Manuscript ID:

Date Submitted:
Date Assigned:
Date Review Returned:
Author(s)

Recommendation

Files attached

Information Pathways to Online Anonymity: Knowledge Accumulation Process and Global Usage of the Tor Network

Author's Response
Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your time and feedback on our second submission. We have benefited greatly from the
comments and suggestions. We are now providing our point-by-point response to the comments (in the indented paragraphs). The revised
manuscript with highlighted changes is submitted to the review system in a separate file.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Reviewer: 1

This revision, “Information Pathways to Online Anonymity: Knowledge Accumulation Process and Global Usage of the Tor Network,” is
much improved. The research questions are clearer and the integrity of the literature review is better. Results look good, as well. Thank you
for the explanations of the changes you’ve made.

Thank you for your appreciation of our revised manuscript. We have benefited greatly from your comments and suggestions, based on
which we have revised the manuscript.

A problem that remains is the shifting usage of the term “information pathways”, which, going by the title, should be a key theoretical
construct in the paper. Here are the references that make this construct unclear.

1. In the abstract, “Effectively employing the technology” consists of three steps.

2. On page three, information pathways consist of these same three steps. Clearly, adoption and these pathways to adoption cannot be the
same thing.

3. On page five, the information pathways seem to be the two types of knowledge: “the knowledge accumulation process between
contextual factors and eventual usage is referred to as the information pathways. The knowledge accumulation process includes two types
of knowledge: awareness-knowledge (what the technology is) and how-to knowledge (how to use the technology).”

4. Figure 1 also implies that two types of knowledge are information pathways.

5. In the section titled, “Information Pathways to the Use of the Tor Network”, they are only mentioned here: “The information pathways
could vary between people from different social and political contexts in the path from awareness-knowledge to how-to knowledge.” This
implies that information pathways (in the context of Google search) are the different search terms used.

6. Figure 7 is called a “Path Diagram”. Are the statistical relationships investigated information pathways?

7. On the last page, “The third promising future direction is to examine some other information pathways other than Google search.” Here,
Google search itself is a pathway.

Given the prominence of the term “information pathways”, this needs to be clarified. I would ask what value the term “information pathways”
brings to the paper. Is it really necessary at all? Rogers already provides “awareness knowledge” and “how-to knowledge”. What it seems
that you are really investigating is the “knowledge accumulation process”. On page 6, “…the active searching behavior on Google as a
proxy of the knowledge accumulation process” is a very clear and accurate statement. On page 3, “The current study aims to understand
the global usage of the Tor network by examining the facets of the knowledge accumulation process“ seems to encapsulate well what the
paper is about. Again, what value does the construct of “information pathways” bring to the work?

Thank you for your careful reading and insightful thoughts regarding the term “Information Pathways.” We have accepted the reviewers’
advice and dropped “Information Pathways” but kept “Knowledge Accumulation Process” as the paper’s core concept. The changes are
reflected in the new title and throughout the paper.

Other Issues:

1. On page 4, the beginning of the second full paragraph seems to be making a point that does not have to be made. Rogers’ model
already has knowledge included in the innovation-decision process, so justifying that knowledge is part of the process is not necessary.

Thank you for your advice. We have removed the first few sentences in paragraph 3, page 4, and revised the first sentence to directly point
out our key point, that is, knowledge is an indispensable part of the multi-step innovation-decision process.

2. Also, on page 4, the reference to “selective attention” does not add value to your argument as is, and needs to be developed or deleted.
Unless I need to read more closely, the Hassenger citation does not discuss selective attention at all.

Thank you for pointing this problem out. The argument and this reference are removed (also as a response to the previous issue) as we
agree that this does not add value to the main argument of this paragraph.

3. On page 7, line 38, the appropriateness of the use of “therefore” is unclear. Do you mean to say that conservatives (“right-oriented”) are
more prone to be concerned about online privacy? Is there another citation for that? Lindner & Xiao (2020) found “neither of the political
measures was significantly associated with Tor search popularity (p > .05)” so it would seem to be an inappropriate citation for your point.
You should rethink lines 31-40.

