The context of perception generated on Twitter for the Spanish electoral debates of December 2015 and June 2016: treatment of the credibility factors by the candidates
-
Alfredo Arceo Vacas
aarceo@ucm.es
-
Rafael Barberá González
rbarbera@ccinf.ucm.es
-
Sergio Álvarez Sánchez
sergioalvarezsanchez@ucm.es
Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48672020000200105Abstract
As a social network, Twitter has generated a new way of consuming electoral debates; through the double screen phenomenon, spectators watch the debate while they pay attention to the comments. Consequently, the credibility attributed to candidates is influenced by the context created on Twitter during the campaign. Credibility, appeal, and power constitute the three image factors in political communication; credibility comprises three subfactors: Expert knowledge, ethical trustworthiness, and social efficacy. This research describes the credibility contexts that the four leading candidates for the presidency of the Spanish Government tried to implement on Twitter when heading to the 2015 and 2016 general elections. The evolution of the credibility factors is also analyzed, taking two events as references: The debate between Mariano Rajoy and Pedro Sánchez in December 2015 and the June 2016 debate among all four contenders. Equally, the perception frames for the credibility of the candidates among the young public were also analyzed. The context of perception has been defined after studying the polls, organizing focus groups, and conducting content analyses of the candidates' Twitter profiles. In addition, those content analyses registered the variables that candidates applied to look credible. While everybody tried to transmit social efficacy, this subfactor received almost no audience recognition. The debates did not change the practices on social media, but the spontaneity of Mariano Rajoy was revealed as more credible than the artificial efforts of his adversaries.
Palabras Clave
ARCEO, J. L. (Dir.) (1993): Campañas Electorales y Publicidad Política en España (1976-1991). Barcelona:ESRP-PPU.
BENOIT, W. L. y HANSEN, G. J. (2001): Presidential debate questions and the public agenda. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), pp. 130-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385621.
BERMINGHAM, A, y SMEATON, A. F. (2011): On using Twitter to monitor political sentiment and predict election results, en Proceedings of the Workshop on Sentiment Analysis where AI meets Psychology (SAAIP), 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Chiang Mai, Tailandia, 13 de noviembre de 201. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, pp. 2-10. Disponible en: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W11-3702.pdf.
BERROCAL, S. (2004): Una aproximación a la nueva retórica del líder político televisivo: acciones, cualidades y discurso. Doxa Comunicación: Revista Interdisciplinar de Estudios de Comunicación y Ciencias Sociales, (2), pp. 53-67. Disponible en: https://repositorioinstitucional.ceu.es/bitstream/10637/5989/1/NºII_pp53_67.pdf.
BOEHM, L. E. (1994): The validity effect: A search for mediating variables. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(3), pp. 285-293.
CASTELLS, M. (Ed.) (2006): La Sociedad Red: Una visión global. Madrid: Alianza editorial (Alianza Ensayo).
CAMPOS-DOMÍNGUEZ, E. (2017): Twitter y la comunicación política. El Profesional de la Información, 26(5), pp. 785-793. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.sep.01.
CASERO-RIPOLLÉS, A., MIQUEL-SEGARRA, S. y ALONSO-MUÑOZ, L. (2016): The dialogic potential of Twitter in electoral campaign. The case of PSOE and Podemos in Spain, en 2016 11th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Las Palmas, España, 15-18 de junio de 2016. Pp. 1-6.
CHADWICK, A. (2013): The hybrid media system: Politics and Power. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
CHAIKEN, S. y MAHESWARAN, D. (1994): Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), pp. 460-473.
CHARMAZ, K. C. (2006): Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. California: Sage.
CHAVES-MONTERO, A. y GADEA-AIELLO, W.F. (2017): Uso, efectividad y alcance de la comunicación política en las redes sociales, en CHAVES-MONTERO, A. (Ed.), Comunicación política y redes sociales. pp. 13-32. Sevilla: Ediciones Egregius.
CHAVES-MONTERO, A., GADEA-AIELLO, W. F. y AGUADED-GÓMEZ, J. I. (2015): La comunicación política en las redes sociales durante la campaña electoral de 2015 en España: Uso, efectividad y alcance. Perspectivas de la Comunicación, 10(1), pp. 55-83. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30012.44165.
