Social Media Analysis to Enhance Sustainable Knowledge Management: A Concise Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a review of social media literature and its relevance to knowledge management processes, in general and regarding specific domains. The paper shows the importance of SM in KM processes, by bringing new knowledge resources to the organizational and community-based groups. This analysis lacks studies that deal with human barriers that imped the engagement of people with SM and studies that structure SM for specific purposes. I would also expect to have a discussion on inappropriate knowledge in SM, fake news, and nowadays the new BI tools that influence SM as well.
I recommend extending the literature review and include human barriers and SM; AI and SM; and Fake news and SM, Marketing and SM, and Inappropriate Knowledge and SM and choose the ones that relate to knowledge processes. You may find studies that show that there are few contributors and more readers (what we call lurkers) , information overload problems (especially in the medical domain, where patients can access irrelevant information) and more issues that harm quality knowledge access. Also, I would recommend considering the structure issues of SM, from just a blog, mailing list to structured platforms that may include tagging systems and voting options. To write about SM in general is rater weak.
Here are several ref:
Levy, M., Hadar, I., Te'eni, D., Unkelos-Shpigel, N., Sherman, S. and Harel, N., (2016). "Social Networking in an Academic Conference Context: Insights from a Case Study"
Di Domenico, Giandomenico, et al. "Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review." Journal of Business Research 124 (2021): 329-341.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully addressed each comment, and the manuscript is updated accordingly. Please see the attached file for detailed response. Thank you for your time and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The research question is basic for this type of journal.
Research questions should be more complex and analytical.
Abstract: is too descriptive of the topic; research objectives, methods and results are missing.
KEYWORDS – are accordingly.
The Introduction: is not complying to its scope and is not convincing about the importance of the topic, which is rather fuzzy.
Literature Review – Context
Literature review is not fluid nor convincing about the theoretical framework, it is developed on sections which is dividing the whole picture.
Literature review should be enriched in references for supporting the same concept or idea/ or theory. As we mentioned, it is included in the Introduction section.
Materials and methods / Research design
Research methodology is not presented in detail, and not at all clearly enough in order to understand the research approach and implementation. Quantitative information should be provided about the query. Also a timeline.
Sub/sections should be improved with details, arguments and explanations.
Discussions
Discussions should refer to specific ideas, problems and results.
Discussion should provide understanding of the results.
Discussions could include a few references in order to compare, to report these to other studies.
Conclusions
Conclusions should provide with clarity the contribution of the research and future developments.
References
References should be improved with papers on the topic.
Check “knowledge dynamics”, “knowledge metaphors”, “from wisdom to knowledge”, “knowledge thermodynamics approach” “Organizational knowledge dynamics: Managing knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing, and transformation: Managing knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing, and transformation”
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully addressed each comment, and the manuscript is updated accordingly. Please see the attached file for detailed response. Thank you for your time and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been improved. One problem is the sentence "Fake News: There is a growing concern about spreading misinformation. The authors in [176] provided a detailed analysis of the Fake news phenomenon." The ref is not correct as in the paper other references relate to the topic.
In addition the authors claim the relevance of their paper to sustainability which is not well explained in their conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback on the article. I'm pleased to inform you that we have updated to address your concerns.
Firstly, we have rectified the issue regarding the incorrect reference for the sentence on fake news. The appropriate references have been incorporated into the article, ensuring accuracy and credibility.
Furthermore, we have revised the conclusion section to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the paper's relevance to sustainability.
We appreciate your diligence in reviewing our article and bringing these matters to our attention. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving our work's overall quality and coherence.
All changes are highlighted in the manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.
Best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved according to the suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback on the article. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving our work's overall quality and coherence.
Regards
OS