We are sincerely sorry for the confusion. The correct term should be “digital rights-oriented” rather than “(left or) right-oriented.” We have
rephrased the sentences in paragraph 1, page 7, to correctly convey Lindner & Xiao (2020)’s findings and our argument.

4. On page 8, given that the two clusters of topics are ad hoc, they should be defined, especially exactly what “digital rights” means (or point
to a reference if they are defined elsewhere).

We have started a separate paragraph (paragraph 2, page 8) to define the meaning of the two topic clusters clearly.

You can also refer readers to Table 1 to give them a better idea of what you intend the names of the clusters to mean.

We have referred to Table 1 in paragraph 2, page 8 to give the readers a better idea of the meaning of the topic clusters.

5. Table 1 is not a rationale for search topics used. Please explain in words why the use of these topics in previous studies justifies their use
in this study.

We have started a new paragraph to further elaborate the reasons in words why the specific topics were chosen from the previous studies
could fit in this study (see paragraph 2, page 15 ahead of Table 1).

6. Explain the mean and standard deviations in Table 1. What is being measured here?

The “mean and standard deviations” refer to the corresponding parameters of the topic clusters’ search indices, which have been
normalized across country and year. We provided the explanation in the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 15.

7. Put the four country-level variables in a table which include description and source. The table can replace the paragraph on pages 16-17.
Just refer to the table in your text.

We have created a new table (Table 2 on page 17) to replace the old paragraph.

8. What is the source of the world map on page 18? Is it created from the data you collected? If so, say so explicitly. If not, the source
should be cited and it should not appear in the results section.

Thank you for pointing this issue out. Yes, the world map was created from the data we collected. We have explicitly pointed it out in
paragraph 2, page 17, now.

9. Explain the units on the y-axes of the graphs in Figure 4.

We have added a few sentences (in paragraph 2, page 18) to explain the units on the y-axes of the graphs in Figure 4.

10. Last sentence is unclear. “Google search captures the entrance to the knowledge while the examinations on the contents per se may
have the potentials to provide more insights into how the users perceive and discuss the technology.” Examination of the contents of what?

We have rephrased the last sentence accordingly (in paragraph 1, page 29) in the revised version.

The results seem impressive. However, given the theoretical confusion and other issues, I recommend a major revision.

Thank you for your recommendation and suggestions above. We hope that our response and revisions to the manuscript could help
address your theoretical and methodological concerns. We are looking forward to your feedback.

Reviewer: 2

In the previous version, my concerns were:

- The title not reflecting the contents

- I was concerned that they elevated Google searches to the entirety of “information pathways”

- Why LSD?

- What about different national contexts?

Thanks to NMS’s review system, it appears that many of my concerns were shared by the other reviewer.
Looking at the authors’ response as well as the revision (and to a lesser extent considering their response to the other reviewer), I believe
that the paper is ready for publication.

Thank you for your support!

My concerns have been addressed:

The title is changed.

My concern about Google searches being the only way to accumulate knowledge about Tor is addressed in the “Limitations” section of the
paper. I still think a less-careful reader is going to believe the authors are arguing that Google searches are the only way people gather
information about Tor, so the authors might do a minor revision to make sure that that’s not their argument.

My concern about LSD being the only drug search is addressed with a more expansive suite of drug search terms. The authors also
expanded their focus on other search terms, as well, and make a case for this change.

My concern about national contexts is also addressed, though to a lesser degree.

It’s clear that my recommendation (and the other reviewer’s) that “information pathways” be clarified has been a very major part of the
revision. The authors have worked on this, placing information-gathering within a larger “knowledge accumulation process.”

In response to your suggestion that “the authors might do a minor revision to make sure that that’s not their argument,” we have re-
emphasized this point in the text (see paragraph 1, page 29).

I still have concerns about this paper, but I believe my concerns are that the paper doesn’t do what I would do to investigate “knowledge
accumulation” leading to Tor use — I would suggest engaging in participant observation. And that is not a reason for me to reject this paper;
it’s a reason for me to do my own work! So if the test of an article is to not only put forward a clear, evidence-based and theoretically
informed argument, but to inspire further research, this paper achieves that goal.

Thank you for the encouragement.

Files attached
File1 Response.docx - PDF - HTML