeking behaviors among chinese elderly. Library & Information Science Research, 38, 272–279.
    [4] Quinn, S. , Bond, R. , & Nugent, C. . (2017). Quantifying health literacy and ehealth literacy using existing instruments and browser-based software for tracking online health information seeking behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 256-267.
    [5] Zhao, H., Fu, S., & Chen, X. (2020). Promoting users’ intention to share health articles on social media: The role of confirmation bias. Information Processing & Management,57 (6), 102354. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102354

    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?: Yes

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes

    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

    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?: Implications are not deeply discussed. The authors may discuss theoretical and practical implications separately.

    References:
    [1] Agogo, D. , & Hess, T. J. . (2018). 'how does tech make you feel?' a review and examination of negative affective responses to technology use. European journal of information systems, 27(5), 570-599.
    [2] Diaz, Estrella, Esteban, Agueda, Martin-Consuegra, & David. (2017). Sales agents vs the internet understanding service sabotage based on the conservation of resources theory. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and

    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

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/12/04

    The necessary sections are missing.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/12/02

    Accept

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/10/19

    Dear Editor,

    Thank you very much for your consideration of our manuscript “Investigation on Reading Behaviors and Cognitive Outcomes of Facebook Health Information” and suggestion for a revision. The editor’s and reviewers’ comments and the revision process were very helpful to improve the manuscript.

    Our response to reviewers’ comments and suggestions are indicated below with blue font color. The changes in the manuscript are traced with the tracking feature. The length of the manuscript is kept to less than 10,000 words (7367 words). One thing that we want to emphasize is that based on the reviewer 1’s recommendation we have modified the title of the manuscript.

    Also, we’d like to inform you that the corresponding author (JungWon Yoon)’s email address has been updated (updated email: jyoon@jbnu.ac.kr)

    If you need any additional information about the manuscript, please contact us. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

    Sincerely,

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

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    The authors have made important revisions based on the suggestions. I have several further comments for this manuscript, which may help the authors to improve their study.

    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 problem I mentioned last time has not been resolved. This study employs eye-movement analysis for understanding how personal characteristics (demographics and use of social media) and health-related characteristics (health literacy, epistemic belief, and health information seeking experiences) influence on Facebook health information reading patterns and cognitive outcomes (recall and recognition). The goal of this research is to investigate how college students’ user characteristics (personal and health-related characteristics) are related to their reading behaviors and cognitive outcomes of Facebook health information. Such research purposes are not reflected in the title. Obviously, the focus of this manuscript is user characteristics. This will confuse readers.
     Although we considered it is important a title of an article to be succinct, the reviewers’ recommendation to make the title reflect the purpose of study is also important. We have modified the title accordingly to reflect the factors that we investigated.

    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?: In this version, the authors did not conduct a systematic literature review. The literature review of reading behavior of health information is missing. Only limited literature review is conducted in the section of cognitive outcomes. The relationship between previous literature and conceptual framework is not clearly clarified.
     Since this is not a literature review study, we do not consider a systematic literature review process is necessary for this study. This study is experiment-based study based on the conceptual framework explained in the manuscript which is designed based on previous studies and literature is reviewed based on the conceptual framework.

    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?: More details about the experimental procedures have been given.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results are presented clearly now.

    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 relationship between the empirical findings and previous work has been discussed in this version.

    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 paper still does not clearly clarify the implications for research, practice and/or society. I suggest adding a section in the manuscript (i.e, implications and limitations).
     Thank you for your suggestion. While the implications of research and practice were already discussed in the Conclusion section, we revised the statements to clearly indicate these implications and added a subheading in the Conclusion section, as suggested.

    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.: Quality of communication should be further improved.
     As the reviewer recommended, we reviewed the manuscript thoroughly and asked a professional editor to proofread the paper for better communication.

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    The authors have addressed all the comments from the previous review. I suggest publication.

    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?: Yes, the authors have described the impact of the research and have considered the reviewers'comments.

    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?: Yes.

    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 methodology used is appropriate and the authors have obtained ethical approval.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes

    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

    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 contributions of the paper are clearly stated.

