Jouni+Review

<< Takaisin OPVIE-sivulle

=REVIEW - COMMENTS FROM REFEREES =

 **1. Introduction ** In introduction, the authors introduce Wikipedia as "Social Software", as the context of the study, and present "lurking" as the problem of the study. The last paragraph describes the study. The introduction has mostly relevant contents, but there would be need for some refinement with respect to logical structure and presentation. Also, the last paragraph should be revisited by the authors, in order to consider how it corresponds the rest of the paper.

The paper has mostly mixed the materials, methods and results. It is not constructed with respect to this conventional structure of scientific paper. It seems that the authors have been trying to apply structure where materials (observations and results from some earlier research) have been associated to themes of the experimental studies the authors have conducted. This is a bit confusing to the reader. Also, some of the empirical results seems to be presented here, and in some parts of them the authors are referring to their earlier publications. The method and settings would really need a clear and exact presentation (for example, the experiments done and reported are lacking of relevant information for the reader).
 * 2. Materials and Methods **
 * 3. Results **

**4. Conclusion ** The conclusions (or ""Practical Consequences") returns back to the problems presented in the introduction, which is good to see. However, the questions reminds, how much in between those parts is relevant, and utilised as evidence, with logical inference, for supporting the conclusions.

There is no separate discussion chapter. Whole of the paper, different parts, include some discussion.
 * 5. Discussion **

**6. Title **The title seems to correspond the content at general level. When it emphasises the results of the empirical research programme (assuming the authors have carried it out), a better description of the research programme and more exact information about the empirical setting and (quantitiavive, as refered) results would have been expected by the reader. More systematic conclusions adn extensive discussion would have been nice to see in the paper, based on the given title.

The abstract seems to be pretty well aligned with the rest of the paper.
 * 7. Abstract **


 * 8. Final Analysis

** <span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Helvetica,sans-serif;">**List the three most important IMPROVEMENTS that are needed.**

The paper seems to be still pretty much in manuscript stage. It has some relevant and interesting contents, as well as (expectedly) interesting empirical experimentation setting where it was built on. However, the paper has some serious problems, which imply need for significant revision of the paper, and re-review before accepting for publication. The most fundamental problem is the experimental setting and the presented application context where the conclusions were drawn. Does the experimental setting (so, contribution of work for common pool, and getting paid as a immediater reward) correspond to the given contenxt (so, contributing information freewillingly through social media for open sharing, without expecting concretic material reward). Is the "knowledge" and "knowledge" the same in these two cases? This issue, their relationship, should be clearly presented in the paper, otherwise the validity of the inference remains questionable.

The second highly relevant imporovement, which would be required before publication, concerns the structure of the paper. As already noted abowe, the paper does not correspond the conventional structure of a research paper. This makes it difficult, and even confusing, to read. Furthermore, there appears not to be any real reason for the current presentation structure. Quite a contrary, reporting of experimental empirical results really call for clear method and research setting presentation.

The third mosot impoortant improvement need is at some levele related to the previous one. In addition to more clear empirical research paper structure, the data and results of the study should be presented more exactly and clearly. The evidence of the experimental resluts in the present for of the paper is a bit questionable, because the readoer does not have enough information to evaluate the validity and reliability of the collected data and analysis based on it.


 * List the three most important STRENGHTS of this paper, which should not be lost in the process of revision.**

The most important strengths of the paper seems to lie in collecting hypotheses from the earlier research and arranging the experiments for verification and further analysis of those hypotheses. This good parts would be only presented better, in order to highlight the good research work on the Background.

There appear to be considerable lacking in language and presentation (in English). For example temporal and passive/active "mixing" gives a non-finalised "manuscript feeling". Language checking should be recommended.
 * WRITING STYLE and LANGUAGE**


 * In my view this paper should be placed in the following category:**

REVISE AND RESUBMIT: in need of major changes as indicated in this review


 * Reviewer’s Comments**

The paper seems to present pretty interesting and extensively conducted research, but the good results are lost in presentation. Extensive revision, based on the comments above, would be recommended. In this way, the results of the research could be published in a form they deserve.