Scholars’ Domain of Information Space

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for doing this work. Here are some suggestions to help with clarifying and communicating your research.

The references: it was good that a wide variety of countries are represented in the publications. However, in comparing results of this study against the literature, It would be important to make distinctions between the cultural environment in teaching, research, and administration in Croatia vs. practices in the United States, Nigeria, Russia, and Norway - for example. All very different - including access to the internet as an information conduit. In addition, there was no discussion of open access or current use of social media. While those surveyed were from Croatia, there was no discussion as to how this relates to a global population and how the bibliography interacted in a local context.

Further breakdown of the employees served would have been useful as there are studies on information seeking habits of early career researchers and established tenured faculty.

Specifics for “technical and social” fields would be useful too. These terms seem very broad and not used in other countries.Some of the references were oddly specific, especially when not noted.

The references were very dated, especially for information seeking and technology use.

Figures and charts could have been labeled and described better. For example: “Figure 2. Percentages of answers for the components in question 15.” There was no access to the survey to understand what the questions were or their components. The description was hard to read.

Author Response

Dear, thank you for your comments and remarks, which contributed to better elaboration and clarity in this work. I am listing here the additional clarifications and changes that have been made regrding your comment.

“The references: it was good that a wide variety of countries are represented in the publications. However, in comparing results of this study against the literature, It would be important to make distinctions between the cultural environment in teaching, research, and administration in Croatia vs. practices in the United States, Nigeria, Russia, and Norway - for example. All very different - including access to the internet as an information conduit. In addition, there was no discussion of open access or current use of social media. While those surveyed were from Croatia, there was no discussion as to how this relates to a global population and how the bibliography interacted in a local context.”

In this research, we did not aim to make a contextual/cultural comparison, but only to clarify at the level of theory, in general, with regard to three academic activities, and the basic types of communication channels. The main source for this is references number 8 and 9. In addition, source number 9 uses references that refer mainly to Western authors, and gives a more general overview of communication with some specifics of the university, which from our perspective and long-term experience, are also applied in Croatia. If a comparison were made on the basis of only these sources, it would be insufficiently substantiated, and much more would need to be added and researched, which would go beyond the goal of this research.

According to the insight from the references and the obtained results of this research, as well as from the author's personal experience, there is no significant difference in the behavior between academics in Croatia and abroad in terms of communication channels for searching information in  three basic activities. The bibliography is outside the context of Croatia in this matter, for the reason that there are no relevant studies in Croatia that analyze the behavior of academics in the specifics listed here, but also in the broader scope of behavior when seeking informationIn the article, restrictions have been added under the discussion within the last paragraph.

“Further breakdown of the employees served would have been useful as there are studies on information seeking habits of early career researchers and established tenured faculty.”

This section is added to page 13, as last paragraf od descriptive analysis.

“Specifics for “technical and social” fields would be useful too. These terms seem very broad and not used in other countries.Some of the references were oddly specific, especially when not noted.”

By the technical area we mean the scientific fields of computing, mechanical and electrical engineering, while the social area refers to economics and informatics.

This explanation is added on page 7, under Materials and Methods.

“The references were very dated, especially for information seeking and technology use.”

We have added more recent reference.

“Figures and charts could have been labeled and described better. For example: “Figure 2. Percentages of answers for the components in question 15.” There was no access to the survey to understand what the questions were or their components. The description was hard to read.”

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is devoted to the study of the subject area of ​​the information space by scientists.

The study is of interest from the point of view of theory and practice of teaching. The methods by which the research is carried out are adequate to the goal. The study itself meets the standards of scientific research. However, the article does not have a "Restrictions" section. This section is necessary because it allows you to show what educational institutions the respondents were from, etc. Also, this information should be present in the abstract.

