Abstract

Purpose Understanding leadership in newly created online social spaces, such Facebook communities, is an important new area of study within leadership research. This study explores an existing leadership model in offline environments by analyzing leadership strategies used by Facebook community leaders. Design/methodology/approach By using both quantitative and qualitative methods, data were collected through a survey from 94 Facebook community leaders about their leadership strategies. Findings Findings show that the framework of leadership behavior in offline groups can also be observed in Facebook communities. The content analysis of the open-ended questions reveals new categories reflecting unique leadership strategies in online environments. Leaders that participated in the study focused on strategies of content and team management, provided their groups with relevant content and personal stories to engage their members and strived to lead both offline and online-related social spaces to build a sense of community. Originality/value The growing number of Facebook community leaders and their key role in social media communities raise new questions about their position in light of what is already known about traditional leadership. Since social media occupies a central place in almost every aspect in everyday life, understanding the way that leaders manage these online communities is ever more important, and it can lead to an advancement in online communications. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at:.


Authors

Gazit, Tali;  Bronstein, Jenny

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

Contributors on Publons
  • 1 reviewer
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/09/07

    07-Sep-2020

    Dear Gazit, Tali; Bronstein, Jenny

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-01-2020-0034.R2, entitled "Exploring Leadership Strategies of Facebook Community Leaders" 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

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/30

    The corrections have been made. The article has become more comprehensive.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/27

    Authors have addressed some of the comments but many key issues are still not addressed. Please see my comments
    1. In the introduction, the authors should clearly present the following: What is missing and what is the gap? I am not convinced about the changes.
    2. The key references and literature related to Facebook and online communities are still missing such as:
    Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use?. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 520-527.
    Dhir, A., Chen, G. M., & Chen, S. (2017). Why do we tag photographs on Facebook? Proposing a new gratifications scale. New Media & Society, 19(4), 502-521.
    Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use?. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 520-527.
    Dhir, A., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 350-364.

    Theoretical and practical implications are missing?

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/08/24

    Please see below our response to reviewer's 2 comments:

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Results have been properly analyzed. But I thınk that the analysıs tables are located under the results, not at the end of the artıcle, ıt wıll be also good to understand.

    The tables are located at the end of the paper as requested in the journal's submission guidelines.

    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?: Research findings were compared with previous study findings. But it can be further expanded. The theoretical concepts are sufficiently expressed. The result can be extended to the partial beer and its contribution to the literature can be explained.

    The relation to the literature have been extended in the discussion as requested. Additions are highlighted in yellow



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2020/08/15

    15-Aug-2020

    Dear Dr. Bronstein,

    Manuscript ID OIR-01-2020-0034.R1 entitled "Exploring Leadership Strategies of Facebook Community Leaders" 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: Major Revision

    Comments:
    The authors did a good job of addressing the comments/suggestions of the previous round. However, there are some areas where improvement is possible. Therefore, I invite authors to carefully consider the comments/suggestion and submit the revised draft for review.
    1. Authors have still cited so many old studies and references that must be replaced with new studies.
    2. The authors should clearly highlight the novelty and contribution of the study. Currently, it is weak.
    3. The authors should consider the suggested studies and discuss them in their study since these articles are timely and relevant for their work.
    Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use?. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 520-527. Dhir, A., Chen, G. M., & Chen, S. (2017). Why do we tag photographs on Facebook? Proposing a new gratifications scale. New Media & Society, 19(4), 502-521. Dhir, A., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 350-364. Rationale for “Liking” on social networking sites, Social Science Computer Review 37 (4), 529-550
    4. Implications are weak - clearly discuss theoretical and practical implications
    5. Add the limitations of this study in the conclusion.

    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?: see my comments

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: see my comments

    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?: see my comments

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: see my comments

    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?: see my comments

    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?: see my comments

    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.: see my comments

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

    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: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    I think the article will contribute to the literature. An original work. Acceptable with minor revisions

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Yes, the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal

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

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

    the methods employed appropriate and fully explained

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Results have been properly analyzed. But I thınk that the analysıs tables are located under the results, not at the end of the artıcle, ıt wıll be also good to understand.

    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?: Research findings were compared with previous study findings. But it can be further expanded. The theoretical concepts are sufficiently expressed. The result can be extended to the partial beer and its contribution to the literature can be explained.

    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?: these are consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper

    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 article is understandable and written in a way that the reader can understand

    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
    2020/08/13

    I think the article will contribute to the literature. An original work. Acceptable with minor revisions

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/11

    The authors did a good job of addressing the comments/suggestions of the previous round. However, there are some areas where improvement is possible. Therefore, I invite authors to carefully consider the comments/suggestion and submit the revised draft for review.
    1. Authors have still cited so many old studies and references that must be replaced with new studies.
    2. The authors should clearly highlight the novelty and contribution of the study. Currently, it is weak.
    3. The authors should consider the suggested studies and discuss them in their study since these articles are timely and relevant for their work.
    Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use?. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 520-527. Dhir, A., Chen, G. M., & Chen, S. (2017). Why do we tag photographs on Facebook? Proposing a new gratifications scale. New Media & Society, 19(4), 502-521. Dhir, A., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 350-364. Rationale for “Liking” on social networking sites, Social Science Computer Review 37 (4), 529-550
    4. Implications are weak - clearly discuss theoretical and practical implications
    5. Add the limitations of this study in the conclusion.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/08/02

    We wish to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments that provided valuable insights that allowed us to improve our paper. The revised version is significantly improved thanks to your comments.
    Following reviewers' suggestions, the following changes were made to the document:
    1. The introduction was revised and the purpose of the study or problem statement was clarified emphasizing the gap in the literature that we aim to address with our study regarding the important role Facebook communities' leaders play in the social media environment.
    2. We added additional citations regarding Facebook communities, as recommended by reviewer 1. This revision has allowed us to better connect between the aim of the study, the research questions and the conclusions, as suggested by reviewer 2.
    3. We revised the manuscript according to the latest APA edition's rules.
    Below please see are the revisions according to each reviewer's comments.

    Reviewer: 1
    Introduction.
    1. In the introduction, the authors should clearly present the following: What is missing and what is the gap? Why there is a need to conduct this study? Who will benefit? What is the novelty of this work? What are its main contributions? What is the underlying theory? All the questions are unclear to me in the current version of the article.
    A paragraph was added to the introduction, addressing all these important questions (third paragraph).
    2. The key references and literature related to Facebook and online communities are missing such as:
    Kaur, P. (2016). Underpinnings of user participation in service provider–hosted online communities. Service Science, 8(3), 249-262.
    Kaur, P., Dhir, A., & Rajala, R. (2016). Assessing flow experience in social networking site based brand communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 217-225.
    Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use?. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 520-527.
    Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Rajala, R., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Why people use online social media brand communities. Online Information Review. 42(6), 205-221.
    Similarly, the literature on the uses and gratification of Facebook should be updated example recent studies should be includes.
    Dhir, A., Kaur, P., & Rajala, R. (2018). Why do young people tag photos on social networking sites? Explaining user intentions. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 117-127.
    Dhir, A., Chen, G. M., & Chen, S. (2017). Why do we tag photographs on Facebook? Proposing a new gratifications scale. New Media & Society, 19(4), 502-521.
    Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Lonka, K., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use?. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 520-527.
    Dhir, A., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 350-364.
    Thank you for this enriching reference list. We have found the studies focusing on Facebook communities very useful and cited them in the introduction.

    Discussion: Please discuss the paragraphs according to hypotheses. First, inform what was the hypotheses and explain the results. The discussion is difficult to follow Please separate implications from the discussion. The new section should have two sub-sections - Theoretical and practical implications.
    Since the subject of leadership in social media has yet to be examined in depth, the study adopted a qualitative exploratory approach, this is why two open research questioned were formulated. This point has been clarified in different place throughout the article.

    Reviewer: 2
    Originality: This manuscript explores Lieberman, Yalom and Miles's (1973) leadership model in offline environments by analyzing leadership strategies used by Facebook com. I must say I think the topic of this paper is relevant and potentially interesting from the standpoint of the Online Information Review Journal.
    Thank you.
    Introduction section does not focus on building up the needs for this paper. The author should identify important gaps, inconsistencies, and/or controversies in the relevant literature and provide a concise statement of the manuscript’s purpose(s) and the contributions the manuscript makes to the literature.
    A paragraph was added to the introduction part, addressing all these important issues (third paragraph).

    It is not correct to justify the importance of leadership on Facebook based on Facebook news.
    Additional literature was discussed to justify the importance of online leadership (at the end of the introduction).

    The authors should justify the choice of the variables analyzed.
    As mentioned before the qualitative approach adopted in the study has been clarified in the methodology. The statistical analysis was limited to the correlations between the strategies found in the qualitative analysis and the demographic data from the participants.
    Relationship to Literature: The literature review lacks of a conceptual framework. Lack of literature in the topic supplied eroded the understanding of originality.
    The conceptual framework was described at the beginning of the literature review: The present study has used Lieberman et al.'s (1973) model of offline leadership behavior as a theoretical framework to investigate the online behavior of Facebook community leaders. This point has been highlighted in the literature review as well as in the findings and the discussion.

    The authors only posit two general research questions without any justification. The formulation of the research questions needs theoretical support. Comparisons with existing works related to authors’ research questions are not discussed.
    A new paragraph was added to the "Research rationale and questions" section, to justify the research questions.

    Community leader's behaviour and Leadership on social media subsections should be moved to literature review.
    They are part of the literature review now.
    To highlight the unique contributions of the research, the novelty of research questions should be explained in a clearer way.
    A new paragraph was added to the "Research rationale and questions" section, to justify the research questions.
    All unique research components should be described clearly.
    Several additions have been made to the text to clarify the qualitative nature of the study, the statistical tests performed were limited to finding correlations between the categories revealed in the qualitative content analysis and the demographic data of the participants.

    Methodology: Sample used is 94 Israeli Facebook community leaders. What is the representativeness of this sample?
    Since Facebook does not reveal, as a policy, the number of Facebook active groups or members, unfortunately we have no way of knowing the representativeness of our sample. We have published our request to answer the survey in the two biggest groups of Facebook community leaders and 94 of them agreed to participate.

    Results: Yes, results are presented clearly
    Thank you.

    Discussion/Argument: Conclusions don´t tie adequately other elements of the paper
    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Implications of this research approach to practitioners and researchers should be provided. I don´t see the contribution of this paper.
    A paragraph was added to the conclusion with the contribution and the implications.
    Quality of Communication: Quality of communication is acceptable
    Thank you.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/07/25

    &PHPSESSID25-Jul-2020;

    Dear Dr. Bronstein,

    Manuscript ID OIR-01-2020-0034 entitled "Exploring Leadership Strategies of Facebook Community Leaders" which you submitted to Online Information Review has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    Although one reviewer recommended a major revision and the other a rejection, I believe there are enough positives in this paper that it could be a good addition to OIR with more revision.

    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 article presents an interesting study on the leadership strategies of Facebook community leaders. The article is interesting and timely but it suffers from various limitations which must be addressed before it is accepted for publication. I recommend a major revision.
    Introduction. In the introduction, the authors should clearly present the following:What is missing and what is the gap? Why there is a need to conduct this study? Who will benefit? What is the novelty of this work? What are its main contributions What is the underlying theory?All the questions are unclear to me in the current version of the article. The key references and literature related to Facebook and online communities are missing such as Underpinnings of user participation in a service provider–hosted online communities, Service Science 8 (3), 249-262
    Assessing flow experience in social networking site based brand communities, Computers in Human Behavior 64, 217-225
    Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use? Computers in Human Behavior 68, 520-527
    Why people use online social media brand communities:A consumption value theory perspective, Online information review, 42(2), 205-221.
    Similarly, the literature on the uses and gratification of Facebook should be updated example recent studies should be includes. Why do young people tag photos on social networking sites? Explaining user intentions, International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 117-127. Why Do We Tag Photographs on Facebook? Proposing a New Gratifications Scale, New Media & Society, 19(4), 502-521; Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use? Computers in Human Behaviour, 520-527; Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults, Telematics and Informatics, 15;
    Data analysis: It is good and easy to follow
    Discussion: Please discuss the paragraphs according to hypotheses. First, inform what was the hypotheses and explain the results. The discussion is difficult to follow
    Please separate implications from the discussion. The new section should have two sub-sections - Theoretical and practical implications.
    Limitations and future work: Discuss three limitations and three avenues of future work.
    I wish them all the best in this project

    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 topic is timely and relevant

    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?: Key references and literature are missing. Please see the suggestions.

    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?: Method is good

    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: See my suggestions.

    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?: See my suggestions.

    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?: Need significant improvement. See my suggestions.

    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.: Good. the article can benefit from the proof-reading

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

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

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Reject

    Comments:
    This manuscript explores Lieberman, Yalom and Miles's (1973) leadership model in offline environments by analyzing leadership strategies used by Facebook com.I must say I think the topic of this paper is relevant and potentially interesting from the standpoint of the Online Information Review Journal. However, there are serious weaknesses in the paper which prevent it from being up to the standards of the OIR.
    Introduction section does not focus on building up the needs for this paper.The author should identify important gaps, inconsistencies, and/or controversies in the relevant literature and provide a concise statement of the manuscript’s purpose(s) and the contributions the manuscript makes to the literature.It is not correct to justify the importance of leadership on Facebook based on Facebook news. The authors should justify the choice of the variables analyzed. Introduction is too long and vague. Community leader's behaviour and Leadership on social media subsections should be moved to literature review.

    The literature review lacks of a conceptual framework. Lack of literature in the topic supplied eroded the understanding of originality.
    The manuscript is weak in logic reasoning and paper organization.
    The authors only posit two general research questions without any justification:
    1. Which of Lieberman and Golant’s (2002) leadership strategies are applied by Facebook community leaders when managing their communities?; 2. Is there a relation between the strategies used and different other dependent variables such as gender, age, type of community, size of community and leadership duration?The formulation of the research questions needs theoretical support. Comparisons with existing works related to authors’ research questions are not discussed. To highlight the unique contributions of the research, the novelty of research questions should be explained in a clearer way. All unique research components should be described clearly.

    Sample used is 94 Israeli Facebook community leaders. What is the representativeness of this sample? Implications of this research approach to practitioners and researchers should be provided. I don´t see the contribution of this paper.

    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 manuscript explores Lieberman, Yalom and Miles's (1973) leadership model in offline environments by analyzing leadership strategies used by Facebook com.I must say I think the topic of this paper is relevant and potentially interesting from the standpoint of the Online Information Review Journal. However, there are serious weaknesses in the paper which prevent it from being up to the standards of the OIR.

    Introduction section does not focus on building up the needs for this paper.The author should identify important gaps, inconsistencies, and/or controversies in the relevant literature and provide a concise statement of the manuscript’s purpose(s) and the contributions the manuscript makes to the literature.It is not correct to justify the importance of leadership on Facebook based on Facebook news. The authors should justify the choice of the variables analyzed.

    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 lacks of a conceptual framework. Lack of literature in the topic supplied eroded the understanding of originality.

    The authors only posit two general research questions without any justification:
    1. Which of Lieberman and Golant’s (2002) leadership strategies are applied by Facebook community leaders when managing their communities?; 2. Is there a relation between the strategies used and different other dependent variables such as gender, age, type of community, size of community and leadership duration?The formulation of the research questions needs theoretical support. Comparisons with existing works related to authors’ research questions are not discussed.

    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 manuscript is weak in logic reasoning and paper organization.
    Introduction is too long and vague. Community leader's behaviour and Leadership on social media subsections should be moved to literature review.
    To highlight the unique contributions of the research, the novelty of research questions should be explained in a clearer way. All unique research components should be described clearly.
    Method:Sample used is 94 Israeli Facebook community leaders. What is the representativeness of this sample?

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

    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?: Conclusions don´t tie adequately other elements of the 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?: Implications of this research approach to practitioners and researchers should be provided.

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

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/07/22

    This manuscript explores Lieberman, Yalom and Miles's (1973) leadership model in offline environments by analyzing leadership strategies used by Facebook com.I must say I think the topic of this paper is relevant and potentially interesting from the standpoint of the Online Information Review Journal. However, there are serious weaknesses in the paper which prevent it from being up to the standards of the OIR.
    Introduction section does not focus on building up the needs for this paper.The author should identify important gaps, inconsistencies, and/or controversies in the relevant literature and provide a concise statement of the manuscript’s purpose(s) and the contributions the manuscript makes to the literature.It is not correct to justify the importance of leadership on Facebook based on Facebook news. The authors should justify the choice of the variables analyzed. Introduction is too long and vague. Community leader's behaviour and Leadership on social media subsections should be moved to literature review.

    The literature review lacks of a conceptual framework. Lack of literature in the topic supplied eroded the understanding of originality.
    The manuscript is weak in logic reasoning and paper organization.
    The authors only posit two general research questions without any justification:
    1. Which of Lieberman and Golant’s (2002) leadership strategies are applied by Facebook community leaders when managing their communities?; 2. Is there a relation between the strategies used and different other dependent variables such as gender, age, type of community, size of community and leadership duration?The formulation of the research questions needs theoretical support. Comparisons with existing works related to authors’ research questions are not discussed. To highlight the unique contributions of the research, the novelty of research questions should be explained in a clearer way. All unique research components should be described clearly.

    Sample used is 94 Israeli Facebook community leaders. What is the representativeness of this sample? Implications of this research approach to practitioners and researchers should be provided. I don´t see the contribution of this paper.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/05/29

    The article presents an interesting study on the leadership strategies of Facebook community leaders. The article is interesting and timely but it suffers from various limitations which must be addressed before it is accepted for publication. I recommend a major revision.
    Introduction. In the introduction, the authors should clearly present the following:What is missing and what is the gap? Why there is a need to conduct this study? Who will benefit? What is the novelty of this work? What are its main contributions What is the underlying theory?All the questions are unclear to me in the current version of the article. The key references and literature related to Facebook and online communities are missing such as Underpinnings of user participation in a service provider–hosted online communities, Service Science 8 (3), 249-262
    Assessing flow experience in social networking site based brand communities, Computers in Human Behavior 64, 217-225
    Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use? Computers in Human Behavior 68, 520-527
    Why people use online social media brand communities:A consumption value theory perspective, Online information review, 42(2), 205-221.
    Similarly, the literature on the uses and gratification of Facebook should be updated example recent studies should be includes. Why do young people tag photos on social networking sites? Explaining user intentions, International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 117-127. Why Do We Tag Photographs on Facebook? Proposing a New Gratifications Scale, New Media & Society, 19(4), 502-521; Do psychosocial attributes of well-being drive intensive Facebook use? Computers in Human Behaviour, 520-527; Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults, Telematics and Informatics, 15;
    Data analysis: It is good and easy to follow
    Discussion: Please discuss the paragraphs according to hypotheses. First, inform what was the hypotheses and explain the results. The discussion is difficult to follow
    Please separate implications from the discussion. The new section should have two sub-sections - Theoretical and practical implications.
    Limitations and future work: Discuss three limitations and three avenues of future work.
    I wish them all the best in this project

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