Abstract

PurposeIn this study, specific measures adopted by the social media platforms in China supporting personal information management are investigated via surveys targeting such platforms. The purpose of this paper is to find out how social media platforms understand information management, and from which aspects and through what specific methods they provide support for information management, which contributes to understanding the issues and strategies associated with personal information management on social media.Design/methodology/approachThe dimensions and specific contents of the current platform support provided for information management are clearly defined by performing qualitative text analysis based on the content obtained from 11 platform policies published by five representative Chinese social media platforms.FindingsHow social media platforms support personal information management on creation, collection, utilisation, sharing, storage, protection, removal and modification is identified. By analysing the status quo of support provided by the Chinese social media platform, some issues are proposed for discussion. Improved normative management is required to address the coexistence of multivalued information and management risks. However, the user rights are limited because the platform policies tend to be more focused on the perspective of the social media platform. Furthermore, the platform policy contents regarding information management are incomplete, and the applicability of these policies should be improved.Originality/valueThis study seeks to contribute to personal information management on social media from the perspective of platform support. The perspective from the platforms as the service providers supporting information management also helps identify information management challenges and potential strategies. Furthermore, combining with the personal information management perspective, this study provides a background understanding of information management under a social collaborative framework for platforms, authorities, users and memory institutions.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-06-2020-0249


Authors

Zhou, Wenhong;  Dai, Linxu;  Zhang, Yujie;  Wen, Chuanling

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

Contributors on Publons
  • 2 reviewers
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2021/04/15

    15-Apr-2021

    Dear 周, 文泓; Dai, Linxu; Zhang, Yujie; Wen, Chuanling

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-06-2020-0249.R4, entitled "Personal information management on social media from the perspective of platform support: a text analysis based on Chinese social media platform policy" 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
    2021/04/10

    The paper is very interesting, and comments have been handled satisfactory.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2021/02/23

    NO.1
    - Comments: The findings are based on the consideration of practical management. The qualitative text analysis method used in this paper is a mature and systematic method. This paper did not make significant theoretical or methodological contributions.
    It is worth noting that recent research has rarely only use qualitative text analysis as the main research method of a research project. Most recent studies proposed theoretical concepts and models based on the qualitative text analysis. The contribution of this study would be better If the author discuss relevant theoretical construction.
    - Revisions: More theoretical contribution is discussed and practical implication is revised:
    5.2 Implications for research
    To sum up, this study has two significant theoretical contributions. First, it strengthens our understanding of the relationship between social media platforms and information management. This research presents the support of platforms by categorising policy content according to different information management activities, which helps to identify what platforms could do for users. Second, from our knowledge, this study may be the one of rare investigations for discussing how social media platforms’ policy could support information management. This would be significant because the investigation results and discussion suggest a potential direction for future research in which different platforms are investigated to explore the problem and strategy of better support of social media platforms’ policy for information management.
    5.3 Implications for practice
    Our findings provide several practical implications for platforms and other stakeholders. The survey of the policies of Chinese social media platforms indicates that the platform policies play an important role in clarifying users’ rights and responsibilities with respect to personal information management. This study can be supportive for establishing collaboration between platforms and other stakeholders so that platforms could take the initiative to obtain the demands, professional methods and requirements related to information management from various bodies, including users, authorities, and memory institutions.
    First, the necessity and strategy to integrate user requirements into platform policies is confirmed by revealing limited user-oriented service in platforms’ policy, which means platform should provide more channels to collect feedback of uses (Good, 2013). The platforms also need to do a better job in predicting the information management needs by collecting and analysing user behaviour (Sinn et al., 2017). Second, authorities provide a more complete legal basis for social media platforms by defining rights and obligations from a holistic and collaborative perspective (Hockx-Yu, 2014; Acker and Brubaker, 2014). Third, memory institutions should be able to design specific rules on personal information management and provide guidance and advice from a professional perspective (Kovari et al., 2016). Also, the education function of memory institutions could be strengthened to help guide and train information management stakeholders (Acker and Brubaker, 2014; Mannheimer and Hull, 2017).

    NO.2
    - Comments: It would be great to summarise the research limitations of previous research and cite relevant literature.
    - Revisions: We cite more relevant literature to summarise the research limitations: “Secondly, practical situation is insufficiently investigated, which means how social media platforms perceive personal information management needs more practical analysis (Dai et al., 2014). Social media platforms, such as Weibo and WeChat, which are mainstream applications in China and have a large number of users, have not yet been adequately studied (Yuan and Liu, 2017) . Thirdly, studies lack more discussion about strategy or specific issues of platforms’ support for personal information management (Fondren and McCune, 2018). For example, what platforms’ information management policy could be in a collaborative framework needs more description like what assistance other stakeholders could offer to platforms (Marshall and Shipman, 2011; Hockx-Yu, 2014).”

