Abstract

Purpose Complex social interactions such as argumentation and persuasion are increasingly common in online communications. To better understand these interactions and their impacts on people and on the society, it is important for the authors to understand how people reason online such as when they need to justify themselves or convince others with their perspectives. Reasoning in online discussions is expectedly to be different from doing so offline, as one often communicates with others anonymously and asynchronously in such contexts (e.g. Reddit discussions). The purpose of this paper is to investigate people's reasoning behavior in online environments focusing on how they justify their perspectives. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the authors examined how a subreddit Change My View (CMV) users offer their opinions and justify them through the lens of argumentation and reasoning. The authors annotated, 330 Reddit discussion original posts (OPs) to identify claims, rationales and supports for reasoning, i.e. personal experiences, definitions, domain expertise and external sources. The authors investigated the correlations among the occurrences of these supporting statements and whether they are related to the topics of the posts. Findings The findings suggest that if people mention their domain expertise, they tend to provide related personal experiences as well. Additionally, if the participants talk about the topic of domestic politics, they tend to utilize their personal experiences. Research limitations/implications Further research may be conducted to help system designers. System designers (e.g. online debate systems, collective decision-making systems, etc.) may benefit from the findings to design systems by considering commonly used supporting statements, which may enhance people's reasoning and argumentation processes. The sample size is a small sample. The authors acknowledge that the small sample size of the study may limit the generalizability of the findings; however, it is still acceptable compared to the existing literature. One future study could be annotating a larger dataset to further probe the use of supporting statements in online reasoning. Practical implications The authors' findings might be useful to understand how Reddit users are justifying their opinions as the reflection of their reasoning processes. In order to contribute further research in argumentation and reasoning in online platforms, the authors make the annotated dataset publicly available. Originality/value To best of the authors' knowledge, this study was one of a few studies whose purpose is to understand Reddit CMV users' reasoning processes. To understand how online users offer their reasons while providing their ideas is important to have effective communication processes and to improve online discussion experiences which are very common in today's digital era. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at:


Authors

Ocal, Ayse;  Xiao, Lu;  Park, Jaihyun

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2021/04/06

    06-Apr-2021

    Dear DALGALI, AYSE; Xiao, Lu; Park, Jaihyun

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-08-2020-0330.R2, entitled "Reasoning in Social Media: Insights from Reddit "Change My View" Submissions" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

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


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

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

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/04/06

    This paper is well drafted, enabling readers to understand the principle of “collision thought spark” in social media.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2021/04/05

    This paper is a very interesting research, but in my humble opinion, failed to persuade me to agree with the value of this research. Most of all, I am not so sure if this study fits with OIR.

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

    Dear Dr. Siapera,
    Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We also greatly appreciate the reviewers for their complimentary comments and suggestions. We addressed two minor suggestions of the reviewer 2 and tracked all the changes. These changes have improved our manuscript. We hope that you find our responses satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication. We are also ready to make further changes if you suggest.
    Yours sincerely,
    Ayse
    ayocal@syr.edu

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The followings are our point-by-point responses:

    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Accept
    Response: Thank you very much.

    Reviewer: 2
    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    This paper gains us a better understanding as to the reasoning behavior of social media users, based on which the intrinsic connection between “points” and “behavioral” is revealed.

    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?: Based on the appropriate theory, more specifically, the cognitive psychology perspective, philosophical aspect and the communication perspective, this paper demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the relevant literature in the field. However, there is a minor problem worth noting for the author, that is, the literature review section in paragraph 2, “To explain the reasoning process by Toulmin approach, Lumsden et al … Lumsden et al. (2009) suggest that the evidence we collect does not bring the conclusions to us; instead, we need to do reasoning to evaluate arguments in order to reach our own conclusion”. What does “we” mean here? Is it meant to represent the author or Lumsden et al.? If it is an indirect quote, please note the personal pronoun. Otherwise, please add “” symbol.

    Response: We agreed with this suggestion and added “” symbol.

    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?: In Tables I, II, III, the author makes the relevant supporting statements appropriately and explicitly. In addition, the flow chart explains the experimental process clearly. In the meantime, however, it is also noticed that the dataset used by the author spanned from 2014 to 2016. As for the timeliness of the data, we wonder why the author selected the data from these two periods. Our question is, can it reflect the rules followed by the reasoning behavior of social media users?