    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.: The quality of communication is sufficient.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2020/10/03

    03-Oct-2020

    Dear Dr. Yoon,

    Manuscript ID OIR-05-2020-0177.R1 entitled "Investigation on Reading Behaviors and Cognitive Outcomes of Facebook Health Information" 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 reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. 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.

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

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

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    The authors have made important revisions based on the suggestions. I have several further comments for this manuscript, which may help the authors to improve their study.

    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 problem I mentioned last time has not been resolved. This study employs eye-movement analysis for understanding how personal characteristics (demographics and use of social media) and health-related characteristics (health literacy, epistemic belief, and health information seeking experiences) influence on Facebook health information reading patterns and cognitive outcomes (recall and recognition). The goal of this research is to investigate how college students’ user characteristics (personal and health-related characteristics) are related to their reading behaviors and cognitive outcomes of Facebook health information. Such research purposes are not reflected in the title. Obviously, the focus of this manuscript is user characteristics. This will confuse readers.

    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?: In this version, the authors did not conduct a systematic literature review. The literature review of reading behavior of health information is missing. Only limited literature review is conducted in the section of cognitive outcomes. The relationship between previous literature and conceptual framework is not clearly clarified.

    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?: More details about the experimental procedures have been given.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results are presented clearly now.

    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 relationship between the empirical findings and previous work has been discussed in this version.

    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 paper still does not clearly clarify the implications for research, practice and/or society. I suggest adding a section in the manuscript (i.e, implications and limitations).

    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.: Quality of communication should be further improved.

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    The authors have addressed all the comments from the previous review. I suggest publication.

    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?: Yes, the authors have described the impact of the research and have considered the reviewers'comments.

    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?: Yes.

    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 methodology used is appropriate and the authors have obtained ethical approval.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes

    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

    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 contributions of the paper are clearly stated.

    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.: The quality of communication is sufficient.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/09/28

    The authors have addressed all the comments from the previous review. I suggest publication.

    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/09/16

    The authors have made important revisions based on the suggestions. I have several further comments for this manuscript, which may help the authors to improve their study.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/08/18

    Dear Editor,

    Thank you very much for your consideration of our manuscript “Investigation on Reading Behaviors and Cognitive Outcomes of Facebook Health Information” and suggestion for a revision. The editor’s and reviewers’ comments and the revision process were very helpful to improve the manuscript.

    Our response to reviewers’ comments and suggestions are indicated below with blue highlights. The changes in the manuscript are traced with the tracking feature. The length of the manuscript is kept to less than 10,000 words (6,881 words).

    Also, we’d like to inform that the corresponding author’s affiliation has been changed as below. We’ll update the information on the system accordingly.

    JungWon Yoon (jungwonyoon@gmail.com)
    Department of Library and Information Science
    Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, South Korea

    If you need any additional information about the manuscript, please contact us. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

    Sincerely,

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

    Recommendation: Reject

    Comments:
    The paper analyzed users’ gaze movement data and results of recall and recognition tests to investigate users’ reading patterns and their consequences with cognitive outcomes. The topic is of interest and the paper is organised in a logical way. I have several comments for this manuscript, which may help the authors to improve this study.

    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 analyzed users’ gaze movement data and results of recall and recognition tests to investigate users’ reading patterns and their consequences with cognitive outcomes. The topic is of interest and the paper is organised in a logical way. I have several comments for this manuscript, which may help the authors to improve their study.
    It is better to find related theory to support this study. The authors indicate that “ This study aims to understand how college students’ personal and health-related characteristics are related to their reading behaviors and cognitive outcomes of Facebook health information, and what factors health professionals need to consider in disseminating health information using Facebook effectively.” Such research purposes are not reflected in the title.
    → Thank you for your suggestion. We discussed this suggestion, and concluded that the later part should not be included as the study purpose. We make them as a contribution of the study.