    NO.3
    - Comments: The second is support could be the platforms’ policies specific to information management and functions following the policies. Please clarify the second conclusion from literature review.
    - Revisions: We clarify the second conclusion by citing literature in 2.3.

    NO.4
    - Comments: The author cited too many books (or online reports) in the references, and might neglect some journal paper of the theoretical research of social media information management policy.
    - Revisions: We checked the references, and have added appropriate journal papers to replace books or online reports in the references. The papers added are: 1. Yuan, L. and Liu, W. (2017), "The influence of contextual support on persistent sharing willingness of QQ group members: Mediating effect of autonomous motivations", Online Information Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0009
    2. Ha, T., Han, S., Lee, S. and Kim, J.H. (2017), "Reciprocal nature of social capital in Facebook: an analysis of tagging activity", Online Information Review, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 826-839. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0042
    3. Dai, M., He, W., Tian, X., Giraldi, A. and Gu, F. (2017), "Working with communities on social media: Varieties in the use of Facebook and Twitter by local police", Online Information Review, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 782-796. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0002
    4. Ha, T., Han, S., Lee, S. and Kim, J.H. (2017), "Reciprocal nature of social capital in Facebook: an analysis of tagging activity", Online Information Review, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 826-839. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0042

    NO.5
    - Comments: The reference format needs to be checked again. e.g.,
    “Li, H., Zhu, H., Du, S., Liang, X. and Shen, X. (2018b), “Privacy Leakage of Location Sharing in Mobile Social Networks: Attacks and Defense”, IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 646–660. ”
    “Li, X., Cox, A. and Wang, Z. (2018a), “How do social network sites support product users’ knowledge construction? A study of LinkedIn”, Online Information Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 304–323.” Why (2018b) and (2018a)? Are these mistakes?
    - Revisions: We checked the format and revised the mistakes.

    NO.6
    - Comments: 1.The qualitative text analysis process in this paper is reasonable. It would be better to adopt the way of team coding or cross team coding, and used specialised text analysis program (e.g., NVivo, Folio Views). This can help to improve the accuracy and robustness of the coding results.
    2.The methodology is described in limited detail. It would be better to describe the coding process combined with the actual operation of this study, rather than how to analyse the qualitative text.
    3.I think it is necessary to add the references of related operation methods for the coding. Very little information is presented here.
    - Revisions: 1. We have made cross-checking between two researchers, and we explain it in the revision. As for use of specialised text analysis program, this insightful suggestion will help our future research.
    2. We add the explanation of coding process with reference to research of personal information management: During the categorising process, research of personal information management are taken for reference while personal information management is defined as the practice and study of the activities a person performs in order to locate or create, store, organise, maintain, modify, retrieve, use and distribute information in each of its many forms as needed to meet life's many goals and to fulfil life's many roles and responsibilities.
    3. References of related operation methods for the coding are added.

    NO.7
    - Comments: However, this paper lacks enough tables or pictures to describe the results. It would be better to increase the readability of the coding results and express/articulate the results in flexible forms.
    - Revisions: We add the form to present overall results.

    NO.8
    - Comments: Sweeping statements are made in the discussion without attention paid to the context of the sample. This is problematic for two reasons. First, we do not know whether these results hold for the general social media platform. Second, the results might not have enough practical implications in that whether the findings can contribute to the practice of social media platforms in other countries or other cultural contexts is not discussed.
    - Revisions: 1. In the part of methodology, about the selection of the social media platforms, we have explained that a pre-investigation has been conducted on 30 platforms and similarities of platform policy across different platforms were identified, sample size was limited to 5 platforms for more in-depth text analysis. Then, these results could hold for the general social media platform in China.
    2. We describe more Chinese context in discussion part to help strengthen the understanding of results .
    3. The suggestion about more discussion of whether the findings can contribute to the practice of social media platforms in other countries or other cultural contexts is insightful. However, it requires more investigation beyond the research scope of the paper since it has not been presented in exiting studies. Then, it is added as future research content.

    NO.9
    - Comments: The relationship between the findings of this study and previous studies is not clear. The author did not cite the previous literature on the summary of personal information management policy. Although the author pointed out the limitations of previous studies, the argument rarely cited previous studies and lack sufficient evidence.
    The theoretical bases of these findings are quite few, they are not closely related to the previous research work, which leading to sweeping findings
    - Revisions: 1. We cite more previous literature in our discussion.
    2. We also revise the content to better match previous research work.

