Factors Indicating Media Dependency and Online Misinformation Sharing in Jordan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors proposed the research work on the Factors Indicating Media Dependency and Online Misinformation Sharing in Jordan using An Experimental Approach. After reading the whole manuscript, following observations have been made.

1. The structure and layout of the manuscript should be consistent throughout.

2. The usage of the English language should be improved in the manuscript.

3. The technical depth of the paper is limited and should be enhanced.

4. The Result and discussion sections should be improved.

5. References section should be strengthened with the recent one.

 

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This work describes a quantitative study to investigate behavioural intention on dissemination of misinformation, based on a survey conducted to university students in Jordan. It is worth consideration for relevant analysis on those factors and relationships in a pandemic period, in particular when the use of social media has become a common phenomenon. Results of relevant study are of value for academicians as well as practitioners or policy makers. Considering the manuscript, I would suggest the following comments for authors’ consideration.

1.

Two different types of in-text citation styles are observed. Some are using numbering while some are using authors’ names only, and is difficult to be traced with the missing numbers while the references in the last section are listed in sequence of item numbers. It makes me difficult to trace the reference when checking further details from the citations during the review of the contents. Moreover, the referencing is not accurate, some of the in-text cited references are missing, e.g.:

on page 2: Yavich et al., 2019; Okabe-Miyamoto & Lyubomirsky, 2021;

on page 3, Sabouret et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2022, cannot be found in the references section.

on page 8, Banerjee & Rai, 2020

Also, the source of items in the construct “Misinformation dissemination” (Wong et al., 2021) is also missing in the references section.

2.

There should be line numbers in the Journal’s template for reference in review and revision. Suggested to consider using the template.

3.

The writing should be checked. For example, in the abstract on page 1, ln 4, what does the phrase “the Covid-19 outbreak liking like misinformation in Jordan” mean? Page 2, ln 5, what is “hat” here referring to? Page 2, ln 9-10, the purpose of education has been duplicated, one of them should be deleted due to redundancy. Page 6, the first sentence of the last paragraph, what is being conveyed is unclear.

4.

Page 5, ln 12, what are being used to track people? It should be supplemented in the statement.

5.

Accurate handling of statistics is required. The percentage should be 7.6 instead of 4.6 based on given frequency of 24.  Also, the basis of the sampling and size for generalizability was not clear in section 4.1 (page 9), would consider providing more details.

6.

Suggest providing the descriptive statistics for the mean five-point scores of the question items in the questionnaire for reference.

7.

Sub-title of section 5.2 is missing or the numbering of the section Structural model analysis and hypotheses testing on page 12 needs to be revised?

8.

Page 12, the last sentence regarding the analysis, it should be the rejection of hypotheses H1b instead of H2. Similarly, page 14, ln 8, the analysis of information gathering and behavioral intention should be related to H1b, instead of H2. Page 14, 4^th paragraph, the analysis of behavioral intention and dissemination of misinformation should be H2, while the gender and age H3 and H4

9.

Page 13, ln 5, should it be figure 2 for the path diagram of the study?

10.

Conclusion would need to be strengthened based on the current findings. I think the insignificant relationship between information gathering and behavioral intention in the current study (different from previous studies) would worth mentioning again.

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I have read with interest the paper on Jordan's mass media and the role of misinformation. I have the following comments:

 

- the paper is not in the MDPI template, is not following the guidelines of the journal, and is not following the referencing system. Hence, it needs to be reworked according to the journal guidelines and then resubmitted.

- the paper has several paragraphs and sections highlighted in different colours; this should obviously be avoided.

- content wise, it should account for the role of discourses and narratives in Jordan, and on how they shape solutions, and policies in the country; this has been researched in the past years, such as in the following case:Hussein, H. (2018). Lifting the veil: Unpacking the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan. Environmental Science & Policy, 89, 385-392.

- the paper would benefit also from a qualitative component, which would benefit from local knowledge and the inclusion of local researchers. It emerges in several parts of the paper that the authors are writing a paper from abroad. This is not good practice.

- the editorial team should have picked on these issues before sending it out for review.

