diff --git a/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/README.txt b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/README.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3251fea --- /dev/null +++ b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/README.txt @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +Klein, Maximilian, Jinhao Zhao, Jiajun Ni, Isaac Johnson, Benjamin Mako Hill, +and Haiyi Zhu. 2017. “Quality Standards, Service Orientation, and Power in +Airbnb and Couchsurfing.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction +1 (CSCW): 58:1–58:21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134693. + diff --git a/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-response_to_reviewers-HTML.zip b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-response_to_reviewers-HTML.zip new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e400a9a Binary files /dev/null and b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-response_to_reviewers-HTML.zip differ diff --git a/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-response_to_reviewers.pdf b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-response_to_reviewers.pdf new file mode 100644 index 0000000..926a560 Binary files /dev/null and b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-response_to_reviewers.pdf differ diff --git a/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-round_1-reviews.txt b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-round_1-reviews.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5989b14 --- /dev/null +++ b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-round_1-reviews.txt @@ -0,0 +1,561 @@ +From: Karrie Karahalios, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández + +Date: Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:32 PM +Subject: Decision on submission 1148 of CSCW 2018 Online First +To: Maximilian Klein + + +Dear Maximilian Klein - + +Congratulations! + +Your paper: + +1148 - Cool air breezing off the surf: Power dependence and standards in +Airbnb and Couchsurfing + +is one of the 54% of CSCW 2018 Online First submissions invited to revise +and resubmit. There were 386 total submissions to CSCW 2018 Online First. +The reviewers for this submission believe that it has the potential to be +revised within four weeks -- revisions are due July 10, 2017 -- to become a +contribution to what will be an exceptional conference. + +The program committee expects all authors to take advantage of this four +week revision period to improve their submissions by addressing reviewers' +comments (below). Some submissions need only minor revisions, while others +will require considerable work over the next four weeks to result in an +acceptable submission, and will not succeed without significant effort. +Your reviews, especially the summary report from the AC, should make clear +what you should do. You can gauge your prospects from your reviews and the +summary report: overall scores of 4s and 5s indicate the reviewers are very +confident your paper will be acceptable within four weeks with small edits. +Overall scores of 3 and 4 indicate you have some work to do. Scores of 3 +and below indicate that some reviewers have serious reservations, though +other reviewers see promise. + +The same reviewers will read and evaluate your revised submission (though +additional reviewers may be added for papers where the reviewers are +divided). You need not satisfy every reviewer or make every suggested +change, but your revision will need to convince most of the reviewers that +it is now ready for publication. For some papers the reviewers have +requested a lot of work, you might feel that it is too much to achieve in a +four week period. If you have the time to reach that goal: great! If not, +that is okay, you are free to withdraw your submission. Please decide +whether or not the key points made by reviewers can be adequately addressed +in the time provided, given other demands on your time. Papers that are +revised and re-submitted in the next round will receive revised reviews. + +Your revision must be accompanied by a separate "Summary of Changes" +document (in PDF format) that lists the reviewers' comments and your +responses, even for comments that did not lead to changes in the manuscript +(in which case you might explain why you chose not to make certain +suggested changes). This could be a set of bullet points, a table, or +numbered points by which reviewers' comments are summarized along with your +changes. This is not a rebuttal, but rather a description of changes made, +or of reasons you could not or chose not to take the reviewers' advice. To +become acceptable, your submission must be revised, and your document +describing the changes will greatly help reviewers see what you have or +have not changed, along with your reasons for doing so. + +Just to be clear, you must submit a revised paper and summary of changes by +the deadline. Any paper where a revision and summary are not submitted +will be considered to be withdrawn. + +Example summaries from past years' papers can be found at +http://cs.stanford.edu/~merrie/temp/change_log_samples.html + +Please submit your revision and the response document at your "Submissions +in Progress" page at https://new.precisionconference.com/sigchi by 11:59 PM +PDT, July 10, 2017. + +CSCW 2018 will be a great conference, and we sincerely hope you are part of +it! If you have any issues or questions, please let us know. And thanks +again for submitting. + +Sincerely, +Karrie Karahalios, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández +CSCW 2018 Online First Co-chairs + + + +---------------------------------------------------------------- + +AC review +score 4/5 + + Confidence + + Confident + + First Round Overall Recommendation + + Probably acceptable (with minor modifications) + + Contribution and Criteria for Evaluation + + + + First Round Review from AC (if needed) + + + + Coordinator's First-Round Report to Authors + + This paper comparing AirBNB and Couchsurfing was well-received by +reviewers, who + thought it was well-written and used a strong multi-methodological +approach to + study differences in guest-host relationships.The authors also agree +this study is + a good fit with the CSCW community. + + Please carefully read through the reviewers' comments to address the +questions and + suggestions. For example, R1 raises a good point about comparing these +sites to + Uber because of the agency (or lack thereof) in choosing one's "host." + + R2 was most critical of the paper, and provides a number of suggestions +related to + the theoretical framing and the authors' interpretation of the data. + + Finally, one aspect on which these papers are judged is whether the +contribution + matches the length. The paper is on the long side, although perhaps +that is + justified, especially with the tables/figures, but I was disappointed +in the + length of the discussion. I don't know exactly how the authors could +address this + without adding length, but I definitely want to see a more explicit +discussion of + how this paper extends our existing knowledge around the sharing +economy. + + Requested Revisions + + See above. + + Formatting and Reference Issues + + R2 notes (and I agree) that the paper should be revised to read more +academic and + less colloquial. + + The reviewers also point to related work on the sharing economy, +including + research by Airi Lampinen (who publishes at CSCW). + + Finally, the reviewers noted some grammatical issues, and R1 was +confused by the + paper's title. + + Author Response + + + + The Review of Revision + + + + Coordinator's Final Report to Authors (meta-review) + + + + Remaining Formatting and Reference Issues + + + + Report completed + + + +---------------------------------------------------------------- + +2AC review +score 4/5 + + Confidence + + Somewhat confident + + First Round Overall Recommendation + + Probably acceptable (with minor modifications) + + Contribution and Criteria for Evaluation + + This paper presents a mixed-methods study comparing two network +hospitality sites: + AirBnB and Couchsurfing. A grounded theory approach was used to +initially analyse + qualitative data from an interview study with 17 participants who +associated with + both sites. This was followed by a quantitative study of the site data +to explore + the main themes that emerged. One of the main findings from the study +relates to + differences in power dependence for the monetary-based site (AirBnB - +empowering + guests) compared to the social-based site (Couchsurfing - empowering +the hosts). + + First Round Review + + This paper presents a mixed-methods study comparing two network +hospitality sites: + AirBnB and Couchsurfing. A grounded theory approach was used to +initially analyse + qualitative data from an interview study with 17 participants who +associated with + both sites. This was followed by a quantitative study of the site data +to explore + the main themes that emerged. One of the main findings from the study +relates to + differences in power dependence for the monetary-based site (AirBnB - +empowering + guests) compared to the social-based site (Couchsurfing - empowering +the hosts). + + This is a well-written paper covering a social computing topic of +relevance to + CSCW. A good account of background work on network hospitality and +sharing economy + is provided to hep contextualise to work. + + The themes emerging from the grounded theory analysis are clearly +presented and + interesting, if a little obvious (in terms of what you might +hypothesise given a + description of each site). + + The quantitative analysis complements the qualitative study, and it’s +nice to see + an attempt to use in-depth qualitative data and large-scale +quantitative data as + part of the same contribution. I found theme 2 and 3 to be more +convincing in this + respect because I wondered, with theme 1, if there might be wealthy city + /desirable-place-to-visit effect here. + + Overall, I think this paper makes a significant contribution to a topic +that fits + within the remit of CSCW and I would argue for accepting it. + + Author Response + + + + The Review of Revision + + + + Remaining Formatting and Reference Issues + + + + Report completed + + + +---------------------------------------------------------------- + +reviewer 1 review +score 4/5 + + Confidence + + Confident + + First Round Overall Recommendation + + Probably acceptable (with minor modifications) + + Contribution and Criteria for Evaluation + + The contribution of this paper is in providing an empirical study on the + difference in guest and host relationships between Couchsurfing and +Airbnb. The + authors conducted a mixed-methods study to uncover themes from +interviews and then + support their findings with a quantitative evaluation. The evaluation +criteria for + this type of contribution will be in the validity of the methods used +to arrive at + the conclusions drawn and the impact of the findings. + + First Round Review + + While the findings of this paper are not necessarily surprising, the +authors show + a thoughtful approach to answering their research question of how +Couchsurfing and + Airbnb’s services differ in regards to guest and host relationships. +Comparisons + between