    NO.10
    - Comments: 1.This paper pointed out three research implications, which are all about the practical implications. This study is based on the qualitative analysis of policy texts, so it is difficult to find the theoretical contribution of this study.
    2.Through the summary of the personal information management policies of five social media platform in China, this study pointed out that the personal information management can be improved in the future. However, it is worth noting that there are few differences between "5.2 Implication for research" and "5.3 Implication for practice" at the end of the paper. The two sections describe similar contents. Research implications generally includes two parts: theoretical implications and practical implications.
    - Revisions: More theoretical contribution is discussed and practical implication is revised:
    5.2 Implications for research
    To sum up, this study has two significant theoretical contributions. First, it strengthens our understanding of the relationship between social media platforms and information management. This research presents the support of platforms by categorising policy content according to different information management activities, which helps to identify what platforms could do for users. Second, from our knowledge, this study may be the one of rare investigations for discussing how social media platforms’ policy could support information management. This would be significant because the investigation results and discussion suggest a potential direction for future research in which different platforms are investigated to explore the problem and strategy of better support of social media platforms’ policy for information management.
    5.3 Implications for practice
    Our findings provide several practical implications for platforms and other stakeholders. The survey of the policies of Chinese social media platforms indicates that the platform policies play an important role in clarifying users’ rights and responsibilities with respect to personal information management. This study can be supportive for establishing collaboration between platforms and other stakeholders so that platforms could take the initiative to obtain the demands, professional methods and requirements related to information management from various bodies, including users, authorities, and memory institutions.
    First, the necessity and strategy to integrate user requirements into platform policies is confirmed by revealing limited user-oriented service in platforms’ policy, which means platform should provide more channels to collect feedback of uses (Good, 2013). The platforms also need to do a better job in predicting the information management needs by collecting and analysing user behaviour (Sinn et al., 2017). Second, authorities provide a more complete legal basis for social media platforms by defining rights and obligations from a holistic and collaborative perspective (Hockx-Yu, 2014; Acker and Brubaker, 2014). Third, memory institutions should be able to design specific rules on personal information management and provide guidance and advice from a professional perspective (Kovari et al., 2016). Also, the education function of memory institutions could be strengthened to help guide and train information management stakeholders (Acker and Brubaker, 2014; Mannheimer and Hull, 2017).

    NO.11
    - Comments: In addition, in the Abstract part, "status quo" and "China" are not appropriate keywords.
    - Revisions: Keywords are revised as :Social media, personal information management, platform policies, text analysis, Chinese social media platform

    NO.12
    - Comments: The author used “perceive” four times in this paper, for example, in Abstract, “The purpose of this paper is to find out how social media platforms perceive information itself”. Is it appropriate to use the word "perceive"? What is the meaning of “platforms perceive information itself”? It is unclear.
    - Revisions: We replace “perceive” with “understand”.

    NO.13
    - Comments: 1.In general, the quality of the communication within this paper is high. However, author used too many long sentences, some of them are confusing. For example, “To answer the research question what support should be provided by the social media platforms to users for personal information management, this study tackles the issue from the perspective of platform policy, including how social media platforms perceive information itself and achieve information management and from which aspects and through what specific methods they provide support for information management.”(Page 5), “Therefore, users are often unable to know how, when, and where their personal information will be provided, posing a major risk to users, especially in terms of information sharing” (Page 13) , etc.
    2.Too many "and", and "on the one hand, … on the other hand" were used, such as Page 4, Page 13, Page 15, Page 16.
    3.Long sentences, e.g., "5.1.1 More active management is required to address the coexistence of multivalued information and management challenges", are not recommended for section titles. It is better to keep the title short.
    4.The author mentioned "Table 1" in Page 5 and Page 2 but did not show exactly where the table was. Tables and figures in this paper should directed by
    5.Page 14 “… even though China is working on improving its current 1 ”, what does the 1 mean?
    6.“In addition” is used in the first sentence of "5.4 Limitations and future research" in Page 16, but nothing relevant were described before "In addition".
    - Revisions: Proofreading has been made:
    1. Some long sentences are revised as short sentences.
    2. Some sentences with “and”, “on the one hand, …on the other hand” are revised.
    3. Section titles are revised as short ones.
    4. Since tables are uploaded separately from text, it appears in the end. We mention that in the revision.
    5. “1” is the mistake, we delete it.
    6. “in addition” is deleted.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 4)
    Decision Letter
    2021/02/05

    05-Feb-2021

    Dear Miss Wen,

    Manuscript ID OIR-06-2020-0249.R3 entitled "Personal information management on social media from the perspective of platform support: a text analysis based on Chinese social media platform policy" 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.

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

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

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    The topic of the paper is in line with the aim of Online Information Review. While there are issues with the methodology and the over-reporting of results, this paper does offer a valuable perspective and explores some interesting problems.
    Based on the comments above, the paper has to be improved a lot.

    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?: 1. This paper used qualitative text analysis to retrieve and summarise the personal information management policies of five social media platforms in China, the findings have several practical implications.
    2. The findings are based on the consideration of practical management. The qualitative text analysis method used in this paper is a mature and systematic method. This paper did not make significant theoretical or methodological contributions.
    3. It is worth noting that recent research has rarely only use qualitative text analysis as the main research method of a research project. Most recent studies proposed theoretical concepts and models based on the qualitative text analysis. The contribution of this study would be better If the author discuss relevant theoretical construction.