    Response: We added several sentences that show the CMV rules did not change from the beginning, thus our findings reflect the current reasoning behavior of users. We checked CMV related papers in Google Scholar published in the period 2014-2016, found a paper that describes the CMV rules in detail and indicates that the rules were the same in those years.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2021/01/24

    24-Jan-2021

    Dear Ms. DALGALI,

    Manuscript ID OIR-08-2020-0330.R1 entitled "Reasoning in Social Media: Insights from Reddit "Change My View" Submissions" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID;=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yours sincerely,

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

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

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

    Recommendation: Accept

    Comments:
    Overall, the revision reflects my comments.

    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.

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    This paper gains us a better understanding as to the reasoning behavior of social media users, based on which the intrinsic connection between “points” and “behavioral” is revealed.

    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?: From the perspective of communication, this paper has demonstrated the inherent connection between the reasoning behavior of users and communication. It makes theoretical contribution to some extent. In the meantime, the development of social media or online community is promoted to a certain degree.

    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?: Based on the appropriate theory, more specifically, the cognitive psychology perspective, philosophical aspect and the communication perspective, this paper demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the relevant literature in the field. However, there is a minor problem worth noting for the author, that is, the literature review section in paragraph 2, “To explain the reasoning process by Toulmin approach, Lumsden et al … Lumsden et al. (2009) suggest that the evidence we collect does not bring the conclusions to us; instead, we need to do reasoning to evaluate arguments in order to reach our own conclusion”. What does “we” mean here? Is it meant to represent the author or Lumsden et al.? If it is an indirect quote, please note the personal pronoun. Otherwise, please add “” symbol.

    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?: In Tables I, II, III, the author makes the relevant supporting statements appropriately and explicitly. In addition, the flow chart explains the experimental process clearly. In the meantime, however, it is also noticed that the dataset used by the author spanned from 2014 to 2016. As for the timeliness of the data, we wonder why the author selected the data from these two periods. Our question is, can it reflect the rules followed by the reasoning behavior of social media users?

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: All results are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately.

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The thesis is clear, the topic is broken down into various dimensions through content analysis, and the theoretical concepts are expressed appropriately.

    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, it is clear overall.

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

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

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/01/22

    This paper gains us a better understanding as to the reasoning behavior of social media users, based on which the intrinsic connection between “points” and “behavioral” is revealed.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2021/01/17

    Overall, the revision reflects my comments.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/12/20

    We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The followings are our point-by-point responses:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    1. The author needs to reformat the article. For instance, two empty characters are enough at the beginning of each paragraph. For other format requirements, the author refers to the recent literature of the Online Information Review.

    Response: We agreed with the reviewer and reformatted the article by referring to the recent papers published in Online Information Review.

    1. The abstract needs to be reorganized. In the abstract, the research purpose, design/methodology, findings, and the research value should be highlighted. Besides, the discussion needs further refinement.

    Response: We agreed with the reviewer and reorganized the abstract again by referring to the recent papers published in Online Information Review.

    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?: This paper helps us realize the process of the changes in people’s views, especially in the online platform. People utilize their personal experiences to support their claims. Theoretically, this paper reviewed studies related to reasoning in cognitive psychology, philosophy, and communication research. From the cognitive psychology perspective, the philosophical aspect, and the communication perspective, it illustrated the definition of reasoning and the importance of “reasoning” in online communication. From my perspective, the theoretical contribution of this paper can be recognized. This paper used the content analysis to classify the discussion content of the online forum – “Change My View”. The research methodology of this paper is worth using for reference. In a word, the theoretical and methodological methods of this article cannot be ignored.

    Response: Thank you very much for your recognition. We agreed with the reviewer and added one paragraph that shows the paper’s contributions as the second last paragraph in the introduction section.

    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?: It is necessary to improve the understanding of the relevant literature. In the part of the introduction, page 3, it discusses people sharing their rationales in online communications. I have no idea if there is some kind of relationship between people’s sharing behavior and the paper’s topic. The author should reconsider the appropriate range of literature sources. And references should be updated. Only a few references were in the last five years, while the rest were from earlier years. Besides, the author did not cite relevant materials published in Online Information Review.