CHIHU, A. (2008): El framing de los debates presidenciales en México (1994-2006). Ciudad de México: UAM-Porrúa.
COLEMAN, S. y MOSS, G. (2016): Rethinking election debates: What citizens are entitled to expect. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(1), pp. 3-24. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161215609732.
DADER, J. L. y CAMPOS-DOMÍNGUEZ, E. (2017): La búsqueda digital del voto: Cibercampañas electorales en España. 2015-16. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch (Comunicación Política y Estrategias de Campaña, 4).
DALTON, R. J. (2014): Interpreting partisan dealignment in Germany. German Politics, 23(1-2), pp. 134-144.
DALTON, R. J., MCALLISTER, I. y WATTENBERG, M. P. (2000): The consequences of partisan dealignment, en Dalton, R. J. y Wattenberg, M. P. (Eds.), Parties without partisans, pp. 37-63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DEL-REY-MORATÓ, J. (2011): La comunicación política en la sociedad del marketing y de internet. Encuadres, relatos y juegos de lenguaje. Revista de comunicación, 10, pp. 102-128. Disponible en: https://revistadecomunicacion.com/pdf/2011/Art102-128.pdf.
DELTELL, L. (2014): Audiencia social versus audiencia creativa: caso de estudio Twitter. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 20(1), pp. 33-47. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ESMP.2014.v20.n1.45217.
DIAKOPOULOS, N. A. y SHAMMA, D. A. (2010): Characterizing debate performance via aggregated Twitter sentiment, en CHI 2010 - The 28th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2). Atlanta, EE.UU., 10-15 de abril de 2010. Pp. 1195-1198. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753504.
DRUCKMAN, J. N. (2001): On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), pp. 1041-1066.
EFFING, R., VAN HILLEGERSBERG, J. y HUIBERS, T. W. C. (2011): Social media and political participation: Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems?, en Electronic Participation. Third IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2011(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6847). Londres, Reino Unido, 29 de agosto - 1 de septiembre de 2011. Springer, pp. 25-35.
ENTMAN, R. M. (1993): Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), pp. 51-58.
FESTINGER, L. (1957): A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford (EE.UU.): Stanford University Press.
GAITÁN, J. A. y PIÑUEL, J. L. (2010): Técnicas de investigación en Comunicación Social: Elaboración y registro de datos. Madrid: Síntesis.
GARCÍA-ORTEGA, C. y ZUGASTI-AZAGRA, R. (2014): La campaña virtual en Twitter: análisis de las cuentas de Rajoy y de Rubalcaba en las elecciones generales de 2011. Historia y Comunicación Social, 19(número especial febrero), Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_HICS.2014.v19.45029.
GEER, J. G. (1988): The effects of presidential debates on the electorate's preferences for candidates. American Politics Research, 16(4), pp. 486-501.
GELADO M. R. y BONETE-VIZCAÍNO, F. (2018): Politics 2.0? Spanish candidates on Twitter during the European Elections 2014, en FRAME, A. y BRACHOTTE, G.: L'usage de Twitter par les candidats #Eurodéputés @Europarl_FR @Europarl_EN: Perspectives internationales lors des élections au Parlement européen en mai 2014. pp. 261-282. Caen (Francia): Editions EMS.
GELMAN. A. y KING, G. (1993): Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable?. British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), pp. 409–451.
GOFFMAN, E. (1974): Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge (EE.UU.): Harvard University Press.
GRABER, D. A. (Ed.) (1980): Media power in politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
HARRINGTON, S., HIGHFIELD, T. y BRUNS, A. (2013): More than a backchannel: Twitter and television. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 10(1), pp. 405-409. Disponible en: http://snurb.info/files/2014/More%20than%20a%20Backchannel.pdf.
HOLBROOK, T. M. y MCCLURG, S. D. (2005): The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), pp. 689-703.
HOLSTI, O. R. (1969): Content analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading (EE.UU.): Addison-Wesley.