    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 literature review is focused and properly structured, although the variety of references used are limited. Here are some suggestions.
    1. The author pointed out the limitations of previous research in the section “1 introduction” (Page 2), but the statement about limitations only cited two references, “(Determann, 2012)” and “Terras, (2012)”, and other research limitations are not discussed from the previous literature, i.e., “Secondly, practical situation is insufficiently investigated, which means how social media platforms perceive personal information management needs more practical analysis. Social media platforms, such as Weibo and WeChat, which are mainstream applications in China and have a large number of users, have not yet been adequately studied. Thirdly, studies lack more discussion about strategy or specific issues of platforms’ support for personal information management. For example, what platforms’ information management policy could be in a collaborative framework needs more description like what assistance other stakeholders could offer to platforms”. A greater range of publications could be drawn upon. It would be great to summarise the research limitations of previous research and cite relevant literature.
    2. Each part of the literature review has its own theme, which is good, i.e., “2.1 Social media platforms in personal information management”, “2.2 Necessity to provide support for personal information management”, “2.3 Problems and corresponding strategies to provide support for information management”. However, in the last paragraph (Page 5), the author pointed out that two conclusions can be drawn from the literature review, i.e., “The first is that social media platforms should provide information management support; the second is support could be the platforms’ policies specific to information management and functions following the policies.” The first conclusion can correspond to the second part of the literature review “2.2 Necessity to provide support for personal information management”, but it is difficult to spot the corresponding references contents in literature review for the second conclusion. Please clarify the second conclusion from literature review.
    3. The author cited too many books (or online reports) in the references, and might neglect some journal paper of the theoretical research of social media information management policy.
    4. The reference format needs to be checked again. e.g.,
    “Li, H., Zhu, H., Du, S., Liang, X. and Shen, X. (2018b), “Privacy Leakage of Location Sharing in Mobile Social Networks: Attacks and Defense”, IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 646–660. ”
    “Li, X., Cox, A. and Wang, Z. (2018a), “How do social network sites support product users’ knowledge construction? A study of LinkedIn”, Online Information Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 304–323.” Why (2018b) and (2018a)? Are these mistakes?
    5. Overall, the arguments supporting the research aims need more focus and better integration of the literature.

    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?: 1. This paper adopted the method of qualitative text analysis. Specifically, the author discussed the existing policy of personal information management. The argument of the paper is based on the policy text rather than theoretical literature.
    2. The qualitative text analysis process in this paper is reasonable. It would be better to adopt the way of team coding or cross team coding, and used specialised text analysis program (e.g., NVivo, Folio Views). This can help to improve the accuracy and robustness of the coding results.
    3. The methodology is described in limited detail. It would be better to describe the coding process combined with the actual operation of this study, rather than how to analyse the qualitative text.
    4. I think it is necessary to add the references of related operation methods for the coding. Very little information is presented here.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: 1. The results of this paper are the coding contents. The author used the form of text to show the results. However, this paper lacks enough tables or pictures to describe the results. It would be better to increase the readability of the coding results and express/articulate the results in flexible forms.
    2. Sweeping statements are made in the discussion without attention paid to the context of the sample. This is problematic for two reasons. First, we do not know whether these results hold for the general social media platform. Second, the results might not have enough practical implications in that whether the findings can contribute to the practice of social media platforms in other countries or other cultural contexts is not discussed.

    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?: 1. The relationship between the findings of this study and previous studies is not clear. The author did not cite the previous literature on the summary of personal information management policy. Although the author pointed out the limitations of previous studies, the argument rarely cited previous studies and lack sufficient evidence.
    2. The author pointed out three findings, i.e., " 5.1.1 More active management is required to address the coexistence of multivalued information and management challenges", “5.1.2 More control of information management is empowered to platforms rather than individual users”, “5.1.3 Policies lack professional information management design”. The theoretical bases of these findings are quite few, they are not closely related to the previous research work, which leading to sweeping findings, e.g., "5.1.3 Policies lack professional information management design".

    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?: 1. This paper pointed out three research implications, which are all about the practical implications. This study is based on the qualitative analysis of policy texts, so it is difficult to find the theoretical contribution of this study.
    2. Through the summary of the personal information management policies of five social media platform in China, this study pointed out that the personal information management can be improved in the future. However, it is worth noting that there are few differences between "5.2 Implication for research" and "5.3 Implication for practice" at the end of the paper. The two sections describe similar contents. Research implications generally includes two parts: theoretical implications and practical implications.
    3. In addition, in the Abstract part, "status quo" and "China" are not appropriate keywords.
    4. The author used “perceive” four times in this paper, for example, in Abstract, “The purpose of this paper is to find out how social media platforms perceive information itself”. Is it appropriate to use the word "perceive"? What is the meaning of “platforms perceive information itself”? It is unclear.

