===========================================================
--======== Review Reports ========--
The review report from reviewer #1:
*1: Is the paper relevant to WI?
[_] No
[X] Yes
*2: How innovative is the paper?
[_] 5 (Very innovative)
[_] 4 (Innovative)
[X] 3 (Marginally)
[_] 2 (Not very much)
[_] 1 (Not)
[_] 0 (Not at all)
*3: How would you rate the technical quality of the paper?
[_] 5 (Very high)
[_] 4 (High)
[X] 3 (Good)
[_] 2 (Needs improvement)
[_] 1 (Low)
[_] 0 (Very low)
*4: How is the presentation?
[_] 5 (Excellent)
[X] 4 (Good)
[_] 3 (Above average)
[_] 2 (Below average)
[_] 1 (Fair)
[_] 0 (Poor)
*5: Is the paper of interest to WI users and practitioners?
[X] 3 (Yes)
[_] 2 (May be)
[_] 1 (No)
[_] 0 (Not applicable)
*6: What is your confidence in your review of this paper?
[X] 2 (High)
[_] 1 (Medium)
[_] 0 (Low)
*7: Overall recommendation
[_] 5 (Strong Accept: top quality)
[X] 4 (Accept: a regular paper)
[_] 3 (Weak Accept: could be a poster or a short paper)
[_] 2 (Weak Reject: don't like it, but won't argue to reject it)
[_] 1 (Reject: will argue to reject it)
[_] 0 (Strong Reject: hopeless)
*8: Detailed comments for the authors
This paper presents the results of experimental exploration of selective behavior for disseminators
and audiences in YouTube, Flickr, and Twitter. Their study shows tie between the selective behavior of
disseminators/audiences and user attributes such as age, gender, etc.
The study is interesting and the presentation is good. The experiments have been conducted to a reasonable level of detail. The number of attributes considered in the experiments could have been more (at the moment very few attributes are considered). Including other attributes will change the results. However, for the few attributes considered in this paper, the results are convincing. I think, this paper should be accepted.
===================================================
The review report from reviewer #2:
*1: Is the paper relevant to WI?
[_] No
[X] Yes
*2: How innovative is the paper?
[_] 5 (Very innovative)
[_] 4 (Innovative)
[_] 3 (Marginally)
[X] 2 (Not very much)
[_] 1 (Not)
[_] 0 (Not at all)
*3: How would you rate the technical quality of the paper?
[_] 5 (Very high)
[_] 4 (High)
[X] 3 (Good)
[_] 2 (Needs improvement)
[_] 1 (Low)
[_] 0 (Very low)
*4: How is the presentation?
[_] 5 (Excellent)
[_] 4 (Good)
[X] 3 (Above average)
[_] 2 (Below average)
[_] 1 (Fair)
[_] 0 (Poor)
*5: Is the paper of interest to WI users and practitioners?
[_] 3 (Yes)
[X] 2 (May be)
[_] 1 (No)
[_] 0 (Not applicable)
*6: What is your confidence in your review of this paper?
[_] 2 (High)
[X] 1 (Medium)
[_] 0 (Low)
*7: Overall recommendation
[_] 5 (Strong Accept: top quality)
[_] 4 (Accept: a regular paper)
[X] 3 (Weak Accept: could be a poster or a short paper)
[_] 2 (Weak Reject: don't like it, but won't argue to reject it)
[_] 1 (Reject: will argue to reject it)
[_] 0 (Strong Reject: hopeless)
*8: Detailed comments for the authors
This paper reports some descriptive statistics about selective behavior in different online social networks. It essentially verifies the homophily effect of information diffusion (from disseminators to audience), in terms of age, gender, location, etc.
The paper itself is quite clear. The authors did a good job presenting the findings by providing many figures. The scale of the data used in the study also seems convincing.
My major concern is about the novelty. If the paper were 5 years ago, the content should be interesting. But after so many studies reporting homophily phenomenon, the findings here are not new or exciting any more. The authors emphasizes lots about the difference of this piece of this work, but I am not convinced by the justification. What's the rationale of yet another paper confirming the homophily effect? The authors may want to clarify what the main purpose of this paper is.
In the contribution, the authors also claim that "Contrary to traditional media, we find that dual-role users are ubiquitous in OSNs." Isn't this already widely accepted? That's why there is a revolution about social media as discussed by many books.
One minor issue: figure 3 is not clear. It is hardly legible.
===================================================
The review report from reviewer #3:
*1: Is the paper relevant to WI?
[_] No
[X] Yes
*2: How innovative is the paper?
[_] 5 (Very innovative)
[_] 4 (Innovative)
[X] 3 (Marginally)
[_] 2 (Not very much)
[_] 1 (Not)
[_] 0 (Not at all)
*3: How would you rate the technical quality of the paper?
[_] 5 (Very high)
[_] 4 (High)
[X] 3 (Good)
[_] 2 (Needs improvement)
[_] 1 (Low)
[_] 0 (Very low)
*4: How is the presentation?
[_] 5 (Excellent)
[_] 4 (Good)
[X] 3 (Above average)
[_] 2 (Below average)
[_] 1 (Fair)
[_] 0 (Poor)
*5: Is the paper of interest to WI users and practitioners?
[X] 3 (Yes)
[_] 2 (May be)
[_] 1 (No)
[_] 0 (Not applicable)
*6: What is your confidence in your review of this paper?
[_] 2 (High)
[X] 1 (Medium)
[_] 0 (Low)
*7: Overall recommendation
[_] 5 (Strong Accept: top quality)
[_] 4 (Accept: a regular paper)
[X] 3 (Weak Accept: could be a poster or a short paper)
[_] 2 (Weak Reject: don't like it, but won't argue to reject it)
[_] 1 (Reject: will argue to reject it)
[_] 0 (Strong Reject: hopeless)
*8: Detailed comments for the authors
This paper analyzes some specific behavior of users in social media like YouTube, Flickr and Twitter. It presents interesting results by classifying users into disseminators, audiences or both. The analysis seems very complete and reasonable. However, I am wondering how the analysis would become useful without any target of application. How would the analysis support the further application like recommendation systems and so on? I would suggest the authors narrow down the analysis and focus on possible applications of such analysis. Overall, the paper is well organized and written. However, it is hard to judge its significance.
===================================================