Author Response

Please kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript has been revised by the authors as per the earlier comments.

Author Response

Point 1: The manuscript has been revised by the authors as per the earlier comments.

Response 1: Think you very much for your time and effort to read and accept our revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have incorporated my comments and there is substantial improvement made in the manuscript. I acknowledge the authors efforts in revision and clarifications to address my previous review, and I am satisfied with the changes made. 

Author Response

Point 1: The authors have incorporated my comments and there is substantial improvement made in the manuscript. I acknowledge the authors efforts in revision and clarifications to address my previous review, and I am satisfied with the changes made.

Response 1: Think you very much for your time and effort in reading and accepting our revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

As mentioned previously, only one of the authors is from a Jordanian institution; the fact that most coauthors are based abroad makes the results and discussion of the paper feel foreign. The design of the study needs to be rethought accordingly.

I suggested one paper and it was not included.

 

I would suggest against publication of this paper in its current form.

Author Response

Point 1: As mentioned previously, only one of the authors is from a Jordanian institution; the fact that most coauthors are based abroad makes the results and discussion of the paper feel foreign. The design of the study needs to be rethought accordingly.

Response 1: While we really appreciated the time and effort the reviewer put on reviewing our work, the first point is unfair to mention for the following reasons:

• The project is led by two local Jordanian authors, despite their affiliations. 
• These two authors are very expert on Jordanian media and its changes.
• 5 out of 6 authors are Arabs and closing understanding the local culture. 

Point 2: I suggested one paper and it was not included.

Response 2: Your suggestions were welcome, regarding Hussein (2018) paper, we stated that this's an interesting study, but it doesn’t focus on social media. It focuses on the discourse of water scarcity. It's pre-dated paper (before Covid-19 pandemic) which isn’t a topic that’s of direct relevance to our study. 

Point 3: I would suggest against publication of this paper in its current form.

Response 3: We believed that we have followed closely your comments, and we don't understand the nature of your rejection. It'd be helpful and appreciated if the reviewer brings / highlights what's further needed to be done exactly to improve the quality of the work.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The structure of the article is impeccable and pertinent and the goal is well formulated from the introduction: this study has developed a model drawn from media system theory to understand the factors that predict information gathering and knowledge sharing, with a focus on the Covid-19 outbreak.

Nevertheless, I present the following suggestions for improvement:

 

• Delimit the concepts from the beginning: digital media, digital platform, social networks.

• It should also develop how it proposes better regulations and laws to address disinformation content.

• About the context review and, in order to broaden the dissemination of the article to other academic environments, it would be appreciated to include a brief description of the Jordanian media landscape or system, in particular digital media. This will allow them to better understand the social impact of media in their environment and to be able to establish comparisons with other media systems.

• Reviewing the title: it does not make a precise reference to the objective of the article and generates a somewhat ambiguous expectation about the content.

• Although the hypotheses are progressive and well articulated, they are very numerous (H1 and H2 could be reformulated into a single H). Similarly, those corresponding to the influence of age and gender have already been addressed in other works. In this case, moreover, the influence of age, as they are young university students, does not seem very relevant. On the other hand, it would have been interesting to compare with another group of non-university young people to see if educational training influences the results.

• The description of the methodology and the statistical verification of the relationships between factors is very detailed. However, the specific items and questions that were addressed during the semi-structured questionnaire are not exposed.

• The final conclusion is very broad and is not directly related to the objective. There is not enough evidence to state at the beginning of the conclusions that “This research concluded that although some digital media platforms have refined their content moderation policies in recent years, they should clearly articulate any misinformation on their platforms and be cautious about detecting and takedown unauthentic information resources”. It should also offer a clearer and more direct description of the objective pursued by the article: to develop a graphical model from media system theory to understand the factors that predict information gathering and knowledge sharing.

• Finally, there are some formal issues to correct in the text:

- page 4, lines 11 to 12: and shara-

ble. digital media platforms are considered to have somehow influenced people's attitudes.

