Navigating the Digital Landscape: Challenges and Barriers to Effective Information Use on the Internet
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report
I am delighted to have the opportunity to read and review this manuscript. The manuscript is not only relevant but also holds the potential to significantly influence the digital age. The authors have undertaken a commendable task of exploring various areas within the digital landscape. From the overview of this paper, it is apparent that the format followed by this paper is typically associated with a literature review, book chapter, opinion piece, or commentary. Even though this does not diminish the quality of the paper, it is essential to note this observation. The following is an analysis and review of the paper; the ideas shared here are meant to uplift the quality of the paper, and in no way are they meant to discredit the author's efforts.
General Observations.
· Some inconsistencies that were observed: While the manuscript has made a comprehensive attempt to discuss various concepts related to the digital landscape, the authors have not sufficiently differentiated between social media and digital information literacy. There has been mixed discussion on this area in the entire paper. In their presentation on page 4, line 167, and section 3.2, heading “The spread of misinformation and disinformation,” the authors primarily focus on social media as a source of misinformation and disinformation. While this is a valid point, they should have also explored other digital landscapes that contribute to misinformation and disinformation, such as predatory journals that publish unchecked or pseudoscientific work. By focusing on these areas, the authors can strengthen their argument for the urgent need for digital information literacy programs, thereby highlighting the importance of their research. This could also support their argument about “consequences of health discussion” which will later be pointed out in this review.
· The authors should also consider citing the latest publications, especially in the section where they offer solutions. For instance, on page 6, line 258, “Barriers to developing digital literacy,” the authors seem to have used old citations. It's crucial to keep the references up to date to ensure the manuscript remains relevant and credible. For example, the authors state on page 6, lines 283 and 284, “Moreover, digital literacy is also affected by language barriers and cultural differences.” Which section of the world is this reference made towards? From the statement, the citation is scientifically outdated.
· There is a need for consistency in the presentation of terms and concepts. The authors need to decide if they are going to use X or Twitter. Reading this document, one might tend to think that the two concepts are different. Let the authors be consistent, either using both or sticking to the current version of X. Otherwise, you are likely to confuse users in the future, especially the ones who will be new to Twitter. Check page 3, line 84,
· Despite the existence of various types of in-text citations, the authors have been biased towards “parenthetical citation,” which raises many questions about whether they read the information cited. For instance, there are no direct citations in this paper. Did the authors read all the cited documents? Why are there no direct citation? This brings some questionable queries. For instance, on page 6, lines 294, 295, and 296, it states, “Schools, colleges, and universities can equip students with the tools to critically evaluate online information, verify sources, and engage responsibly with digital content (Hobbs, 2010)” However reading Hobbs (2010), (Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. A White Paper on the Digital and Media Literacy Recommendations of 720 the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. ERIC), the report highlighted several measures that can be used to bridge the digital literacy gap, among them being the role of digital library programs, which the authors don’t mention but later introduce another citation by (Bertot et al., 2008) and indicate that they proposed the introduction of library literacy programs. Such practices in this paper make the paper seem to be fabricating unnecessary citations to make the work appear scholarly. This practice is seen in the entire paper, where authors are cited only once using “parenthetical citations.” I will mention a few (Napoli, 2014), (Bertot et al., 2008), (Bucher, 2012), (Shirky, 2008), (Van Dijk, 2020), (Anderson & Kumar, 2019), (Haight et al., 2016). Let the author prove to the readers that they read some cited works by exploring the various types of citations, including direct quotations.
The specific section of the Manuscript
Introduction
· The introduction of the paper is clear and precise. From the introduction, it is apparent that the paper is a literature review, and its aims and objectives are highlighted towards the end, which is to establish barriers and challenges for effective internet usage.
Body of the Manuscripts
· The paper lacks a well-laid-out body, and concepts and topics are randomly introduced. This is evident from the onset. For instance, on page 5, line 202. What relevance is the heading “Consequences on health decisions” to the title of the paper? This heading should not be on this manuscript since it has no significance to the research paper title. Instead, the authors could discuss under Misinformation and Disinformation what consequences Misinformation and Disinformation have on people, among which they can mention health issues. Other inappropriate titles and headings are, for instance, on Page 5, line 234. The authors have a whole paragraph titled “4.1. Defining digital literacy,” Even though it is meant to define Digital literacy, the authors do not define the concept until the end of the paragraph.
· From the Manuscript title “Navigating the Digital Landscape: Challenges and Barriers to Effective Information Use on the Internet,” This manuscript should conclude its discussion on page 7, line 324, and proceed to the conclusion and recommendation. The other titles and headings introduced by the authors are not well articulated and do not seem to add any value to the paper. This is evident because the authors even avoided discussing them in their recommendations and conclusions, justifying my argument that they are insignificant to this manuscript. They have, however, been used to cause a lot of redundancy and repetition in the earlier discussions. The term misinformation is, for instance, repeated and discussed on pg. 9, lines 415, 450. Page, 10, line 471.
Conclusion of the Study.
