Misinformation and Its Impact on Contested Policy Issues: The Example of Migration Discourses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Despite its interesting overall topics, the article presents some relevant lacks in methodology that make it worthy to be reconsidered after major revision.

More in detail, methodology is rather unclear, firstly because in the beginning authors declare to have analysed scientific and grey literature using Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and JSTOR and other sources but the main data only focuses on Twitter analysis and it is not clear how the literature review served the study and its results.

Authors state that “Depending on the topic, posts containing misinformation tend to spread faster than information, often reaching 87% of total posts”. Percentages might differ per media and topics, more references and contextualization are needed because the provided ones refer to healthcare context

Authors state that “the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated further the debate”. What is the link between COVID-19 and migration discourse? economic crisis? Other? Whist this assertion might be true, some evidence or reference should be provided.

With reference to the statement that “A biased perception of migration as a phenomenon that cannot be governed” this is not totally true, as some political parties claim the need for better/stronger governance of migration in origin countries with theoretical or at least not effective measures and agreements with local governments. These agreements are also questioned for their impact on human rights. This point needs to be clarified

What are the evidence or references of  the statement “depicting destination societies as “Eldorado”?. This relevant point is only quickly mentioned but would need deeper discussion. The same for what concerns “the social rejection that often surrounds the return of migrants to their countries of origin”: can you better explain this relevant point?

With reference to the English tweets analysis using Twitter Academic API authors should consider that hate speech and anti-migration narratives are a common trait of social groups "defending" identity and traditions, so often linked to a geographical area and expressed in national language. Does the study collecting English written tweets make sense for not English speaking countries? Authors should  provide some explanation if language barrier represents a study limit.

 

In Twitter analysis, data and specific issues for EU and USA are mixed, this can be confusing under the methodological approach. Some more discussion on differences and commonalities for the two continents should be provided

With respect to the code of conducts for media professionals, the role of regulatory authorities is missing, whist relevant as the cases of ethics and fake new sectors shrinkage in many tech firms highligts

Finally, the abstract does not reflect the statements and contents of the paper, a check of correspondence of the abstract with the full text is recommended.

 

Author Response

1. Despite its interesting overall topics, the article presents some relevant lacks in methodology that make it worthy to be reconsidered after major revision.

We appreciate your feedback on our article and acknowledge your concerns regarding the methodology. We agree that a thorough and robust methodology is crucial for a research study to maintain its credibility and validity. In light of this feedback, we have carefully reconsidered and addressed the methodological aspects in our revision. We have ensured that the methodology is more clearly articulated, providing additional details and explanations where necessary. By doing so, we aim to enhance the rigor and reliability of our research findings.

2. More in detail, methodology is rather unclear, firstly because in the beginning authors declare to have analysed scientific and grey literature using Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and JSTOR and other sources but the main data only focuses on Twitter analysis and it is not clear how the literature review served the study and its results.

We appreciate your feedback regarding the methodology section of our paper. We had conducted the Twitter analysis to motivate the necessity of the corrective measures given the wide range of attitudes towards migrants, including the presence of misinformation, concerns, positive and negative attitudes. To identify corrective measures, we had conducted the literature review. We have added an explanation to the methodology section.  

3. Authors state that “Depending on the topic, posts containing misinformation tend to spread faster than information, often reaching 87% of total posts”. Percentages might differ per media and topics, more references and contextualization are needed because the provided ones refer to healthcare context

Thank you for your comment! We have included a reference indicating that the share of misinformation may vary depending on the social media platform and the topic or even sub-topic.

4. Authors state that “the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated further the debate”. What is the link between COVID-19 and migration discourse? economic crisis? Other? Whist this assertion might be true, some evidence or reference should be provided.

We have added two references on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic towards migrants. They found that the pandemic strengthened anti-immigrant attitudes.

5. With reference to the statement that “A biased perception of migration as a phenomenon that cannot be governed” this is not totally true, as some political parties claim the need for better/stronger governance of migration in origin countries with theoretical or at least not effective measures and agreements with local governments. These agreements are also questioned for their impact on human rights. This point needs to be clarified

We appreciate the comment provided, as it underscores the importance of addressing the impact of migration governance measures on human rights and the differing political viewpoints on migration governance. Incorporating this perspective into our paper enhances the overall clarity and comprehensiveness of our analysis.

6. What are the evidence or references of  the statement “depicting destination societies as “Eldorado”?. This relevant point is only quickly mentioned but would need deeper discussion. The same for what concerns “the social rejection that often surrounds the return of migrants to their countries of origin”: can you better explain this relevant point?

We have added relevant descriptions and explanations of these two points to the paper.

7. With reference to the English tweets analysis using Twitter Academic API authors should consider that hate speech and anti-migration narratives are a common trait of social groups "defending" identity and traditions, so often linked to a geographical area and expressed in national language. Does the study collecting English written tweets make sense for not English speaking countries? Authors should  provide some explanation if language barrier represents a study limit.

