Abstract

Purpose - This study presents a situated and context-bound model of electronic media reports by exploring their detailed information practices within the workplace actions. It further investigates the information sources they usually consult for news or story-making process and barriers that hinder them to acquire required information.Design/methodology/approach - The data were collected through semistructured, face-to-face interviews of electronic media reporters from the top news channels of Pakistan. These reporters had international exposure while having 7-20 years of work experience with different news channels.Findings - In relation to information practices, the model also highlights the seven steps involved in news-making process of electronic media. Initially inspired from Mckenzie's (2003) model of information practice, which was developed within the everyday life context, this model attempts to see the information practices of electronic media reporters situated at their workplaces and might be seen as an extension of previous works.Originality/value - This study is a unique attempt to find patterns of information practices situated in their workplace actions. The results of this study would be helpful for librarians and information specialists, who are working in media house libraries for the planning and designing of library services.


Authors

Hussain, Tauseef;  Batool, Syeda Hina;  Malik, Amara;  Hussain, Syed Waqas;  Mahmood, Khalid

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
    2021/01/05

    05-Jan-2021

    Dear Hussain, Syed ; Batool, Syeda; Malik, Amara; Hussain, Syed; Mahmood, Khalid

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-07-2020-0308.R1, entitled "Information Sources, Practices and Barriers: A Situated and Context bound Model of Pakistani Electronic Media Reporters" 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
    2020/12/21

    The paper may be accepted for publication

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/12/07

    First of all, we would like to thanks editor and reviewers for valuable insights and feedback to improve the quality of the manuscript. We attempted to address all comments and suggestions as per our understanding (see highlighted text in red font), however, if reviewer want to add more guidance, we are ready to further improve the manuscript.
    1. The author needs to incorporate literature review section.
    Response: We added a comprehensive section of literature review after problem statement as highlighted by the respectable reviewer (see text in red font).

    1. Methodology is appropriate; however, insert citations and move remove questions to Methodology Section. And place aims & objectives in introduction And place aims & objectives in introduction
      Response: We moved research questions into ‘Introduction’ section as advised by the reviewer.

    2. Analysis needs to be more robust in relation the used theory
      Response: We attempted to add more robust by discussing theory in relation to study results in discussion section (See text in red font).

    3. I suggest to tighten the discussion by relating it to existing literature and used theory.
      Response: As advised, we added more studies in relation to existing literature and theory. We added following studies and discussed in discussion section:

    Aghili, O., & Sanderson, M. (2017), “Journalists' information needs, seeking behavior, and its determinants on social media”, ArXiv, abs/1705.08598.
    Chaudhry, A. S., & Al-Sagheer, L. (2011), "Information behavior of journalists: Analysis of critical incidents of information finding and use", The International Information & Library Review, Vol.43 No. 4, pp. 178-183.
    Corey, A.M. (2019). Introducing communication. In The Evolution of Human Communication: From Theory to Practice. Ontario: Teresa Pierce.
    Herring, J. E., Tarter, A., & Naylor, S. (2002). An evaluation of the use of the PLUS model to develop pupils’ information skills in a secondary school. School Libraries Worldwide, 8(1), 1–24.
    Kataria, S. (2017), "Information seeking behaviour of media professionals in Delhi-NCR: a study of various information sources used by the different types of media professionals", International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS), Vol. 7 No. 10.
    Laor, T., & Galily, Y. (2020), "Offline VS online: Attitude and behavior of journalists in social media era", Technology in Society, Vol.61, 101239.
    Millen, D. & Dray, S. (2000), "Information sharing in an online community of journalists", ASLIB Proceedings, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp.1217-1230.
    Poteet, A.R (2000). Newspaper journalist’s information seeking behaviour with online information sources [Unpublished MLISC Thesis]. University of North Carolina, Chapel hill.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/11/30

    &PHPSESSID30-Nov-2020;

    Dear Dr. Batool,

    Manuscript ID OIR-07-2020-0308 entitled "Information Sources, Practices and Barriers: A Situated and Context bound Model of Pakistani Electronic Media Reporters" 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,

    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

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

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    It is well-written and well-organized article, and I recommend it for publication after certain revisions.

    The author needs to incorporate literature review section.

    Methodology is appropriate; however, insert citations and move remove questions to Methodology Section. And place aims & objectives in introduction

    Analysis needs to be more robust in relation the used theory

    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?: The author needs to incorporate literature review section

    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 is appropriate; however, insert citations and move remove questions to Methodology Section. And place aims & objectives in introduction

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes, but analysis needs to be more robust in relation the used theory

    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 suggest to tighten the discussion by relating it to existing literature and used theory.

    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.: It is well-written and well-organized article

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    It is suggested that the paper may be checked one more time for finding any grammatical errors.

    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 strengthens the research method applied for the data collection o this paper.

    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 has relevance to the topic of the paper.

    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 method applied for data collection suits well.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results of the paper are analyzed logically.

    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 conclusion of the paper is related to the 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?: The findings of the paper will guide novice journalists on how to seek information.

    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 language of this paper expresses clearly the thoughts of the authors.

    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 information provided is sufficient and appropriate for reproducing the paper.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/24

    It is suggested that the paper may be checked one more time for finding any grammatical errors.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/16

    It is well-written and well-organized article, and I recommend it for publication after certain revisions.

    The author needs to incorporate literature review section.

    Methodology is appropriate; however, insert citations and move remove questions to Methodology Section. And place aims & objectives in introduction

    Analysis needs to be more robust in relation the used theory

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