the two hospitality services are not new, as the paper covers +in the + Related Work section. Despite the fact that other papers have sought to +understand + how monetizing changes the interactions on the platform, this is a +great paper + that expands understanding in this relevant and popular area of +research. + + The writing is clear and effective; even though multiple methods and +complex + themes are covered, the authors made it easy to follow. What impressed +me most + about this paper was the variety of methods used, and the rigor with +which each + method was approached. The authors used data scraping and linear +regression, + linguistic analysis of reviews, and Mechanical Turk sentiment analysis +to + complement their interviews. They manage to adequately describes the +details of + how these methods were implemented, from interview participant +demographics to the + coding process to their data scraping methodology. + + As the authors acknowledge in their Limitations, the themes were +necessarily + operationalized to be able to find quantitative support, but I do not +think this + lessens the impact of their findings. They are careful in the +conclusions that can + be drawn, including the limitations of a correlational study and +self-selection + bias of interview participants, but they do arrive at an impactful +implication + that a shift towards money-based systems as they observed would make +sharing + economies more consumer-oriented. I also commend the authors on their +openness to + share their data with other researchers while maintaining the privacy +of the + users. + + A few other points: + - After reading the paper, I was confused about the title. “Cool air +breezing off + the surf” sounds like it’s from a description of a posting on Airbnb or + Couchsurfing but I didn’t notice a reference to the title in the paper. + - The social obligation section was reminiscent of indebtedness +described in a + CSCW paper that might be relevant to cite (Airi Lampinen, Vilma +Lehtinen, Coye + Cheshire, and Emmi Suhonen. 2013. Indebtedness and reciprocity in local +online + exchange. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported +cooperative + work (CSCW '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 661-672. + DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441850). Similarly, the +discussion of trust + is related to a previous paper on reciprocity in generalized exchange +(Linda D + Molm, Jessica L Collett, and David R Schaefer. 2007. Building +solidarity through + generalized exchange: A theory of Reciprocity. Amer. J. Sociology 113, +1 (2007), + 205–242.). + - I’m not sure that Uber is the most apt comparison in the +Generalization section + since users are not able to choose their Uber driver, rather they’re +automatically + assigned one. Perhaps considering how a system that assigns rather than +allows + users to choose might affect the social power would be an interesting +discussion + point. + - Were the dual users currently active on both platforms, or did they +only need to + have experience with both? I wonder if some had switched from one to +the other if + it would bias their responses in any systematic way. + - The last paragraph of page 2 is missing an “is” in the first sentence. + + Author Response + + + + The Review of Revision + + + + Remaining Formatting and Reference Issues + + + +---------------------------------------------------------------- + +reviewer 2 review +score 3/5 + + Confidence + + Very confident + + First Round Overall Recommendation + + Maybe acceptable (with significant modifications) + + Contribution and Criteria for Evaluation + + In this paper, the authors focus on two hospitality platforms, namely +Airbnb and + Couchsurfing. In particular, they aim to explore the role of monetary +incentives + (and subsequent framing) in users’ motives and type of relationships +using these + two conceptually different sharing platforms using qualitative and +quantitative + analysis. + + First Round Review + + Question 1: How important and interesting is the contribution of the +paper to the + CSCW audience? + + I find that the paper provides the audience with some interesting +findings about + two hospitality platforms, although not all of them are consistent. + + The theoretical positioning could be significantly improved since +theoretical or + practical contribution of this work is unclear. I guess it would be +better if the + authors first formulate the research question and develop the framework +on a more + general level and then present the empirical analysis as a +hypotheses-testing + approach. + + Question 2: How well-executed or technically-sound is the paper? + + The papers seems to be well-executed technically, the author apply both + quantitative and qualitative analysis. However, the paper suffers from +reporting + problems. As such, it is not specified during what period that data has +been + collected from Airbnb and Couchsurfing. Then, describing the data +cleaning + process, “Of the remaining 9.6% of hosts, we inspected the top 20 +cities by host- + count and found that they were all small cities in which no hosts of +the other + platform were listed”, it is not clear what has been done with the +data: was it + excluded from the sample? + + Question: Is the length of the submission appropriate for the level of + contribution? Is the paper written clearly to communicate the work to +colleagues + in the field? + + I believe the length of the paper is appropriate. The structure of the +work and + the writing style could be, however, improved to make it more +"academic" and less + colloquial at some places. The paper will benefit from proofreading to +fix some + grammar mistakes or typos and to make the narrative typical for the +academic + research. + + Below I provide a more detailed summary of my concerns (some of them +have already + been mentioned above). Indeed: Despite an interesting and topical +research goal, + this paper suffers from several concerns. + + 1) MAJOR: The theoretical part of the paper (“Related Work”) can be + strengthened by including more past research and deriving hypotheses +from the + literature analysis. As such, the paper misses sound theoretical +framing and + especially the quantitative part seems to be somewhat "haphazard". The +authors + briefly mention that both platforms represent Sharing Economy, however, +they do + not position the platform within it, somewhat omitting the past +research on + Sharing Economy. In the “Related work” section the authors argue for +certain + differences that they assume to exist between the platforms but they do +not + present a research scheme or formulate hypotheses out of this. + 2) Sometimes references are missing. For example, here a reference +could have + been provided: “Not only are Couchsurfing and Airbnb the two most +widely used + platforms for network hospitality” + 3) On page 2, it is stated that: “Extending this analysis to +Airbnb, market- + based systems have now found their own ways to reduce the transaction +costs of + hosting strangers.” Please specify, which ways exactly. + 4) In the description of methodology, some information is not +reported, e.g. + when did the interviews take place? when did the data collection take +place? I + believe this is important because the platforms constantly undergo +changes. + 5) The authors should probably control for the type of property +which was + rented since it may affect the results. As such, renting a room/couch +with Airbnb + implies much more interaction and therefore is much more comparable to + Couchsurfing in contrast to the case when the whole apartment is rented +out with + Airbnb. On Couchsurfing I guess it is not typical to rent out the whole +property, + so a guest stays always together with the host. This is my main concern +about the + reliability of findings. So, I would probably go for analysis of the +offers that + are initially comparable thus limiting the analysis to the shared +property only. + 6) The authors conclude “we heard that Airbnb, but not +Couchsurfing will + create standards for host’s homes. We supported this theme by showing +that the + rate of Airbnb hosts increases with the median house price of a city, +whereas with + Couchsurfing it decreases”. It is necessarily clear how it is related +to the + standards - alternative explanations are possible. The logic appears to +be sound: + the more expensive the property a person has, the more incentives they +have to + rent it out for money and not for free. All in all, exploratory +quantitative data + analysis for Theme 1 seems to be the weakest part of the paper. + 7) Another conclusion: “In a closing analysis of user sign-ups we +presented + evidence that Airbnb has grown rapidly relative to Couchsurfing.” +Please explore + implications of this result in greater depth. + 8) Finally, as already mentioned, the paper will benefit from +proofreading to + make the style of the narrative typical for the academic literature. In +many cases + the paper sounds somewhat colloquial. + + I hope these remarks will help to improve the paper and wish the +authors good luck + with their research! + + Author Response + + + + The Review of Revision + + + + Remaining Formatting and Reference Issues + + + +---------------------------------------------------------------- diff --git a/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-round_2-reviews.txt b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-round_2-reviews.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..63ced27 --- /dev/null +++ b/cscw_changelogs/2017-couchsurfing_airbnb/airbnb_couchsurfing-CSCW2017-round_2-reviews.txt @@ -0,0 +1,706 @@ +Congratulations all -- online first. + +I should be able to manage the remaining issues and tuck this into bed. +However I'm just a bit confused on these last two content points by R2, +which the meta-review asks me to address: + +The following issues remain. + 1) The research question is still narrowed only on 2 platforms +which + questions the theoretical and practical contribution. It would be +better if the + framework includes certain type of platforms, e.g. money-based and +non-money-based + as it is done on page 2. + +I don't understand exactly what this is asking for since we don't provide +specific RQ's? + + 3) These comments from the First Round Revision about the +Conclusion Section + were ignored: + • The authors conclude “we heard that Airbnb, but not +Couchsurfing will + create standards for host’s homes We supported this theme by showing +that the rate + of Airbnb hosts increases with the median house price of a city, +whereas with + Couchsurfing it decreases”. I do not understand how it is related to the + standards. For me it seems sound: the more expensive property a person +has, the + more incentives they have to rent it out for money and not for free. + +We address this in limitations. I'm not sure what else to do? + + • Another conclusion: “In a closing analysis of user sign-ups we +presented + evidence that Airbnb has grown rapidly relative to Couchsurfing.” Can +we say that + when presented with the opportunity people switch to money-rewarding +platform + because they are not so altruistic? Or what implication can we derive? + +Are they asking us to speculate? We do that with alternate theories in +"reasons for the shift". Do I just throw that back at the AC? + + +Make a great day, +Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/ + +---------- Forwarded message ---------- +From: Karrie Karahalios, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández + +Date: Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:04 PM +Subject: Maximilian Klein, good news about your CSCW paper 1148 +To: Maximilian Klein + + +Dear Maximilian Klein - + +We are pleased to inform you that your paper: + +1148 - Cool air breezing off the surf: Power dependence and standards in +Airbnb and Couchsurfing + +has been conditionally accepted to CSCW 2018 Online First. Congratulations! +This year we received 384 submissions, of which 105 have been accepted for +presentation at the conference. + +CONTENT +We are writing to provide your second round reviews, and to give you +important information related to submitting your camera-ready paper and +presenting it at the conference. + +First, your reviews are provided below. Please read these carefully. For +full acceptance, make sure your final submission of the camera-ready paper +makes the changes suggested by the AC in their meta review. If the AC finds +their concerns have been adequately addressed, the paper will be accepted. + +In a few cases, the AC or a designated Program Committee (PC) member +will help shepherd your paper. Please arrange to meet with them immediately +as this may take several rounds of discourse. If these changes are not met +by the camera-ready deadline, the paper will not be published. The AC or PC +member will let you know if your paper is in this category. If in doubt, +you can also contact us. + +FORMAT +Note that because CSCW is moving to The Proceedings of the ACM (PACM) from +this point forward, the format has changed! If you have not already +transferred your paper to the new one-column format, please use the +ACM-small template here: +https://www.acm.org/publications/authors/submissions + +For any questions regarding the new format, please contact: +support@cscw2018.freshdesk.com + +Your next step is to prepare your camera-ready paper, which must be +submitted into the PCS system by September 6, 2017. You will also be +contacted by Sheridan Publishing, or directly by us, with specific +information about producing an appropriate PDF, choosing among ACM +copyright and license options, etc. Please pay special attention to the +citation format used by CSCW (e.g., author’s first name spelled out first, +but sorted by family name). All papers must be submitted in camera-ready +form to be included in the conference program. + +Papers from CSCW 2018 Online first will appear in late 2017 in the +Proceedings of the ACM : Human-Computer Interaction: Volume 1: Issue 1: +Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing 2017. This will be +the inaugural issue of the PACM. They will be archived in the ACM Digital +Library and will be free for download for up to two years after publication. + +CONFERENCE +All papers accepted for CSCW 2018 from either the Online First or +subsequent CSCW 2018 Spring deadline will have presentation slots at CSCW +2018, presented by at least one of the authors. The presentation format may +differ for Online First papers but is guaranteed to include some form of +oral presentation at the conference. + +If your work involves an innovative system that would be appropriate to +demonstrate, we'd like to encourage you to submit a demonstration to CSCW +2018 Spring as well. Deadline information will be available at: +https://cscw.acm.org/2018/ + +Finally, note that it is still possible to participate in the CSCW 2018 +Spring paper submission cycle and other CSCW 2018 venues such as papers, +posters, panels, demonstrations, workshops, and the doctoral consortium. +Deadlines for papers, posters, demonstrations, workshops, and the doctoral +consortium will be available at: https://cscw.acm.org/2018/ + +Again, congratulations! Thank you for submitting your work to CSCW 2018 and +we look forward to seeing you overlooking the Hudson River in Jersey City +in 2018! + + +Geraldine Fitzpatrick +Karrie Karahalios +Andres Monroy-Hernandez +CSCW 2018 Online First Papers Chairs + +---------------------------------------------------------------- + +AC review +score 4/5 + + Confidence + + Confident + + First Round Overall Recommendation + + 4 - Probably acceptable (with minor modifications) + + SECOND ROUND Overall Recommendation + + 4 - Probably acceptable (with minor modifications) + + Contribution and Criteria for Evaluation + + + + First Round Review from AC (if needed) + + + + Coordinator's First-Round Report to Authors + + This paper comparing AirBNB and Couchsurfing was well-received by +reviewers, who + thought it was well-written and used a strong multi-methodological +approach to + study differences in guest-host relationships.The authors also agree +this study is + a good fit with the CSCW community. + + Please carefully read through the reviewers' comments to address the +questions and + suggestions. For example, R1 raises a good point about comparing these +sites to + Uber because of the agency (or lack thereof) in choosing one's "host." + + R2 was most critical of the paper, and provides a number of suggestions +related to + the theoretical framing and the authors' interpretation of the data. + + Finally, one aspect on which these papers are judged is whether the +contribution + matches the length. The paper is on the long side, although perhaps +that is + justified, especially with the tables/figures, but I was disappointed +in the + length of the discussion. I don't know exactly how the authors could +address this + without adding length, but I definitely want to see a more explicit +discussion of + how this paper extends our existing knowledge around the sharing +economy. + + Requested Revisions + + See above. + + Formatting and Reference Issues + + R2 notes (and I agree) that the paper should be revised to read more +academic and + less colloquial. + + The reviewers also point to related work on the sharing economy, +including + research by Airi Lampinen (who publishes at CSCW). + + Finally, the reviewers noted some grammatical issues, and R1 was +confused by the + paper's title. + + Author Response + + + + The Review of Revision + + + + Coordinator's Final Report to Authors (meta-review) + + Dear authors, + The reviewers have read your revised paper and summary of changes and +have agreed + the paper should be accepted to CSCW 2018 (online first). As noted in +the + reviewers' individual comments, there is agreement that this paper is +relevant to + CSCW, well-written, and interesting. Furthermore, the revisions made +during the + R&R period further strengthened the paper and the consensus is that it +should be + accepted. + + When finalizing the paper for publication, please make sure that R2's +concerns + have been addressed. I believe the generalization problem has been +sufficiently + addressed, although if the authors could consider additional ways to +discuss the + aspects of this research that extend to other parts of the sharing +economy. + + Remaining Formatting and Reference Issues + + + + Report completed + + Completed + +---------------------------------------------------------------- + +2AC review +score 4/5 + + Confidence + + Somewhat confident + + First Round Overall Recommendation + + 4 - Probably acceptable (with minor modifications) + + SECOND ROUND Overall Recommendation + + 4 - Probably acceptable (with minor modifications) + + Contribution and Criteria for Evaluation + + This paper presents a mixed-methods study comparing two network +hospitality sites: + AirBnB and Couchsurfing. A grounded theory approach was used to +initially analyse + qualitative data from an interview study with 17 participants who +associated with + both sites. This was followed by a quantitative study of the site data +to explore + the main themes that emerged. One of the main findings from the study +relates to + differences in power dependence for the monetary-based site (AirBnB - +empowering + guests) compared to the social-based site (Couchsurfing - empowering +the hosts). + + First Round Review + + This paper presents a mixed-methods study comparing two network +hospitality sites: + AirBnB and Couchsurfing. A grounded theory approach was used to +initially analyse + qualitative data from an interview study with 17 participants who +associated with + both sites. This was followed by a quantitative study of the site data +to explore + the main themes that emerged. One of the main findings from the study +relates to + differences in power dependence for the monetary-based site (AirBnB - +empowering + guests) compared to the social-based site (Couchsurfing - empowering +the hosts). + + This is a well-written paper covering a social computing topic of +relevance to + CSCW. A good account of background work on network hospitality and +sharing economy + is provided to hep contextualise to work. + + The themes emerging from the grounded theory analysis are clearly +presented and + interesting, if a little obvious (in terms of what you might +hypothesise given a + description of each site). + + The quantitative analysis complements the qualitative study, and it’s +nice to see + an attempt to use in-depth qualitative data and large-scale +quantitative data as + part of the same contribution. I found theme 2 and 3 to be more +convincing in this + respect because I wondered, with theme 1, if there might be wealthy city + /desirable-place-to-visit effect here. + + Overall, I think this paper makes a significant contribution to a topic +that fits + within the remit of CSCW and I would argue for accepting it. + + Author Response + + Most or all of my comments were addressed. + + The Review of Revision + + I originally argued for accepting this paper and I think the changes +the authors + made have further strengthened it. I think it will certainly be of +interest to the + CSCW community and I feel the level of contribution is appropriate for +the venue. + + Remaining Formatting and Reference Issues + + + + Report completed + + Completed + +---------------------------------------------------------------- + +reviewer 1 review +score 5/5 + + Confidence + + Confident + + First Round Overall Recommendation + + 5 - Definitely acceptable (ready as-is) + + SECOND ROUND Overall Recommendation + + 5 - Definitely acceptable (ready as-is) + + Contribution and Criteria for Evaluation + + The contribution of this paper is in providing an empirical study on the + difference in guest and host relationships between Couchsurfing and +Airbnb. The + authors conducted a mixed-methods study to uncover themes from +interviews and then + support their findings with a quantitative evaluation. The evaluation +criteria for + this type of contribution will be in the validity of the methods used +to arrive at + the conclusions drawn and the impact of the findings. + + First Round Review + + While the findings of this paper are not necessarily surprising, the +authors show + a thoughtful approach to answering their research question of how +Couchsurfing and + Airbnb’s services differ in regards to guest and host relationships. +Comparisons + between the two hospitality services are not new, as the paper covers +in the + Related Work section. Despite the fact that other papers have sought to +understand + how monetizing changes the interactions on the platform, this is a +great paper + that expands understanding in this relevant and popular area of +research. + + The writing is clear and effective; even though multiple methods and +complex + themes are covered, the authors made it easy to follow. What impressed +me most + about this paper was the variety of methods used, and the rigor with +which each + method was approached. The authors used data scraping and linear +regression, + linguistic analysis of reviews, and Mechanical Turk sentiment analysis +to + complement their interviews. They manage to adequately describes the +details of + how these methods were implemented, from interview participant +demographics to the + coding process to their data scraping methodology. + + As the authors acknowledge in their Limitations, the themes were +necessarily + operationalized to be able to find quantitative support, but I do not +think this + lessens the impact of their findings. They are careful in the +conclusions that can + be drawn, including the limitations of a correlational study and +self-selection + bias of interview participants, but they do arrive at an impactful +implication + that a shift towards money-based systems as they observed would make +sharing + economies more consumer-oriented. I also commend the authors on their +openness to + share their data with other researchers while maintaining the privacy +of the + users. + + A few other points: + - After reading the paper, I was confused about the title. “Cool air +breezing off + the surf” sounds like it’s from a description of a posting on Airbnb or + Couchsurfing but I didn’t notice a reference to the title in the paper. + - The social obligation section was reminiscent of indebtedness +described in a + CSCW paper that might be relevant to cite (Airi Lampinen, Vilma +Lehtinen, Coye + Cheshire, and Emmi Suhonen. 2013. Indebtedness and reciprocity in local +online + exchange. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported +cooperative + work (CSCW '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 661-672. + DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441850). Similarly, the +discussion of trust + is related to a previous paper on reciprocity in generalized exchange +(Linda D + Molm, Jessica L Collett, and David R Schaefer. 2007. Building +solidarity through + generalized exchange: A theory of Reciprocity. Amer. J. Sociology 113, +1 (2007), + 205–242.). + - I’m not sure that Uber is the most apt comparison in the +Generalization section + since users are not able to choose their Uber driver, rather they’re +automatically + assigned one. Perhaps considering how a system that assigns rather than +allows + users to choose might affect the social power would be an interesting +discussion + point. + - Were the dual users currently active on both platforms, or did they +only need to + have experience with both? I wonder if some had switched from one to +the other if + it would bias their responses in any systematic way. + - The last paragraph of page 2 is missing an “is” in the first sentence. + + Author Response + + Most or all of my comments were addressed. + + The Review of Revision + + The authors adequately addressed the feedback that I provided. They +included the + suggested references, changed the generalization example away from +Uber, and + updated the title. I felt that this was a strong paper in the initial +round, and + with the changes, the paper has improved. I think it is a well-written, +thoughtful + and thorough paper that would be of interest and contribute to the CSCW +community. + + Remaining Formatting and Reference Issues + + + +---------------------------------------------------------------- + +reviewer 2 review +score 3/5 + + Confidence + + Very confident + + First Round Overall Recommendation + + 3 - Maybe acceptable (with significant modifications) + + SECOND ROUND Overall Recommendation + + 3 - Maybe acceptable (with significant modifications) + + Contribution and Criteria for Evaluation + + In this paper, the authors focus on two hospitality platforms, namely +Airbnb and + Couchsurfing. In particular, they aim to explore the role of monetary +incentives + (and subsequent framing) in users’ motives and type of relationships +using these + two conceptually different sharing platforms using qualitative and +quantitative + analysis. + + First Round Review + + Question 1: How important and interesting is the contribution of the +paper to the + CSCW audience? + + I find that the paper provides the audience with some interesting +findings about + two hospitality platforms, although not all of them are consistent. + + The theoretical positioning could be significantly improved since +theoretical or + practical contribution of this work is unclear. I guess it would be +better if the + authors first formulate the research question and develop the framework +on a more + general level and then present the empirical analysis as a +hypotheses-testing + approach. + + Question 2: How well-executed or technically-sound is the paper? + + The papers seems to be well-executed technically, the author apply both + quantitative and qualitative analysis. However, the paper suffers from +reporting + problems. As such, it is not specified during what period that data has +been + collected from Airbnb and Couchsurfing. Then, describing the data +cleaning + process, “Of the remaining 9.6% of hosts, we inspected the top 20 +cities by host- + count and found that they were all small cities in which no hosts of +the other + platform were listed”, it is not clear what has been done with the +data: was it + excluded from the sample? + + Question: Is the length of the submission appropriate for the level of + contribution? Is the paper written clearly to communicate the work to +colleagues + in the field? + + I believe the length of the paper is appropriate. The structure of the +work and + the writing style could be, however, improved to make it more +"academic" and less + colloquial at some places. The paper will benefit from proofreading to +fix some + grammar mistakes or typos and to make the narrative typical for the +academic + research. + + Below I provide a more detailed summary of my concerns (some of them +have already + been mentioned above). Indeed: Despite an interesting and topical +research goal, + this paper suffers from several concerns. + + 1) MAJOR: The theoretical part of the paper (“Related Work”) can be + strengthened by including more past research and deriving hypotheses +from the + literature analysis. As such, the paper misses sound theoretical +framing and + especially the quantitative part seems to be somewhat "haphazard". The +authors + briefly mention that both platforms represent Sharing Economy, however, +they do + not position the platform within it, somewhat omitting the past +research on + Sharing Economy. In the “Related work” section the authors argue for +certain + differences that they assume to exist between the platforms but they do +not + present a research scheme or formulate hypotheses out of this. + 2) Sometimes references are missing. For example, here a reference +could have + been provided: “Not only are Couchsurfing and Airbnb the two most +widely used + platforms for network hospitality” + 3) On page 2, it is stated that: “Extending this analysis to +Airbnb, market- + based systems have now found their own ways to reduce the transaction +costs of + hosting strangers.” Please specify, which ways exactly. + 4) In the description of methodology, some information is not +reported, e.g. + when did the interviews take place? when did the data collection take +place? I + believe this is important because the platforms constantly undergo +changes. + 5) The authors should probably control for the type of property +which was + rented since it may affect the results. As such, renting a room/couch +with Airbnb + implies much more interaction and therefore is much more comparable to + Couchsurfing in contrast to the case when the whole apartment is rented +out with + Airbnb. On Couchsurfing I guess it is not typical to rent out the whole +property, + so a guest stays always together with the host. This is my main concern +about the + reliability of findings. So, I would probably go for analysis of the +offers that + are initially comparable thus limiting the analysis to the shared +property only. + 6) The authors conclude “we heard that Airbnb, but not +Couchsurfing will + create standards for host’s homes. We supported this theme by showing +that the + rate of Airbnb hosts increases with the median house price of a city, +whereas with + Couchsurfing it decreases”. It is necessarily clear how it is related +to the + standards - alternative explanations are possible. The logic appears to +be sound: + the more expensive the property a person has, the more incentives they +have to + rent it out for money and not for free. All in all, exploratory +quantitative data + analysis for Theme 1 seems to be the weakest part of the paper. + 7) Another conclusion: “In a closing analysis of user sign-ups we +presented + evidence that Airbnb has grown rapidly relative to Couchsurfing.” +Please explore + implications of this result in greater depth. + 8) Finally, as already mentioned, the paper will benefit from +proofreading to + make the style of the narrative typical for the academic literature. In +many cases + the paper sounds somewhat colloquial. + + I hope these remarks will help to improve the paper and wish the +authors good luck + with their research! + + Author Response + + Some of my comments were addressed. + + The Review of Revision + + In the revised version, the authors improved the writing style and +fixed some + typos. + The following issues remain. + 1) The research question is still narrowed only on 2 platforms +which + questions the theoretical and practical contribution. It would be +better if the + framework includes certain type of platforms, e.g. money-based and +non-money-based + as it is done on page 2. + 2) Providing the definition of the sharing economy, the speech +transcript of + Rachel Botsman in French is cited, although the speech itself was held +in English. + Therefore, it is not possible to check it. Moreover, it is not an +academic source + and not the most reliable one. + 3) These comments from the First Round Revision about the +Conclusion Section + were ignored: + • The authors conclude “we heard that Airbnb, but not +Couchsurfing will + create standards for host’s homes We supported this theme by showing +that the rate + of Airbnb hosts increases with the median house price of a city, +whereas with + Couchsurfing it decreases”. I do not understand how it is related to the + standards. For me it seems sound: the more expensive property a person +has, the + more incentives they have to rent it out for money and not for free. + • Another conclusion: “In a closing analysis of user sign-ups we +presented + evidence that Airbnb has grown rapidly relative to Couchsurfing.” Can +we say that + when presented with the opportunity people switch to money-rewarding +platform + because they are not so altruistic? Or what implication can we derive? + + Remaining Formatting and Reference Issues + + - + +----------------------------------------------------------------