The article is also poorly supported by relevant sources. At the same time, the discussion of different types of knowledge (pp. 2-5) entails a large philosophical, pedagogical, psychological base. It is necessary to expand the reference to sources on these issues. Authors should consult a variety of problem-solving literature, for example,

Martyushev, N., Shutaleva, A., Malushko, E., Nikonova, Z., & Savchenko, I. (2021). Online communication tools in teaching foreign languages for education sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(19), [11127]. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911127

Baruwa I., Shutaleva A. Nature of Knowledge in Philosophy. Journal of Education Society and Behavioural Science, 2022, 35(10):47-59. DOI: 10.9734/JESBS/2022/v35i1030463

The list of keywords should also be finalized. The three words presented do not reflect the specifics of the study.

Author Response

Dear, thank you for your comments, remarks and and literature suggestions, which contributed to better elaboration and clarity in this work. I am listing here the additional clarifications and changes that have been made.

“The study is of interest from the point of view of theory and practice of teaching. The methods by which the research is carried out are adequate to the goal. The study itself meets the standards of scientific research. However, the article does not have a "Restrictions" section. This section is necessary because it allows you to show what educational institutions the respondents were from, etc. Also, this information should be present in the abstract.”

Since the article form does not have such a section, the limitations are listed as the last paragraph in the discussion section, and information related to the limitations of the sample has been added.

 

“The article is also poorly supported by relevant sources. At the same time, the discussion of different types of knowledge (pp. 2-5) entails a large philosophical, pedagogical, psychological base. It is necessary to expand the reference to sources on these issues. Authors should consult a variety of problem-solving literature, for example,

Martyushev, N., Shutaleva, A., Malushko, E., Nikonova, Z., & Savchenko, I. (2021). Online communication tools in teaching foreign languages for education sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(19), [11127]. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911127

Baruwa I., Shutaleva A. Nature of Knowledge in Philosophy. Journal of Education Society and Behavioural Science, 2022, 35(10):47-59. DOI: 10.9734/JESBS/2022/v35i1030463”

We agree that discussion about types of knowledge requires a complex and multidisciplinary approach, but that was not our intention in this paper because our goal is to check one of the assumptions of the given information model, the specifics of which we wanted to check within the academic population. Max Boisot's information model, among other things, describes the dimensions of knowledge concerning the flow of information and the way of communication(from uncodifeid to codified and un-diffuesd to diffused), thus the emphasis in work is on information. 

Boisot work has rarely been covered in the literature, especially when a certain specificity of codification and diffusion of information is observed.

Papers that are related to the theory of I-space have been added.

 

“The list of keywords should also be finalized. The three words presented do not reflect the specifics of the study.”

Since the article form requirements only ask for 3 keywords, it's hard to pick the right ones. A change was made, and: I-space model, scholars, communication channels, were added.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for adding specifics where there were a number of notes. This has helped to clarify some areas of the paper and the edits help to refine some of the broader statements that are now understood to apply to a local context, perspective, and experience. I concur with the other reviewer’s comment that, “The article is also poorly supported by relevant sources,” and this was the point I was trying to make. Adding more recent and related research to the references is useful but I’m not sure how it affected the outcomes or analysis of the survey. The abstract and introduction are still making broad statements generalizing about scholars which could be misconstrued as global, “The article addresses scholars' information behaviour and how they use technology to acquire information in three areas of their work.” Adding “Croatian” before scholar would be helpful and signal there is no comparison or inclusion of researchers beyond those surveyed, as was stated in the authors’ response.

To the authors’ comments, “In this research, we did not aim to make a contextual/cultural comparison, but only to clarify at the level of theory, in general, with regard to three academic activities, and the basic types of communication channels…According to the insight from the references and the obtained results of this research, as well as from the author's personal experience, there is no significant difference in the behavior between academics in Croatia and abroad in terms of communication channels for searching information in three basic activities.” These assertions need to be made clearer in the article; 1) what insight was applied from the references and how. As we’ve mentioned, the initial references were not necessarily relevant given their lack of currency and 2) how anecdotes from the authors’ personal experiences were applied to the data or analysis.