HOVLAND, C. I. y WEISS, W. (1951): The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly. 15 (4), pp. 635-650.
HOVLAND, C. I., JANIS, I. L. y KELLEY, H. H. (1953): Communication and Persuasion. New Haven (EE.UU.): Yale University Press.
IYENGAR, S. y MCGUIRE, W. J. (Eds.) (1995): Explorations in Political Psychology. Durham (EE.UU.): Duke University Press.
JENSEN, M. J. y ANSTEAD, N. (2013): Psephological investigations: Tweets, votes, and unknown unknowns in the republican nomination process. Policy and Internet, 5(2), pp. 161-182.
KAID, L. (Ed.) (2004): Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah (EE.UU.): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KANTAR MEDIA (2016): Kantar Twitter TV Ratings: A year in the life of TV and Twitter in Spain. España: Kantar Media
KARLSEN, R. y ENJOLRAS, B. (2016): Styles of Social Media Campaigning and Influence in a Hybrid Political Communication System: Linking Candidate Survey Data with Twitter Data. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(3), pp. 338-357.
KNOBLOCH-WESTERWICK, S. y MENA, J. (2009): Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), pp. 426-448.
LAKOFF, G. (2007): No pienses en un elefante. Madrid: Editorial Complutense.
____ (2013): Puntos de reflexión. Manual del progresista: cómo transmitir los valores [y] la visión progresista estadounidenses. Ed. rev., Barcelona: Península.
LAKOFF, G., y WEHLING, E. (2016): Your Brain's Politics: How the Science of Mind Explains the Political Divide. Luton (Reino Unido): Andrews UK (Societas Series).
LASSEN, D. S. y BROWN, A. R. (2011): Twitter: The electoral connection? Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), pp. 419-436.
LASSWELL, H. D. (1974): La política como reparto de influencia. Madrid: Aguilar.
LAU, R. R. y SEARS, D. O. (Eds.) (1986): Political Cognition. Hillsdale, Nueva Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LAWSON, C. (2002): Building the fourth estate: Democratization and the rise of a free press in Mexico. Berkekey, California: University of California press.
LAWSON, C. y MCCANN, J. A. (2005): Television news, Mexico's 2000 elections and media effects in emerging democracies. British Journal of Political Science 35(1), pp. 1-30.
LAWSON, C., CHAPPELL, H., LENZ, G. S., BAKER, A. y MYERS, M. (2010): Looking like a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics, 62(4), pp. 561–593.
LIAO, V. y FU, W.T. (2013): Beyond the filter bubble: Interactive effects of perceived threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information en CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 31st ACM conference on Computer-Human Interaction. París, Francia, 27 de abril a 2 de mayo de 2013, pp. 2359–2368. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481326.
LÓPEZ-GARCÍA, G. (2016): ‘Nuevos‘ y ‘viejos‘ liderazgos: la campaña de las elecciones generales españolas de 2015 en Twitter. Comunicación y sociedad, 29(3), pp. 149-167. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.29.3.149-168.
LÓPEZ-GARCÍA, G.; LLORCA-ABAD, G.; VALERA-ORDAZ, L. y PERIS-BLANES, À. (2018): Los debates electorales, ¿el último reducto frente la mediatización? Un estudio de caso de las elecciones generales españolas de 2015. Palabra Clave, 21(3), pp. 772-797.
LÓPEZ-MERI, A., MARCOS-GARCÍA, S. y CASERO-RIPOLLÉS, A. (2017): ¿Qué hacen los políticos en Twitter? Funciones y estrategias comunicativas en la campaña electoral española de 2016. El Profesional de la Información, 26(5), pp. 795-804. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.sep.02.
LORENTE-CANO, M. (2011): Social TV en España: concepto, desarrollo e implicaciones. Cuadernos de Gestión de Información, 1, pp. 55-64. Disponible en: https://revistas.um.es/gesinfo/article/view/207531.