    Response: We agreed with the reviewer and deleted the paragraph beginning with the sentence “prior studies suggest that people share their rationales…” in the part of the introduction, page 3, which discusses people sharing their rationales in online communications. Additionally, we acknowledge that the literature review section does include not many sources published in the last five years because we also use theoretical fundamental papers to show how we connect cognitive psychology, philosophy, and communication research aspects to reasoning online. In the discussion section, we added more recent papers to discuss the current situation and how our research can contribute to improving the current research and applications. However, this comment regarding the literature review was also very valuable for us, and we added these new sources in the literature review section as well:
    Gundlach, M.J., Martinko, M.J. and Douglas, S.C. (2003), “Emotional Intelligence, Causal Reasoning, and the Self‐Efficacy Development Process”, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 229–246. (This source is still old, but we used it because it is published on Emerald Publishing where Online Information Review journal is published.)
    Ghazal, S., Al-Samarraie, H. and Wright, B. (2019), “A conceptualization of factors affecting collaborative knowledge building in online environments”, Online Information Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 62–89.
    Riechert, M., Biesenbender, S., Dees, W. and Sirtes, D. (2016), “Developing definitions of research information metadata as a wicked problem? Characterisation and solution by argumentation visualisation”, Program, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 303–324.
    Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A. and Buckingham Shum, S. (2014), “Socially-augmented argumentation tools: rationale, design, and evaluation of a debate dashboard”, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 72(3) pp. 298–319.
    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 appropriately and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: This paper is basically based on appropriate theories and concepts; the research design is also designed well, and this paper does not include any ethical issues. However, the author needs to pay attention to the problem and explains it. Namely, page 8, figure1: steps of annotation of supporting statements, step3-identify other argumentation components; the author explained step 3 in the paper: identify supporting statements for reasoning. These two statements are different.

    Response: We agreed with the reviewer and changed the expression “identify other argumentation components” as “identify supporting statements for reasoning” and drew the figure again using the new expression.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results of this paper are generally presented and analyzed appropriately. The author can elaborate the results on the existing basis, and add examples appropriately to enrich the results. Besides, the author needs to explain some data (like, how 68% get it), “In total, 68% of our examined submissions have used one or more of those four…” (page 14, third paragraph)”.

    Response: We agreed with the reviewer and added examples from the Reddit CMV submissions appropriately to enrich the results. Besides, we explained how we get 68%.

    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?: In the part of the discussion, it explores the relation between empirical findings and previous work and also presents a coherent argument. However, the author needs to be reconsidered and described in detail. At present, the experimental results of this paper can only explain the statements situation of original posts and topics classified, but there is no data analysis to support the authors’ discussion. (page 16, the author discussed: “our findings may contribute to the effort of developing information systems that foster and enhance people’s reasoning processes…”). In the meantime, the author needs to be pointed out how their study differs from previous research or their improvement.

    Response: We agreed with the reviewer and explained in detail how “our findings may contribute to the effort of developing information systems that foster and enhance people’s reasoning processes…” by expanding that paragraph that begins with that sentence. We also added new sources to make connections and how our study is different from previous research.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: This paper mentioned that its research may contribute to the effort of developing information systems. But there was no mention of some implications for future research. For example, the author may point out the impact of their research on online user interaction, adoption attitude, or propose that their study make system classification is more refined. Some studies may be referenced, such as:

    Jie Zhao, Raymond, Y. k. Lau, Wenping Zhang, Kaihang Zhang, Xu Chen and Deyu Tang. (2016), “Extracting and reasoning about implicit behavioral evidence for detecting fraudulent online transactions in e-Commerce”, Decision Support Systems, pp. 109-121.
    Response: We agreed with the reviewer and added new sources and new connections like “For measuring the performance of justification, the usage of supporting statements may be also used as one of the measurement features” or for future research “Further such detection systems can be developed that may include more features, such as the relationships between these supporting statements like we looked at them in our research, or other types of evidence and their relationships as appropriate to the context of detection. In addition to the detection systems, debate support systems may be developed.” However, it is difficult to say something about the impact of our research on online user interaction or adoption attitude using just our current findings. The source the reviewer suggested was very useful for our research. We added these new sources in the discussion section:
    Zhao, J., Lau, R.Y.K., Zhang, W., Zhang, K., Chen, X. and Tang, D. (2016), “Extracting and reasoning about implicit behavioral evidences for detecting fraudulent online transactions in e-Commerce”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 86, pp. 109–121.
    Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E. and Dimopoulos, S. (2005), “Computer‐supported G2G collaboration for public policy and decision‐making”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 602–624.
    Kuhn, D., Cummings, A. and Youmans, M. (2020), “Is Reasoning a Fruitful Path to Changing Minds?”, Discourse Processes, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 36–47.
    Nguyen, L.H., Salopek, A., Zhao, L. and Jin, F. (2017), “A natural language normalization approach to enhance social media text reasoning”, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), presented at the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), IEEE, Boston, MA, pp. 2019–2026.