The survey questions (unedited) as accompanying data would be helpful for readers to understand the figure and graphs, as well as how this article might be useful in informing further research or application.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the additional remarks and comments that have helped to refine this work. As in the previous round, I refer to the explanations and changes made. Also, the text passed an additional grammar check.

Reviewer:

Thank you for adding specifics where there were a number of notes. This has helped to clarify some areas of the paper and the edits help to refine some of the broader statements that are now understood to apply to a local context, perspective, and experience. I concur with the other reviewer’s comment that, “The article is also poorly supported by relevant sources,” and this was the point I was trying to make.  Adding more recent and related research to the references is useful but I’m not sure how it affected the outcomes or analysis of the survey.

The abstract and introduction are still making broad statements generalizing about scholars which could be misconstrued as global, “The article addresses scholars' information behaviour and how they use technology to acquire information in three areas of their work.” Adding “Croatian” before scholar would be helpful and signal there is no comparison or inclusion of researchers beyond those surveyed, as was stated in the authors’ response.

Authors:

The name of Croatia has been added to the summary. It is also specified in the methodology and the subsequent discussion that the sample relates to Croatia.

Reviewer:

To the authors’ comments, “In this research, we did not aim to make a contextual/cultural comparison, but only to clarify at the level of theory, in general, with regard to three academic activities, and the basic types of communication channels…According to the insight from the references and the obtained results of this research, as well as from the author's personal experience, there is no significant difference in the behavior between academics in Croatia and abroad in terms of communication channels for searching information in three basic activities.” These assertions need to be made clearer in the article;

1) what insight was applied from the references and how. As we’ve mentioned, the initial references were not necessarily relevant given their lack of currency and

Authors:

The main focus is the verification of Boisot’s model and its assumptions, as we have called for in our discussion. Regarding references for communication channels and their characteristics, we have added links in the conclusion chapter.

The sentence you quoted here is taken from the context of our comment, which is linked to your previous comment relating to the differences between countries, which we did not cover in this analysis. In addition, we put the word ‘Croatian’ in the summary sheet, and in the discussion and, reference 1 to the place where the model’s assumption is made, including the conclusion.

Reviewer:

2) how anecdotes from the authors’ personal experiences were applied to the data or analysis.

Authors:

The components of the questions relating to communication channels are linked to our personal experiences and pairs of references. The sentence giving this has been added to Chapter 3. In Descriptive Analysis, question 15. we note that it is a common practice that information about the subject matter, the teaching calendar, is in the intranet of the communication channel – it is added that it is our experience. Also in the discussion, regarding question 16. we note that “very often we start with research based on an idea in a conversation with colleagues, then research through explicit forms, to exchange certain knowledge again within a narrower scope of the population”.

Reviewer:

The survey questions (unedited) as accompanying data would be helpful for readers to understand the figure and graphs, as well as how this article might be useful in informing further research or application.

Authors:

We believe that there is no logical and conceptual difference between the questions we refer to in the article and the questionnaire. As an example, we provide a comparison of the text for question 15.

Article:  Finding information for teaching activities

Questionnaire: Information for the field of teaching activity can be found through

Reviewer 2 Report

At the moment, the article has received additional conceptualization. This is a very positive change that makes the article more meaningful to the scientific community.

However, the authors did not take into account all the comments. For example, having written in the answer what keywords were added, this was not reflected in the current version of the article. In the response, the authors indicated additional words that reflect the specifics of the approach, and if they take their place in the text, then this will be adequate.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the additional remarks and comments that have helped to refine this work. I set out below the change made.

Reviewer:

At the moment, the article has received additional conceptualization. This is a very positive change that makes the article more meaningful to the scientific community. However, the authors did not take into account all the comments. For example, having written in the answer what keywords were added, this was not reflected in the current version of the article. In the response, the authors indicated additional words that reflect the specifics of the approach, and if they take their place in the text, then this will be adequate.

Authors:

Thank you for the omission indicated. Keywords have been changed according to the above.

References related to channels and forms of communication have been added to the discussion chapter to see a certain connection with the obtained results of this research.