- page 5, last 2 lines: [48]. Generally speaking, a study conducted by [49] indicated a clear difference between digital media users and gender of the respondents. You should indicate the authors in the text.

- page 11, lines 5 to 6: Particularly, when it is about digital media usage., information

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Digital media are not social media. First of all, you need to clarify these two concepts.

There are misuse and incorrect/bad use of the citations/bibliographic references

Some examples:

. “Digital media clearly plays increasingly dominant role in facilitating communications and interactions.[1], [2]” – The term “digital media” is never used in the paper [1]. This paper is about Youtube and the results cannot and should not be generalized. Concerning paper [2], the term “digital media” appears only once, but not in the context of “digital media”.

.” Its sustainability has, however, two sides: it can be used to disseminate reliable and non-reliable information and news.[3]”. This paper never mentions the terms reliable and non-reliable information.

.” For instance, in the Arab world, more online users gather and share information using various digital media platforms.[6], [7]”. The sample of the paper [6] is Malaysia (N=14), Middle East (N=15), and Africa (N=8).

…

.” Perhaps, since the 2011 Arab uprisings, digital media has been able to bridge the gap between old media and the public, however, it has been flooded with unreliable information, especially those countries where under media pressure such Syria, Iraq and Jordan [14].”. This paper has 0 occurrences about Syria and Iraq.

…

 

 

It is necessary to pay attention to the use of citations. This misuse of the citations/bibliographical references caused the rejection of this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The title itself requires revision, specifically the subtitle.

The authors discuss "digital media" as a tool for information dissemination and knowledge sharing. However, this is an extensive term and no definition is offered at the beginning - how broadly do the authors interpret "digital media"? Do they refer to social media only (as suggested by synonymous usage of this term) or any digital or online platforms? The definition of "digital media" is essential for further inquiries.  

In section 1 (Introduction) the authors refer to the reliability of digital media as its potential disadvantages. However, they also have many other threats or negative aspects. 

The phrase "local and non-local Jordanians" is unclear. 

In section 1.1 Jordan is presented as a developing country, but no reason is given if that feature is important for the study. Next, the Jordanian, educated young adults are mentioned as a research population, again with no reason why this specific group was selected. 

The authors listed "understanding the motives behind digital media usage, dissemination of misinformation, and Jordanian users' behavioral intention to gather and share such online content" as the main objective of the study. Only two of them were indicated, i.e. information gathering and knowledge sharing, thus the objective seems to need reformulation as too broad. In consequence, hypotheses 1-3 are very broad as well, the first two have no direct liaison with the pandemic. Hypothesis 5 is hardly verifiable, as only one age group (namely students) was surveyed.  In consequence, the conceptual framework and the declared model are not adapted to the specific situation of COVID-19. 

Also sentence "It seems that respondents were interested in sharing knowledge regarding Covid-19 in Jordan rather than gathering information through social media" (page 11) confirms problems with defining and/or interpreting crucial terms for this study. One cannot conclude that reasonably if does not know what "gathering information" is and how it differs from "knowledge sharing" (i.e. why not being a part of knowledge sharing?). 

Conclusions are not related to the objective and goals of the study. 

The sample was described only by demographic features, while the specifics of being a student of this particular university, as well as the course/discipline, can be meaningful for the procedure and results. 

Table 2 presents (among others) sources of research variables. In the subsection above the authors wrote that "the pre-restructured questionnaire used in this study were taken from the literature". However, as for e.g. misinformation dissemination, no items were defined in the source [19]. 

Paragraph 2 page 11 (discussion section): " a finding that has been confirmed by previous literature" - actually, the relation should be in the opposite direction. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The biggest reservation is the legitimacy of conducting research on such a wide topic only on students from one university. If the authors decided to stick to this method, all hypotheses should be reformulated accordingly. At this point, we cannot draw any broader conclusions even for the student population in general. I consider the topic timely and important, the literature review confirmed it, but unfortunately the article is insufficient in terms of methodology. The authors do not sufficiently explain the categories they introduce and it is difficult to follow their reasoning and argumentation. In addition, there were a lot of editing and linguistic errors in the text.