Having mentioned the above observations, it is apparent that the conclusion of the paper is too brief, weak, and does not add much significance and value to the paper. This must be considered for a complete revision if the quality of this paper is to be upheld.
Author Response
Thank you to the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing valuable comments. We truly appreciate the feedback, and below is our point-by-point response to each comment.
Comment 1: Some inconsistencies that were observed: While the manuscript has made a comprehensive attempt to discuss various concepts related to the digital landscape, the authors have not sufficiently differentiated between social media and digital information literacy. There has been mixed discussion on this area in the entire paper. In their presentation on page 4, line 167, and section 3.2, heading “The spread of misinformation and disinformation,” the authors primarily focus on social media as a source of misinformation and disinformation. While this is a valid point, they should have also explored other digital landscapes that contribute to misinformation and disinformation, such as predatory journals that publish unchecked or pseudoscientific work.
Response 1: We have expanded Section 3.2 to explore additional digital landscapes that contribute to misinformation and disinformation, including predatory journals that publish unchecked or pseudoscientific content, as suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 2: The authors should also consider citing the latest publications, especially in the section where they offer solutions. For instance, on page 6, line 258, “Barriers to developing digital literacy,” the authors seem to have used old citations. It's crucial to keep the references up to date to ensure the manuscript remains relevant and credible. For example, the authors state on page 6, lines 283 and 284, “Moreover, digital literacy is also affected by language barriers and cultural differences.” Which section of the world is this reference made towards? From the statement, the citation is scientifically outdated.
Response 2: We have updated the “Barriers to Developing Digital Literacy” section to include recent sources that address cultural and linguistic challenges in digital literacy, particularly the unique digital access issues multilingual learners face. For example, during distance learning, multilingual students encountered significant barriers, which were addressed through innovative solutions to bridge these gaps. These updates ensure that our discussion reflects the most current insights on barriers to digital literacy.
Comment 3: There is a need for consistency in the presentation of terms and concepts. The authors need to decide if they are going to use X or Twitter. Reading this document, one might tend to think that the two concepts are different. Let the authors be consistent, either using both or sticking to the current version of X. Otherwise, you are likely to confuse users in the future, especially the ones who will be new to Twitter. Check page 3, line 84,
Response 3: We have revised the manuscript to ensure consistency in terminology. All instances of "Twitter" have been updated to the current term "X" to avoid any potential confusion for readers, especially those unfamiliar with the platform's former name.
Comment 4: Despite the existence of various types of in-text citations, the authors have been biased towards “parenthetical citation,” which raises many questions about whether they read the information cited. For instance, there are no direct citations in this paper. Did the authors read all the cited documents? Why are there no direct citation? This brings some questionable queries. For instance, on page 6, lines 294, 295, and 296, it states, “Schools, colleges, and universities can equip students with the tools to critically evaluate online information, verify sources, and engage responsibly with digital content (Hobbs, 2010)” However reading Hobbs (2010), (Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. A White Paper on the Digital and Media Literacy Recommendations of 720 the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. ERIC), the report highlighted several measures that can be used to bridge the digital literacy gap, among them being the role of digital library programs, which the authors don’t mention but later introduce another citation by (Bertot et al., 2008) and indicate that they proposed the introduction of library literacy programs. Such practices in this paper make the paper seem to be fabricating unnecessary citations to make the work appear scholarly. This practice is seen in the entire paper, where authors are cited only once using “parenthetical citations.” I will mention a few (Napoli, 2014), (Bertot et al., 2008), (Bucher, 2012), (Shirky, 2008), (Van Dijk, 2020), (Anderson & Kumar, 2019), (Haight et al., 2016). Let the author prove to the readers that they read some cited works by exploring the various types of citations, including direct quotations.
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback on citation style. Our approach to citing sources reflects a preference for paraphrasing, which allows us to integrate sources seamlessly into the manuscript while maintaining a consistent narrative voice. We have carefully read and engaged with all cited documents. In particular, we aimed to use Bertot et al. (2008) to expand on the concept of digital literacy programs that Hobbs (2010) also discussed, although we recognize that this connection may not have been sufficiently explicit. We have now revised the text to clarify this alignment and ensure a clear presentation of each source’s contribution.
Comment 5: The paper lacks a well-laid-out body, and concepts and topics are randomly introduced. This is evident from the onset. For instance, on page 5, line 202. What relevance is the heading “Consequences on health decisions” to the title of the paper? This heading should not be on this manuscript since it has no significance to the research paper title. Instead, the authors could discuss under Misinformation and Disinformation what consequences Misinformation and Disinformation have on people, among which they can mention health issues.
Response 5: We have removed Section 3.3, “Consequences on Health Decisions,” and incorporated relevant points as examples in the broader discussion on the consequences of disinformation and misinformation.
Comment 6: Other inappropriate titles and headings are, for instance, on Page 5, line 234. The authors have a whole paragraph titled “4.1. Defining digital literacy,” Even though it is meant to define Digital literacy, the authors do not define the concept until the end of the paragraph.