    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 author needs to strengthen and condense the expression, especially the abstract and introduction. In the abstract, it is necessary to highlight the research method should be highlighted, describe the results in detail and point out the contribution of the research; in the introduction, it is necessary to reorganize this part of the structure. The author may add a conclusion at the beginning or end of each paragraph to remind the reader of understanding each paragraph’s main idea, and takeover context. Additionally, the author needs to pay attention to a few minor issues. Firstly, the writer should pay attention to spelling. Like page 3, the first paragraph, “scholarship” should be “scholar”. Secondly, on page 3, the third paragraph, “prior studies suggest that people share their rationales…, to better understand…”, the author needs to explain the relationship between discussed people sharing behaviour and the research topic. And page 4, the author points out that “prior study suggests that the discussion topics affects people’s reasoning processes and reasoning behavior…” and “we speculate that users may tend to be more proactive…”, the author needs to interpret this hypothesis in the part of result or discussion. Finally, abbreviations need to be explained when they first appear. “OP” (Page 3), this abbreviation should be checked and defined.

    Response: We agreed with the reviewer, reorganized the abstract, added the paper’s contribution booth into the abstract and introduction. As for the suggestion of adding a conclusion, the paragraphs usually include such a sentence at the end of each paragraph, like “Therefore, studying argument and rationale online gained attention from scholars and it is growing (Addawood and Bashir, 2016; Lawrence et al., 2014).”
    We changed the scholarship” as “scholar” and we added information about what the abbreviation “OP” means in the introduction. We also added a paragraph at the end of the results section to interpret “we speculate that users may tend to be more proactive…”, as “Our speculation we presented in the introduction regarding users’ proactivity if the topic of the discussion is relevant to the user’s interests is supported by our findings…”

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    This paper is a very interesting read. Increased number of samples and reviewing more recent literature would have made this study even more enjoyable.

    Response: Thank you very much for your comments. Yes, we agreed with the suggestion of adding more recent papers and found the most relevant papers and added them.

    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, this is a very interesting paper.

    Response: Thank you very much.

    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, overall.

    Response: Thank you very much.

    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?: Methodologically, this research is on the border between qualitative and quantitative method. However, okay in applying the method to this research's purpose.

    Response: Thank you very much.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes, overall clear.

    Response: Thank you very much.

    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?: More citation of papers in the 2010s or after are recommended. However, current discussion is acceptable.

    Response: We agreed with this suggestion and added new sources as much as relevant we can find in the current literature. We could not find many relevant papers, but we used the most relevant ones.

    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?: Although the number of samples is small, this is a very good research.

    Response: Yes, our current sample size is small but comparable to existing similar research, and it yielded applicable results.

    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.: Above average.

    Response: Thank you very much.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/10/20

    &PHPSESSID20-Oct-2020;

    Dear Ms. DALGALI,

    Manuscript ID OIR-08-2020-0330 entitled "Reasoning in Social Media: Insights from Reddit "Change My View" Submissions" 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:
    1. The author needs to reformat the article. For instance, two empty characters are enough at the beginning of each paragraph. Other format requirements, the author refers to the recent literature of the Online Information Review.
    2. The abstract needs to be reorganized. In the abstract, the research purpose, design/methodology, findings and the research value should be highlighted. Besides, the discussion needs further refinement.

    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?: This paper helps us realize the process of the changes in people’s views, especially in the online platform. People utilize their personal experiences to support their claims. Theoretically, this paper reviewed studies related to reasoning in cognitive psychology, philosophy, and communication research. From the cognitive psychology perspective, the philosophical aspect and the communication perspective, it illustrated the definition of reasoning and the importance of “reasoning” in online communication. From my perspective, the theoretical contribution of this paper can be recognized. This paper used the content analysis to classify the discussion content of the online forum – “Change My View”. The research methodology of this paper is worth using for reference. In a word, the theoretical and methodological methods of this article cannot be ignored.

    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?: It is necessary to improve the understanding of the relevant literature. In the part of the introduction, page 3, it discusses people sharing their rationales in online communications. I have no idea if there is some kind of relationship between people’s sharing behavior and the paper’s topic. The author should reconsider the appropriate range of literature sources. And references should be updated. Only a few references were in the last five years, while the rest were from earlier years. Besides, the author did not cite relevant materials published in Online Information Review.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: This paper is basically based on appropriate theories and concepts; the research design is also designed well, and this paper does not include any ethical issues. However, the author needs to pay attention to the problem and explains it. Namely, page 8, figure1: steps of annotation of supporting statements, step3-identify other argumentation components; the author explained step 3 in the paper: identify supporting statements for reasoning. These two statements are different.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results of this paper are generally presented and analyzed appropriately. The author can elaborate the results on the existing basis, and add examples appropriately to enrich the results. Besides, the author needs to explain some data (like, how 68% get it), “In total, 68% of our examined submissions have used one or more of those four…” (page 14, third paragraph)”.

    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?: In the part of the discussion, it explores the relation between empirical findings and previous work and also presents a coherent argument. However, the author needs to be reconsidered and described in detail. At present, the experimental results of this paper can only explain the statements situation of original posts and topics classified, but there is no data analysis to support the authors’ discussion. (page 16, the author discussed: “our findings may contribute to the effort of developing information systems that foster and enhance people’s reasoning processes…”). In the meantime, the author needs to be pointed out how their study differs from previous research or their improvement.

    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 paper mentioned that its research may contribute to the effort of developing information systems. But there was no mention of some implications for future research. For example, the author may point out the impact of their research on online user interaction, adoption attitude, or propose that their study make system classification is more refined. Some studies may be referenced, such as:

    Jie Zhao, Raymond, Y. k. Lau, Wenping Zhang, Kaihang Zhang, Xu Chen and Deyu Tang. (2016), “Extracting and reasoning about implicit behavioral evidence for detecting fraudulent online transactions in e-Commerce”, Decision Support Systems, pp. 109-121.

    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 author needs to strengthen and condense the expression, especially the abstract and introduction. In the abstract, it is necessary to highlight the research method should be highlighted, describe the results in detail and point out the contribution of the research; in the introduction, it is necessary to reorganize this part of the structure. The author may add a conclusion at the beginning or end of each paragraph to remind the reader of understanding each paragraph’s main idea, and takeover context. Additionally, the author needs to pay attention to a few minor issues. Firstly, the writer should pay attention to spelling. Like page 3, the first paragraph, “scholarship” should be “scholar”. Secondly, on page 3, the third paragraph, “prior studies suggest that people share their rationales…, to better understand…”, the author needs to explain the relationship between discussed people sharing behaviour and the research topic. And page 4, the author points out that “prior study suggests that the discussion topics affects people’s reasoning processes and reasoning behavior…” and “we speculate that users may tend to be more proactive…”, the author needs to interpret this hypothesis in the part of result or discussion. Finally, abbreviations need to be explained when they first appear. “OP” (Page 3), this abbreviation should be checked and defined.

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    This paper is a very interesting read. Increased number of samples and reviewing more recent literature would have made this study even more enjoyable.

    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, this is a very interesting 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?: Yes, overall.

    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?: Methodologically, this research is on the border between qualitative and quantitative method. However, okay in applying the method to this research's purpose.

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes, overall 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?: More citation of papers in the 2010s or after are recommended. However, current discussion is acceptable.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Although the number of samples is small, this is a very good 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.: Above average.

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

    This paper is a very interesting read. Increased number of samples and reviewing more recent literature would have made this study even more enjoyable.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/10/08

    1. The author needs to reformat the article. For instance, two empty characters are enough at the beginning of each paragraph. Other format requirements, the author refers to the recent literature of the Online Information Review.
    2. The abstract needs to be reorganized. In the abstract, the research purpose, design/methodology, findings and the research value should be highlighted. Besides, the discussion needs further refinement.

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