MAGALHAES, P. (2007): Voting and intermediation: Informational biases and electoral choices in comparative perspective, en GUNTHER, R., MONTERO, J. R. y PUHLE, H.J. (Eds.), Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents. pp. 208-254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MAZAIRA-CASTRO, A., RÚAS-ARAÚJO, J. y PUENTES-RIVERA, I. (2019): Fact-checking en los debates electorales televisados de las elecciones generales de 2015 y 2016. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 74, pp. 748-766. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2019-1355.
MCCOMBS, M. E. y SHAW, D. L. (1972): The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 176-187.
MCGUIRE, W. J. (1969): The nature of attitude and attitude change, en LINDZEY, G. y ARONSON, E.: The Handbook of Social Psychology, V, vol. 3. pp. 136-314. Reading (EE.UU.): Addison-Wesley.
____ (1972): Attitude change: The Information Processing Paradigm, en McClintock, C.G., Experimental Social Psychology. pp. 108-141, Nueva York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
____ (1985): Attitudes and attitude change, en LINDZEY, G. y ARONSON, E.: The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2. 3era ed., pp. 233-346. Nueva York: Random House.
MCKINNEY, M. S. y WARNER, B. R. (2013): Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debates effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), pp. 238-258.
MESSING, S. y WESTWOOD, S. J. (2012): Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements Trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), pp. 1042-1063.
METZGER, M. J., FLANAGIN, A. J., EYAL, K., LEMUS, D. R. y MCCANN, R. M. (2003): Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), pp. 293-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029.
METZGER, M. J. y FLANAGIN, A. J. (2013): Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(B), pp. 210-220.
MILLER, W. (1991): Media and voters: The audience, content and influence of press and television at the 1987 General Election. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
NEWMAN, B. I. (Ed.) (1999): Handbook of Political Marketing. Thousand Oaks (EE.UU.): Sage.
NORRIS, P., CURTICE, J., SANDERS, D., Scammell, M. y SEMETKO, H. A. (1999): On message: Communicating the campaign. Londres: SAGE.
PAN, Z. y KOSICKI, G. M. (2001): Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation, en REESE, S. D., GANDY JR., O. H. y GRANT, A. E.: Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World. pp. 35-66. Mahwah, (EE.UU.): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
PFAU, M. (2002): The subtle nature of presidential debate influence. Journal Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(4), pp. 251-261.
PINKER, S., y LAKOFF, G. (2007): Does language frame spolitics? Public Policy Research, 14(1), pp. 59-71.
QUEVEDO-REDONDO, R., PORTALÉS-OLIVA, M. y BERROCAL-GONZALO, S. (2016): El uso de la imagen en Twitter durante la campaña electoral municipal de 2015 en España. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71(1), pp. 85-107. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2016-1085.
RUIZ-DEL-OLMO, F. J. y BUSTOS-DÍAZ, J. (2016): Del tweet a la fotografía, la evolución de la comunicación política en Twitter hacia la imagen. El caso del debate del estado de la nación en España. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71(1), pp. 108-123. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2016-1086.
SHAW, D. R. (1999): The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988-96. American Political Science Review, 93(2), pp. 345-361.
SMITH, A. y BOYLES, J. L. (2012): The rise of the ‘connected viewer‘ (PDF). Pew Research Center‘s Internet & American Life Project, Washington D.C. Disponible en: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/07/17/the-rise-of-the-connected-viewer-2/ [Consultado 3-09-2019]
STERNTHAL, B., DHOLAKIA, R. y LEAVITT, C. (1978): The persuasive effect of source credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), pp. 252-260. https://doi.org/10.1086/208704.
STRÖMBÄCK, J. y KIOUSIS, S. (Eds.) (2011): Political public relations: Defining and mapping an emergent field, en STRÖMBÄCK, J. y KIOUSIS, S.: Political Public Relations: Principles and Applications. pp. 1-32. Nueva York y Londres: Routledge.
TANKARD, J. W. (2001): The empirical approach to the study of media framing, en REESE, S. D., GANDY JR., O. H. y GRANT, A. E.: Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and our Understanding of the Social World. pp. 95-105. Mahwah, (EE.UU.): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
TODOROV, A., MANDISODZA, A. N., GOREN, A. y HALL, C. C. (2005): Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), pp. 1623-1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110589.