We appreciate your comment and agree that it might be a potential limitation of the paper. While the focus on English tweets enables the examination of migration discourse in a widely used language on social media platforms, it may inadvertently exclude perspectives expressed in other languages. This limitation may result in a partial representation of the overall discourse on migration, particularly in countries where English is not the dominant language. To mitigate this limitation, future research could consider expanding the analysis to include tweets in other relevant languages or explore the possibility of utilizing language translation techniques to overcome the language barrier. By incorporating these considerations, the study can offer a more comprehensive understanding of the migration discourse across different linguistic contexts and enhance the applicability of the findings to a broader range of countries and regions.

8. In Twitter analysis, data and specific issues for EU and USA are mixed, this can be confusing under the methodological approach. Some more discussion on differences and commonalities for the two continents should be provided

Our research aims to examine the general migration discourse rather than focusing on a specific country or region. We acknowledge that migration-related issues can vary across different regions, and further research could explore the nuances and narratives specific to those particular contexts. However, our intention in this study was to provide a broader understanding of the migration discourse and discuss overall corrective measures that could be applicable in a general context.

Thank you for highlighting these aspects, and we will consider your suggestions to enhance the clarity and depth of our research in future endeavors.

9. With respect to the code of conducts for media professionals, the role of regulatory authorities is missing, whist relevant as the cases of ethics and fake new sectors shrinkage in many tech firms highligts

Thank you! We have addressed this comment. While codes of conduct and self-regulation are indeed valuable instruments for journalistic activity, they do have limitations. The evolving digital landscape and the rise of social media platforms have allowed for the rapid dissemination of information, often without proper verification or adherence to journalistic principles. This has led to the spread of misinformation and fake news, which can have significant consequences on public opinion and societal discourse.

In order to effectively address these challenges and strengthen accountability, it is crucial to have some form of institutional infrastructure that can enforce ethical standards and regulate media practices. Regulatory authorities play a vital role in this regard. They can establish and enforce guidelines and standards for media professionals, ensuring that accurate and reliable information is disseminated to the public.

10. Finally, the abstract does not reflect the statements and contents of the paper, a check of correspondence of the abstract with the full text is recommended.

We have rewritten the abstract to bring it into a better correspondence with the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Greater Clarity in Scope: It would be beneficial to more clearly delineate the focus of your paper, i.e., distinguishing between misinformation and disinformation. While the distinction is made early on, revisiting it throughout the paper would help maintain clarity for the reader.

Empirical Evidence: Wherever possible, include more empirical evidence to support the theoretical discussion about the impact of misinformation on migration. Case studies or specific instances of the effects of misinformation could strengthen your argument.

Methodological Detail: While your methodology section is well-organized, it might be beneficial to provide additional details about how you conducted your sentiment analysis and the specifics of your thematic analysis. This would add more credibility to your findings and allow others to replicate your study if desired.

Addressing Limitations: You have done well in recognizing the limitations of your study. However, suggesting how these limitations could be overcome in future research would be useful.

Policy Implications: Your paper has strong potential implications for policy and practice. Make these implications explicit, and discuss potential ways that your research could inform specific policies, interventions, or awareness campaigns.

Author Response

1. Greater Clarity in Scope: It would be beneficial to more clearly delineate the focus of your paper, i.e., distinguishing between misinformation and disinformation. While the distinction is made early on, revisiting it throughout the paper would help maintain clarity for the reader.

Thank you for your clarification! In our study, the main focus is specifically on misinformation rather than disinformation. We have made this distinction clear at the beginning of the paper to avoid any confusion. Furthermore, we have carefully revised the later sections of the paper to ensure consistency in terminology, replacing one mention of disinformation with the term “misinformation”.

2. Empirical Evidence: Wherever possible, include more empirical evidence to support the theoretical discussion about the impact of misinformation on migration. Case studies or specific instances of the effects of misinformation could strengthen your argument.

We have included three real-world case studies illustrating the impact of misinformation on migration.

3. Methodological Detail: While your methodology section is well-organized, it might be beneficial to provide additional details about how you conducted your sentiment analysis and the specifics of your thematic analysis. This would add more credibility to your findings and allow others to replicate your study if desired.

We appreciate your feedback regarding the methodology section of our paper. In order to provide additional details and enhance the credibility of our findings, we have offered a more comprehensive description of how we had conducted the sentiment analysis and thematic analysis.

4. Addressing Limitations: You have done well in recognizing the limitations of your study. However, suggesting how these limitations could be overcome in future research would be useful.

Thank you for referring to the limitations! We have now stressed some of them in the conclusion and suggested how they could be overcome in future research.

5. Policy Implications: Your paper has strong potential implications for policy and practice. Make these implications explicit, and discuss potential ways that your research could inform specific policies, interventions, or awareness campaigns

Thank you for underlining policy implications our research has. We have included some potential implications for policy and practice to the conclusion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for providing all requested clarifications.

Author Response

Thank you. The revised version is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx