• pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2021/12/25

    25-Dec-2021

    Dear XIAO, XIZHU; Su, Yan

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-10-2021-0520.R1, entitled "Wired to Seek, Comment, and Share? Examining the Relationship between Personality, News Consumption, and Misinformation Engagement" 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
    2021/12/20

    Thanks for the detailed revisions. My concerns are properly handled.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2021/12/05

    Dear reviewer:
    Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise this manuscript. We believe the manuscript is stronger now that we have made the suggested changes (highlighted in yellow). We look forward to hearing from you.

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

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    This paper presents a well-organized study with a clear structure and explicit objectives. I appreciate the authors' endeavors in establishing the inherent connections between personality traits (antecedents), news consumption (mediator), and misinformation engagement (outcome). Also, the authors introduced a meaningful moderator - misperceptions. Supported by a solid survey, the research findings supplement the current jigsaw puzzle of how news consumption affects misinformation engagement and the underlying psychological mechanism. Furthermore, the exploration of social media news consumption and news media news consumption further disclosed a more nuanced landscape of why some people are prone to seek news from social media and how different news-seeking patterns induce divergent misinformation engagement behaviors. In short, this paper possesses a convincing theoretical rationale, a reasonable research design, salient theoretical significances, and practical implications.
    Response: Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions.

    I only have several minor suggestions for the authors to polish this work.

    1. Adding a model diagram at the end of the literature review would be much better for comprehension, with path labels indicating all the proposed research hypotheses and questions.
      Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have incorporated a figure accordingly (p. 12, p.32).

    2. It is hard for me to follow the interpretation of why openness was negatively correlated with social media news seeking in the discussion section. Please elaborate on this relationship in a more straightforward way.
      Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have updated this section accordingly (p. 17).

    3. Since this journal requires a structured abstract, it would be much better if the authors could talk about the method more specifically in the abstract.
      Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have updated the abstract accordingly.

    4. Please indicate how your hypotheses were supported or rejected by the statistical findings in the results section explicitly.
      Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have updated the result section accordingly (pp. 15-16).

    I'm looking forward to seeing your revised version. Good luck.
    Response: Thank you very much.

    Author response by


    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2021/12/03

    03-Dec-2021

    Dear Dr. XIAO,

    Manuscript ID OIR-10-2021-0520 entitled "Wired to Seek, Comment and Share? Examining the Relationship between Personality, News Consumption and Misinformation Engagement" 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.
    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: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    This paper presents a well-organized study with a clear structure and explicit objectives. I appreciate the authors' endeavors in establishing the inherent connections between personality traits (antecedents), news consumption (mediator), and misinformation engagement (outcome). Also, the authors introduced a meaningful moderator - misperceptions. Supported by a solid survey, the research findings supplement the current jigsaw puzzle of how news consumption affects misinformation engagement and the underlying psychological mechanism. Furthermore, the exploration of social media news consumption and news media news consumption further disclosed a more nuanced landscape of why some people are prone to seek news from social media and how different news-seeking patterns induce divergent misinformation engagement behaviors. In short, this paper possesses a convincing theoretical rationale, a reasonable research design, salient theoretical significances, and practical implications.

    I only have several minor suggestions for the authors to polish this work.

    1. Adding a model diagram at the end of the literature review would be much better for comprehension, with path labels indicating all the proposed research hypotheses and questions.

    2. It is hard for me to follow the interpretation of why openness was negatively correlated with social media news seeking in the discussion section. Please elaborate on this relationship in a more straightforward way.

    3. Since this journal requires a structured abstract, it would be much better if the authors could talk about the method more specifically in the abstract.

    4. Please indicate how your hypotheses were supported or rejected by the statistical findings in the results section explicitly.

    I'm looking forward to seeing your revised version. Good luck.

    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 manuscript holds a robust theoretical rationale and its findings are meaningful in the misinformation research area.

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

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

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

    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes.

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

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

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

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

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2021/11/13

    This paper presents a well-organized study with a clear structure and explicit objectives. I appreciate the authors' endeavors in establishing the inherent connections between personality traits (antecedents), news consumption (mediator), and misinformation engagement (outcome). Also, the authors introduced a meaningful moderator - misperceptions. Supported by a solid survey, the research findings supplement the current jigsaw puzzle of how news consumption affects misinformation engagement and the underlying psychological mechanism. Furthermore, the exploration of social media news consumption and news media news consumption further disclosed a more nuanced landscape of why some people are prone to seek news from social media and how different news-seeking patterns induce divergent misinformation engagement behaviors. In short, this paper possesses a convincing theoretical rationale, a reasonable research design, salient theoretical significances, and practical implications.

    I only have several minor suggestions for the authors to polish this work.

    1. Adding a model diagram at the end of the literature review would be much better for comprehension, with path labels indicating all the proposed research hypotheses and questions.

    2. It is hard for me to follow the interpretation of why openness was negatively correlated with social media news seeking in the discussion section. Please elaborate on this relationship in a more straightforward way.

    3. Since this journal requires a structured abstract, it would be much better if the authors could talk about the method more specifically in the abstract.

    4. Please indicate how your hypotheses were supported or rejected by the statistical findings in the results section explicitly.

    I'm looking forward to seeing your revised version. Good luck.

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