VACCARI, C., CHADWICK, A. y O‘Loughlin, B. (2015): Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), pp. 1041-1061.
VALENZUELA, S. y MCCOMBS, M. E. (2007): Agenda-setting effects on vote choice: Evidence from the 2006 Mexican election, en Proceedings of the 57th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. San Francisco, USA, 24-28 de mayo de 2007., International Communication Association.
VAN-ZUYDAM, S. y HENDRICKS, F. (2018): Credibility enacted: Understanding the meaning of credible political leadership in the Dutch parliamentary election campaign of 2010. Journal of Political Marketing, 17(3), pp. 258-281.
WANG, H., CAN, D., KAZEMZADEH, A., BAR, F. y NARAYANAN, S. (2012): A system for real-time twitter sentiment analysis of 2012 US presidential election cycle, en Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeju, Corea del Sur, 8-14 de julio de 2012. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 115-120. Disponible en: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2400000/2390490/p115-wang.pdf?ip=81.33.94.118&id=2390490&acc=OPEN&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1569269362_8b19c6213d2ac33fe098b946ebd0b198.
WEST, R. y TURNER, L. H. (2004): Introducing Communication Theory. Analysis and application. 2da ed., Nueva York: McGraw-Hill.
WIMMER, R. D. y DOMINICK, J. R. (1996): La investigación científica de los medios de comunicación. Una introducción a sus métodos. Barcelona: Bosch.
WINTERSIECK, A. L. (2017): Debating the Truth: The Impact of Fact-Checking During Electoral Debates. American Politics Research, 45(2), pp. 304-331.
ZALLER, J. R. (1992): The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge (EE.UU.): Cambridge University Press.
Similar Articles
- Estefanía Luzuriaga Uribe, Gabriela Baquerizo-Neira, Twitter/X in the 2021 presidential campaign in Ecuador: digital interactions and their projection in the political polarization of the following campaigns , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 18 (2025): (Publishing on a rolling basis)
- José Luis Torres-Martín, Andrea Castro-Martínez, Pablo Díaz-Morilla, Cristina Pérez Ordóñez, Women executives and creators in the audiovisual sector. Analysis of Spanish fiction series in the catalogs of Amazon Prime Video, Movistar+, and Netflix (2019-2021) , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 15 No. 2 (2022): July - December
- Eugenia Blasetti, Emma Garzonio, The social representation of migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic. An Italian case study on hostile narratives and visual political communication , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 15 No. 2 (2022): July - December
- Carlos Rusconi, Eugenia Roldán, Local media and political practices: notes for addressing mediatization. , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 14 No. 1 (2021): January - June
- Alfonso Chaves-Montero, Walter Federico Gadea-Aiello, José Ignacio Aguaded-Gómez, The political communication on social networks during the 2015 electoral campaign in Spain: usage, effectivity and reach , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 10 No. 1 (2017): Enero - Agosto
- Esteban Torres, The intercommunication system: from media to world social change , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 16 No. 1 (2023): January - June
- Pablo Matus, Magdalena Vitores, Claudia Ramírez Friderichsen, Generic frames on the front covers of the Chilean press related to the social outbreak of 2019 , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 17 (2024): January - December
- Esteban Andrés Zunino, Lorena Recalde Cerda , Gabriela Baquerizo, Argentine political leaders on Twitter. A study about the midterm elections in 2017 , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 12 No. 2 (2019): July - December
- Teresa Velázquez García-Talavera, Marta Rizo García, The discourse of the far right and the crucial moments of political life , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 18 (2025): (Publishing on a rolling basis)
- Carlos Muñiz, Mexican contribution to the study of political communication. Bibliometric analysis of papers in open access journals , Perspectivas de la Comunicación: Vol. 17 (2024): January - December
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > >>
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Perspectivas de la Comunicación - ISSN 0718-4867
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Proposed policy to offer Open Access Journals
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Attribution (CC -BY 4.0) 
that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to adopt licensing agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (for example, to post it to an institutional repositories or publish it in a monograph), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are allowed and encouraged to post their work online (For example, in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and increase the citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