    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 demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field. The authors did not conduct a systematic literature review. Only limited literature review is conducted in introduction. Due to the incomplete literature review, the research gaps proposed by the authors are unconvincing. Some of the important references are missing. For instance, in the introduction, “ Social media has become one of the main health information distribution channels that can provide real-time information in a cost-effective way for the public.” The authors should give the reference. Some data may better support the authors’ arguments. “Authorized health-related organizations.” The author may give specific definition of authorized health-related organizations. What is authorized health-related organizations? Is Facebook authorized health-related organizations? There are many other similar expressions in the manuscript, which needs further improvement.
    Relevant material published in Online Information Review has not been cited. For example, Yi, Y. J. (2018). Sexual health information-seeking behavior on a social media site: predictors of best answer selection. Online Information Review, 42( 6 ): ‏ 880-897.
    Ahadzadeh, A. S., Sharif, S. P., & Ong, F. S. (2018). Online health information seeking among women: the moderating role of health consciousness. Online Information Review, 42(1 ): ‏ 58-72.
    → The literature for the relevant areas is reviewed and updated in the paper under the Conceptual Framework section.
    → We included a citation for the statement pointed and re-stated the sentence to clarify the meaning.
    → The suggested literature from Online Information Review was not directly related to the scope of this study. Instead, we were able to identify an article from OIR with closer relevancy which is cited in the paper (Aboelmaged, 2018).

    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?: More details about the experimental procedures can be given. What is the order of the three tests? Does the order of the three tests affect the results? How do the authors guarantee the reliability and validity of the three tests? The reliability and validity results of the tests are not given in the manuscript. The most analysis done in the manuscript is descriptive analysis, which can hardly support the research conclusions of this paper.
    → Details of the experiment procedure are added to the Materials and Methods section, including the order of tests.
    → The discussion on the sample size and the design of eye-tracking session is added to the Materials and Methods section to provide explanation on reliability and validity.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results are not presented clearly. The author should highlight important research results. Maybe some sentences that summarize the results can help improve readability.
    → Thank you for your suggestion. The summary of the findings is provided mainly with Figures 3 and 4. To clearly deliver the findings, we added key findings in the Discussion section along with Figures 3 and 4.

    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?: Limited previous work is discussed in the conclusion. The authors may discuss the research findings following the research questions proposed in the section of objective. Nevertheless, due to the lack of the literature review section, it is difficult to compare and discuss research conclusions with existing research.
    → The Discussion section includes some relevant literature. For the first three paragraphs of the Discussion does not include literature along with the discussion made, because the findings discussed in those paragraphs are unique to this study.
    → The literature review is updated with extensive literature in the Conceptual Framework section, and we hope this will provide connections to the previous literature from our findings.

    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?: There are only two sentences to describe the contribution and limitations of this research. The paper has not identified the implications for research, practice and/or society clearly.
    → The implications and limitations of the study are elaborated further in the Conclusion section.

    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.: Quality of communication should be further improved.
    → We edited the paper carefully to ensure the flow of the discussion is easier for the readers. The writing is also checked more carefully for a better readability.

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    You have to clearly indicate and justify the limited number of respondents in the field experiment and compensation gift voucher received!
    → A discussion of the sample size is included in the Materials and Methods section to justify the number of participants in this study.
    → The compensation along with other human subject related issues were reviewed and discussed with the IRB. We indicated the approval by the IRB in the paper (Materials and Methods section).

    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 manuscript is interesting and respond to the expanding role of social media and their importance in daily life.

    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?: Yes, everything is correct.

    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 methodology is innovative, interesting and relevant to the study aim. The methodology section clearly present the field work and fully explained.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The main limitation of the study is limited number of respondents - only 49 and I'm worry about participants' compensation to take part in the study - is this acceptable from ethycal point?!
    → In the Materials and Methods section, we discussed typically recommend sample size for an eye-tracking studies and compared it with our sample size to justify the number of participants.

    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?: No comments - acceptable!

    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?: Yes.

    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 - the paper is with very good quality and the language does not need any corrections and improvements.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/08/01

    &PHPSESSID01-Aug-2020;

    Dear Dr. Yoon,

    Manuscript ID OIR-05-2020-0177 entitled "Investigation on Reading Behaviors and Cognitive Outcomes of Facebook Health Information" 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 different opinions on the manuscript. Reviewer 1 holds that the article requires more work while Reviewer 2 is satisfied with the quality. Taking into account their comments, we have decided to ask you to undertake a major revision and resubmit the article for a second round of reviews.

    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,

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

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

    Recommendation: Reject

    Comments:
    The paper analyzed users’ gaze movement data and results of recall and recognition tests to investigate users’ reading patterns and their consequences with cognitive outcomes. The topic is of interest and the paper is organised in a logical way. I have several comments for this manuscript, which may help the authors to improve this study.

    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 analyzed users’ gaze movement data and results of recall and recognition tests to investigate users’ reading patterns and their consequences with cognitive outcomes. The topic is of interest and the paper is organised in a logical way. I have several comments for this manuscript, which may help the authors to improve their study.
    It is better to find related theory to support this study. The authors indicate that “ This study aims to understand how college students’ personal and health-related characteristics are related to their reading behaviors and cognitive outcomes of Facebook health information, and what factors health professionals need to consider in disseminating health information using Facebook effectively.” Such research purposes are not reflected in the title.

    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 demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field. The authors did not conduct a systematic literature review. Only limited literature review is conducted in introduction. Due to the incomplete literature review, the research gaps proposed by the authors are unconvincing. Some of the important references are missing. For instance, in the introduction, “ Social media has become one of the main health information distribution channels that can provide real-time information in a cost-effective way for the public.” The authors should give the reference. Some data may better support the authors’ arguments. “Authorized health-related organizations.” The author may give specific definition of authorized health-related organizations. What is authorized health-related organizations? Is Facebook authorized health-related organizations? There are many other similar expressions in the manuscript, which needs further improvement.
    Relevant material published in Online Information Review has not been cited. For example, Yi, Y. J. (2018). Sexual health information-seeking behavior on a social media site: predictors of best answer selection. Online Information Review, 42( 6 ): ‏ 880-897.
    Ahadzadeh, A. S., Sharif, S. P., & Ong, F. S. (2018). Online health information seeking among women: the moderating role of health consciousness. Online Information Review, 42(1 ): ‏ 58-72.

    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?: More details about the experimental procedures can be given. What is the order of the three tests? Does the order of the three tests affect the results? How do the authors guarantee the reliability and validity of the three tests? The reliability and validity results of the tests are not given in the manuscript. The most analysis done in the manuscript is descriptive analysis, which can hardly support the research conclusions of this paper.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results are not presented clearly. The author should highlight important research results. Maybe some sentences that summarize the results can help improve readability.

    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?: Limited previous work is discussed in the conclusion. The authors may discuss the research findings following the research questions proposed in the section of objective. Nevertheless, due to the lack of the literature review section, it is difficult to compare and discuss research conclusions with existing research.

    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?: There are only two sentences to describe the contribution and limitations of this research. The paper has not identified the implications for research, practice and/or society clearly.

    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.: Quality of communication should be further improved.

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    You have to clearly indicate and justify the limited number of respondents in the field experiment and compensation gift voucher received!

    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 manuscript is interesting and respond to the expanding role of social media and their importance in daily life.

    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?: Yes, everything is correct.

    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 methodology is innovative, interesting and relevant to the study aim. The methodology section clearly present the field work and fully explained.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The main limitation of the study is limited number of respondents - only 49 and I'm worry about participants' compensation to take part in the study - is this acceptable from ethycal point?!

    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?: No comments - acceptable!

    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?: Yes.

    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 - the paper is with very good quality and the language does not need any corrections and improvements.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/07/27

    You have to clearly indicate and justify the limited number of respondents in the field experiment and compensation gift voucher received!

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/07/25

    The paper analyzed users’ gaze movement data and results of recall and recognition tests to investigate users’ reading patterns and their consequences with cognitive outcomes. The topic is of interest and the paper is organised in a logical way. I have several comments for this manuscript, which may help the authors to improve this study.

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