Response 6: In response, we revised the manuscript to enhance the clarity and placed the definition of “digital literacy” at the beginning of Section 4.1, as suggested, to provide a clear foundation for the section.
Comment 7: From the Manuscript title “Navigating the Digital Landscape: Challenges and Barriers to Effective Information Use on the Internet,” This manuscript should conclude its discussion on page 7, line 324, and proceed to the conclusion and recommendation. The other titles and headings introduced by the authors are not well articulated and do not seem to add any value to the paper. This is evident because the authors even avoided discussing them in their recommendations and conclusions, justifying my argument that they are insignificant to this manuscript. They have, however, been used to cause a lot of redundancy and repetition in the earlier discussions. The term misinformation is, for instance, repeated and discussed on pg. 9, lines 415, 450. Page, 10, line 471.
Having mentioned the above observations, it is apparent that the conclusion of the paper is too brief, weak, and does not add much significance and value to the paper. This must be considered for a complete revision if the quality of this paper is to be upheld.
Response 7: We have significantly revised the conclusion section to strengthen its relevance and comprehensiveness. Additionally, we have refined section titles and headings throughout the manuscript to ensure each one adds value to the discussion without redundancy.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe entry "Navigating the Digital Landscape: Challenges and Barriers to Effective Information Use on the Internet" offers a thorough overview of key points addressed in the literature on this subject. However, certain adjustments could make the entry more useful for the Encyclopedia.
The first aspect to mention is that the article dedicates an entire section (3.3 Consequences on Health Decisions) to discuss misinformation related to health, including topics on vaccines and the COVID-19 crisis. Given the broader focus of the manuscript, these details are insufficiently explored and seem out of context. It would be more effective to exclude this subsection and perhaps mention these as examples of the consequences of dis- and misinformation in a broader sense.
In addressing the topic of the digital divide (which begins with section 4.2.1), it would be beneficial for the authors to include studies that discuss factors contributing to this divide, such as residence in developing countries, as well as gender and age.
Regarding topic 4.3 on information-seeking, it would be valuable for the article to dedicate a few lines to the “news-find-me perception” phenomenon, whereby individuals believe that important information "finds them" through their general media consumption, peers, and social connections. I suggest reviewing the following text:
Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Diehl, T. (2019). News finds me perception and democracy: Effects on political knowledge, political interest, and voting. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1253-1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818817548
Author Response
Thank you to the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing valuable comments. We truly appreciate the feedback, and below is our point-by-point response to each comment.
Comment 1: The first aspect to mention is that the article dedicates an entire section (3.3 Consequences on Health Decisions) to discuss misinformation related to health, including topics on vaccines and the COVID-19 crisis. Given the broader focus of the manuscript, these details are insufficiently explored and seem out of context. It would be more effective to exclude this subsection and perhaps mention these as examples of the consequences of dis- and misinformation in a broader sense.
Response 1: We have removed Section 3.3, “Consequences on Health Decisions,” and incorporated relevant points as examples in the broader discussion on the consequences of disinformation and misinformation.
Comment 2: In addressing the topic of the digital divide (which begins with section 4.2.1), it would be beneficial for the authors to include studies that discuss factors contributing to this divide, such as residence in developing countries, as well as gender and age.
Response 2: We have incorporated studies that discuss additional factors contributing to the digital divide, including residence in developing countries, gender disparities, and age-related barriers.
Comment 3: Regarding topic 4.3 on information-seeking, it would be valuable for the article to dedicate a few lines to the “news-find-me perception” phenomenon, whereby individuals believe that important information "finds them" through their general media consumption, peers, and social connections. I suggest reviewing the following text:
Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Diehl, T. (2019). News finds me perception and democracy: Effects on political knowledge, political interest, and voting. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1253-1271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818817548
Response 3: We have added a few lines in Section 6.3 to address the “news-find-me perception” phenomenon, as suggested. This addition highlights how individuals may rely on passive information acquisition through general media exposure and social connections.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have comprehensively revised their manuscript, and I am satisfied. However, there are a few observations that I think can be tackled later with the help of the editorial department. They are not serious amendments but will assist in the smooth flow of concepts and ideas. These are as follows.
1. On page 5, line 253, the title is “4. Digital Literacy as a tool Against misinformation.” An introductory statement about the title and its role will enhance readership.
2. On page 10, line 498, the title 6. Motivational and cognitive factors in information seeking
3. On page 12, line 596, the title “7. Content moderation and ethical challenges”
4. The conclusion still looks brief, but I think I accept it; we can work with what we have.
Otherwise, I accept the revised manuscript and recommend it for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewer’s valuable recommendations. We greatly appreciate the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing thoughtful feedback. In response, we have added a brief introductory statement about the title for the mentioned sections.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version of the manuscript addressed my suggestions and improved the text, making it a valuable contribution to the field.
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewer’s valuable recommendations. We greatly appreciate the time and effort the reviewer dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing thoughtful feedback.