    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.: 1. In general, the quality of the communication within this paper is high. However, author used too many long sentences, some of them are confusing. For example, “To answer the research question what support should be provided by the social media platforms to users for personal information management, this study tackles the issue from the perspective of platform policy, including how social media platforms perceive information itself and achieve information management and from which aspects and through what specific methods they provide support for information management.”(Page 5), “Therefore, users are often unable to know how, when, and where their personal information will be provided, posing a major risk to users, especially in terms of information sharing” (Page 13) , etc.
    2. Too many "and", and "on the one hand, … on the other hand" were used, such as Page 4, Page 13, Page 15, Page 16.
    3. Long sentences, e.g., "5.1.1 More active management is required to address the coexistence of multivalued information and management challenges", are not recommended for section titles. It is better to keep the title short.
    4. The author mentioned "Table 1" in Page 5 and Page 2 but did not show exactly where the table was. Tables and figures in this paper should directed by
    5. Page 14 “… even though China is working on improving its current 1 ”, what does the 1 mean?
    6. “In addition” is used in the first sentence of "5.4 Limitations and future research" in Page 16, but nothing relevant were described before "In addition".

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: The author did not provide the original policy document. Moreover, the description of the coding process is too simple, without a detailed description of the coding process. The feasibility of research reproduction may be poor.

    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:
    The paper is very interesting and it appears that you have put much effort into the analysis of these policy.

    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 very interesting. The policies of several platforms are summarized systematically, which has a certain reference value for the development of future practice.

    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, this research cites adequate literature.

    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 is appropriate.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Fine, the sorting and classification of policies are very orderly, and the results are relatively clear.

    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?: I found the discussion of findings suitable to conclusions brought forward in this paper.

    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?: With certain points, the research clearly presents the implications for practice.

    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.: Fine.

    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.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/01/30

    The paper is very interesting and it appears that you have put much effort into the analysis of these policy.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2021/01/26

    The topic of the paper is in line with the aim of Online Information Review. While there are issues with the methodology and the over-reporting of results, this paper does offer a valuable perspective and explores some interesting problems.
    Based on the comments above, the paper has to be improved a lot.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/12/24

    No.1
    -Comments: Please under the discussion, could the authors put the subtitles which are practical, theoretical, and future research and future directions.
    -Revisions: We have integrated part of discussion and conclusion as one part, and the content has been revised according to requirements of different parts. Then, part 5.1 as summary of findings presents analysis of key issues from results; part 5.2 as theoretical implications presents research question proposition of personal information management in the context of social media;part 5.3 presents practical implications for platforms and other stakeholders; part 5.4 presents limitation and future directions.
    No.2
    -Comments: There are still problems under the reference part.
    -Revisions: All references have been checked.
    No.3
    -Comments: There are still many grammatical mistakes in the manuscript For example; p. 16 - between line 54-line 58 there are some. The authors write "pratical", instead of practical. p. 15 line 19-line 32, there are some, too. Please fix them before the publication.
    -Revisions: Proof-reading has been made.
    No.4
    -Comments: References in the text have also some problems too for ex; Li, Zhu, et al., 2018.
    -Revisions: All references have been checked.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 3)
    Decision Letter
    2020/12/21

    21-Dec-2020

    Dear Miss Wen,

    Manuscript ID OIR-06-2020-0249.R2 entitled "Personal information management on social media from the perspective of platform support: a text analysis based on Chinese social media platform policy" 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.

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

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

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:

    Thank you for giving me a chance to re-read the manuscript. However, I want to highlight some points again that I already pointed out.
    First, please under the discussion, could the authors put the subtitles which are practical, theoretical, and future research and future directions. The authors can look at other manuscripts that already published in Online Information Review.
    Secondly, there are still problems under the reference part.
    Thirdly, there are still many grammatical mistakes in the manuscript For example; p. 16 - between line 54-line 58 there are some. The authors write "pratical", instead of practical. p. 15 line 19-line 32, there are some, too. Please fix them before the publication.
    Lastly, references in the text have also some problems too for ex; Li, Zhu, et al., 2018

    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.: The paper still some grammar mistakes.

    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.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/22

    Thank you for giving me a chance to re-read the manuscript. However, I want to highlight some points again that I already pointed out.
    First, please under the discussion, could the authors put the subtitles which are practical, theoretical, and future research and future directions. The authors can look at other manuscripts that already published in Online Information Review.
    Secondly, there are still problems under the reference part.
    Thirdly, there are still many grammatical mistakes in the manuscript For example; p. 16 - between line 54-line 58 there are some. The authors write "pratical", instead of practical. p. 15 line 19-line 32, there are some, too. Please fix them before the publication.
    Lastly, references in the text have also some problems too for ex; Li, Zhu, et al., 2018

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/10/20

    No.1
    -Comments: please give more explanation about how to conduct qualitative analysis. It looks okay but the authors did not mention the software that you used for qualitative analysis. It would be useful for readers if they mention. Even they do not use any software, please clarify that part.
    -Revisions: The clarification that qualitative analysis is conducted manually is made in the beginning (paragraph 2) of the part “Research Questions and Methodology”.
    No.2
    -Comments: In the discussion and conclusion part, please seperate the titles; practical implications, theoretical implications and future research and limitations. Revisit the Discussion and Conclusions sections one more time to better answer the "So What" question. This part is still messy. This part has strengthened, but please seperate them as theoretical and managerial implications.
    -Revisions: Firstly, the key part of the paper is presenting investigation results and proposing and discussing identified issues from qualitative text analysis results in the part of discussion. Then presenting identified issues and related practical implications is underlined in the beginning of discussion part, and main content remains unchanged.
    Secondly, since the research topic is more practical than theoretical, the clarification that strategies proposed based on discussion of identified issues provides space as practical implications for exploring better platform support and research question proposition of personal information management in the context of social media as theoretical implications is made. Further, the conclusion that more theoretical analysis and building should be conducted for theory implications of personal social media information management is proposed as limitation and future research in the end.
    Thirdly, to make clear the boundary among practical implications, theoretical implications and future research and limitations, more clarified statement is made in discussion and conclusion part.
    No.3
    -Comments: Cross check all references within text with your reference list and make sure that all references used in within text are listed in your reference list and remove any uncited reference from the reference list.
    -Revisions: All references have been checked.
    No.4
    -Comments: Proof-reading is neccessary.
    -Revisions: Proof-reading has been made.
    No.5
    -Comments: There are some question marks in the text. Why are they over there? For instance page 13 line 57. There is no question over there.
    -Revisions: These mistakes have been checked and corrected.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2020/10/19

    19-Oct-2020

    Dear Miss Wen,

    Manuscript ID OIR-06-2020-0249.R1 entitled "Personal information management on social media from the perspective of platform support: a text analysis based on Chinese social media platform policy" 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 there are still some minor revisions that we would suggest 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.

    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    Co-Editor
    kalpana.shankar@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

    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.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    Thank-you for the opportunity to read the updated version of your work. It is good to see you make adjustments corresponding to my and other reviewers’ comments.
    But, I have a few concerns;

    -There are some question marks in the text. Why are they over there? For instance page 13 line 57. There is no question over there.

    -Cross check all references within text with your reference list and make sure that all references used in within text are listed in your reference list and remove any uncited reference from the reference list.

    -In the methodology part, please give more explanation about how to conduct qualitative analysis.

    -In the discussion and conclusion part, please seperate the titles; practical implications, theoretical implications and future research and limitations.

    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. Very well explained in terms of the importance 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?: After some improvements, it looks okay now.

    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?: It looks okay but the authors did not mention the software that you used for qualitative analysis. It would be useful for readers if they mention. Even they do not use any software, please clarify that part.

    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?: Revisit the Discussion and Conclusions sections one more time to better answer the "So What" question. This part is still messy.

    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?: This part has strentgthed, but please seperate them as theoretical and managerial implications.

    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.: Proof-reading is neccessary.

    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.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/10/15

    Thank-you for the opportunity to read the updated version of your work. It is good to see you make adjustments corresponding to my and other reviewers’ comments.
    But, I have a few concerns;

    -There are some question marks in the text. Why are they over there? For instance page 13 line 57. There is no question over there.

    -Cross check all references within text with your reference list and make sure that all references used in within text are listed in your reference list and remove any uncited reference from the reference list.

    -In the methodology part, please give more explanation about how to conduct qualitative analysis.

    -In the discussion and conclusion part, please seperate the titles; practical implications, theoretical implications and future research and limitations.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/09/26

    accept

    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/09/03

    -Comments 1:
    I suggest the authors clearly addressed that why he/she carried out this study? The gap should be addressed in introduction. However, the authors refer to the gap, but more information is needed.
    Revisions:
    On the one hand, paragraph 1 and 2 is amended to provide more specific practical and theoretical background. On the other hand, more information is added to describe the gap from three aspects: The first is about current theoretical understanding and analysis between social media platforms and personal information management limiting the systematic design of platform’s support for information management). The second is insufficient investigation of practical situation in studies. The third is the lack of discussion about strategy or specific issues of platforms’ support for personal information management.
    -Comments 2:
    The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be addressed. Also, the sample size and sample size method should be addressed clearly in Methods section. More explanation regarding selection of WeChat as social media in this study is required. Why facebook, telegram and other social medial not selected?
    Revisions:
    Information of sample selection is added as: One is that the investigation into China means social media platforms should be widely used by Chinese users, especially those in mainland. Then popular platforms like Facebook, Twitter which have not entered Chinese mainland market are excluded. The other is about sample size. Since a pre-investigation has been conducted on 30 platforms and similarities of platform policy across different platforms were identified, sample size was limited to 5 platforms for more in-depth text analysis.
    -Comments 3:
    I suggest the manuscript could be improved significantly by more description of findings and cite to more document in each specific section.
    Revisions:
    In the part of discussion and conclusion, more analysis is conducted between investigation results, existing studies, and its implications. For example, in discussion about more control of information management is empowered to platforms rather than individual users, challenges resulted from blurring boundaries regarding personal information management among users, platforms, and other third-party stakeholders proposed in the studies are further analysed.
    -Comments 4:
    The contribution of knowledge is not clear, very well. The author should identify the lessons that we can learn from his/her study. Is the contribution of this results just for social medial designers? How policy makers and manager can applied this findings?
    Revisions:
    On the one hand, the collaboration in personal social media information management e from the perspective of platform is strengthened from the introduction to conclusion. On the other hand, more discussion and proposition for better platforms’ policies to support personal information management by applying findings to both platforms and other stakeholders like authorities, users, and memory institutions in part of discussion and conclusion. For example, in the part of conclusion, more content is added for how user requirements can be integrated into the platform information management policies.
    -Comments 5:
    The introduction should also briefly present the research method and sample, as well as the key findings from the study. Overall, the introduction section is extremely weak and it requires a complete rewriting. It is not clear the gap in the literature.
    Revisions:
    Firstly,paragraph 1 and 2 is amended to provide more specific practical and theoretical background.
    Secondly, more information is added to describe the gap from three aspects: The first is about current theoretical understanding and analysis between social media platforms and personal information management limiting the systematic design of platform’s support for information management). The second is insufficient investigation of practical situation in studies. The third is the lack of discussion about strategy or specific issues of platforms’ support for personal information management.
    Finally, information is added for the research question, method, sample, and expected findings are presented.
    -Comments 6:
    Please strengthen the literature review part. This part needs improvement. You can add the manuscripts from Online Information Review. I would also recommend including some recent studies from the year 2020. Further, the literature review is not logically arranged.
    Revisions:
    The literature review is rearranged and complemented into three parts to offer more solid analysis reference: The first is added as “Social media platforms in personal information management” to provide theoretical foundation. The second is to describe necessity to provide support for personal information management. The third is about problems and corresponding strategies to provide support for information management, in which the collaborative personal social media management from the perspective of platform is complemented.
    Also, more studies are added with almost 20 articles.
    -Comments 7:
    the authors should support their methodological originality with the theoretical background.
    Revisions:
    By rearranging the literature review, both the part “Social media platforms in personal information management” and the collaborative personal social media management from the perspective of platform in the part “problems and corresponding strategies to provide support for information management” contributes to theoretical background, foundation, and framework.
    -Comments 8:
    The statement of the problem is not clear, please more clarified.
    Revisions:
    Firstly, in discussion, the third part and fourth part are combined as” Policies lack professional information management design”. Secondly, each problem is rewritten by explaining its content and adding analysis with current studies.
    -Comments 9:
    There is (almost) no discussion about the theories/concepts that this study investigated.
    Revisions:
    On the one hand, more information about is added to discuss the theories/concepts of personal social media information management, its relationship with platforms, and the analysis framework in the literature review.
    On the other hand, the analysis conducted between investigation results, existing studies, and its implications deepens the discussion about the theories/concept applied.
    -Comments 10:
    The discussion section is only a mere summary of the findings. This is not how a discussion section should be structured and written. Instead, the authors should have focused on discussing in depth how the results of the present study contribute to existing literature and why they are relevant. This is absolutely missing.
    Revisions:
    In the part of discussion and conclusion, more analysis is conducted between investigation results, existing studies, and its implications. For example, in discussion about more control of information management is empowered to platforms rather than individual users, challenges resulted from blurring boundaries regarding personal information management among users, platforms, and other third-party stakeholders proposed in the studies are further analyzed.
    -Comments 11:
    The paper is weak in its implications for practice although it does give direction for future research.
    Revisions:
    On the one hand, the collaboration in personal social media information management even from the perspective of platform is strengthened from the introduction to conclusion. On the other hand, more discussion and proposition for better platforms’ policies to support personal information management by applying findings to both platforms and other stakeholders like authorities, users, and memory institutions in part of discussion and conclusion. For example, in the part of conclusion, more content is added for how user requirements can be integrated into the information management rules.
    -Comments 12:
    Please check reference throughout the manuscript and correct them as per guidelines /in the text; et al should be italic.
    Revisions:
    All references have been checked.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/08/17

    &PHPSESSID17-Aug-2020;

    Dear Miss Wen,

    Manuscript ID OIR-06-2020-0249 entitled "Personal information management on social media from the perspective of platform support: a text analysis based on Chinese social media platform policy" 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.

    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:
    The manuscript presented a conceptual model concerning social media fatigue based on structural equation modeling. The manuscript’s aims are sound, and the structure of the study, somewhat, is appropriate. Also, the findings of the study are considerable.
    Nevertheless, I suggest the manuscript could be improved significantly by some revisions that are outlined below. I suggest the manuscript’s publications in your journal after the editors are satisfied the authors have made the suggested revisions. The suggested revisions (detailed below) include:
    - In Introduction section, I suggest the authors clearly addressed that why he/she carried out this study? The gap should be addressed in introduction. However, the authors refer to the gap, but more information is needed.
    - In the methods section, the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be addressed. Also, the sample size and sample size method should be addressed clearly in Methods section.
    - More explanation regarding selection of WeChat as social media in this study is required. Why face book, telegram and other social medial not selected?
    - I suggest the manuscript could be improved significantly by more description of findings and cite to more document in each specific section.
    - The contribution of knowledge is not clear, very well. The author should identify the lessons that we can learn from his/her study. Is the contribution of this results just for social medial designers? How policy makers and manager can applied this findings?

    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

    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.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the paper "Personal Information Management on social media from the perspective of platform support: a text analysis based on Chinese social media platform policy"
    -Please check reference throughout the manuscript and correct them as per guidelines /in the text; et al should be italic.
    -The introduction should also briefly present the research method and sample, as well as the key findings from the study. Overall, the introduction section is extremely weak and it requires a complete rewriting. It is not clear the gap in the literature.
    -The statement of the problem is not clear, please more clarified.
    -There is (almost) no discussion about the theories/concepts that this study investigated.
    -

    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 originality is more than average, but the authors should support their methodological originality with the theoretical background.

    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?: Please strengthen the literature review part.This part needs improvement. You can add the manuscripts from Online Information Review. I would also recommend including some recent studies from the year 2020.Furher, the literature review is not logically arranged. For instance;

    Zhou, T. (2020), "The effect of information privacy concern on users' social shopping intention", Online Information Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

    Yeh, C.-H., Wang, Y.-S., Lin, S.-J., Tseng, T.H., Lin, H.-H., Shih, Y.-W. and Lai, Y.-H. (2018), "What drives internet users’ willingness to provide personal information?", Online Information Review, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 923-939.

    Anic, I.-D., Budak, J., Rajh, E., Recher, V., Skare, V. and Skrinjaric, B. (2019), "Extended model of online privacy concern: what drives consumers’ decisions?", Online Information Review, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 799-817.

    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?: Even though the paper is not built on the robust theory, I would say that the methodology part is the best part of this paper.

    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?: The discussion section is only a mere summary of the findings. This is not how a discussion section should be structured and written. Instead, the authors should have focused on discussing in depth how the results of the present study contribute to existing literature and why they are relevant. This is absolutely missing.

    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 is weak in its implications for practice although it does give direction for future research.

    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.: Overall, the paper is very well-written.

    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.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/17

    Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the paper "Personal Information Management on social media from the perspective of platform support: a text analysis based on Chinese social media platform policy"
    -Please check reference throughout the manuscript and correct them as per guidelines /in the text; et al should be italic.
    -The introduction should also briefly present the research method and sample, as well as the key findings from the study. Overall, the introduction section is extremely weak and it requires a complete rewriting. It is not clear the gap in the literature.
    -The statement of the problem is not clear, please more clarified.
    -There is (almost) no discussion about the theories/concepts that this study investigated.
    -

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

    The manuscript presented a conceptual model concerning social media fatigue based on structural equation modeling. The manuscript’s aims are sound, and the structure of the study, somewhat, is appropriate. Also, the findings of the study are considerable.
    Nevertheless, I suggest the manuscript could be improved significantly by some revisions that are outlined below. I suggest the manuscript’s publications in your journal after the editors are satisfied the authors have made the suggested revisions. The suggested revisions (detailed below) include:
    - In Introduction section, I suggest the authors clearly addressed that why he/she carried out this study? The gap should be addressed in introduction. However, the authors refer to the gap, but more information is needed.
    - In the methods section, the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be addressed. Also, the sample size and sample size method should be addressed clearly in Methods section.
    - More explanation regarding selection of WeChat as social media in this study is required. Why face book, telegram and other social medial not selected?
    - I suggest the manuscript could be improved significantly by more description of findings and cite to more document in each specific section.
    - The contribution of knowledge is not clear, very well. The author should identify the lessons that we can learn from his/her study. Is the contribution of this results just for social medial designers? How policy makers and manager can applied this findings?

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