From Scientific Journals to Newspapers in Spain: Interest in Disinformation (2000–2023)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author/s,

Your study can be published after the following corrections.

I think that you should definitely revise the abstract of your study. Although certain explanations are made in the current abstract, as for me, more detailed information should be given about the content of the current study. For example, what is the study's sample? Which method will be used in the study?

I think that the title of the study is too general. Make it specific. If the study was conducted in Spain, Spain should be included in the title of the study. If possible, information can be given before and after the pandemic, but this is up to your preference.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The state of the art must be completed with different contributions that affect the two aspects widely discussed in the text. On the one hand, the state of research on disinformation (for example: García-Marín, D., & Salvat Martinrey, G. (2021). Research on disinformation in Spain; Rivas-de-Roca, R., Morais, R ., & Jerónimo, P. (2022). Communication and misinformation in elections: research trends in Spain and Portugal. Universitas-XXI, Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas, (36), 71-94; Rodríguez, L. R. (2013) Towards a state of the art of research on disinformation/misinformation. Correspondencias & Análisis (3), 319-342, etc. On the other hand, the state of the treatment of disinformation in general media (for example, Esteruelas, N. C., Fernández Torres, M. J., & Teruel Rodríguez, L. (2023). Treatment of the phenomenon of disinformation in the Spanish press. An analysis of its evolution. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 29(4).)

The text uses a very rigorous and quantitative methodology. However, some clarifications can be made that would influence the improvement of the study.

Two study periods are exhaustively marked, from 2001 to 2019 and from 2020 to 2023. The authors review both periods to respond to different objectives, so that meaningful results are obtained regarding the frequency of use of the terms analysed in the publications; topics related to science and how misinformation is treated in scientific magazines and newspapers. In this way, this comparative vision of two periods should be incorporated into the title of the text and the abstract, as well as a clarification of the stated objectives.

On the other hand, objective three should be divided into two parts: one dedicated to scientific journals and the other to newspapers, as different publications, with different objectives, audiences, and treatments, are housed in the same section.

It is observed that the analysis of the methodological techniques used in scientific articles is not the most appropriate to investigate how the issue of misinformation is dealt with, as it is assumed that all the methods used in academic journals that have undergone a review process are valid. The use of one method or another does not allow us to draw conclusions about the thematic treatment of misinformation. It gives us quantifiable statistics on the methods used in the different research studies, but they are of an incidental nature in this study (it is not relevant for the academic thematic treatment of misinformation in the context of the agenda setting that content analysis is the most used method). To remedy this, topics could be placed in categories: medicine, economics, communication, etc.

Also in the number of works, the authors, the level of citations, etc. On the other hand, media content analysis does allow us to obtain relevant results, as it offers the possibility of differentiating between information and opinion and other variables that can be included in the analysis sheet: whether they are, for example, denials or, on the contrary, news that address the problem that disinformation represents for society; whether they are useful texts for the reader; or the general thematic area of the disinformation (economy, health, politics).

With regard to the wording of the text, the translation is of good quality, although there are terms that should be stated in Spanish, with their English translation in brackets: for example, "desinformación" (desinformation) or "noticias falsas" (fake news), since the search is carried out in Spanish-language media, even though the text has been translated afterwards.

Another issue concerns the interpretative tone. The results section should objectively concentrate the findings found in the statistics, without adding interpretations or assumptions about causes that cannot be validated, as in lines 373-376. In lines 395-398 it is explained that the analysis developed does not allow these conclusions to be reached.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very well written and is based on extensive research. Disinformation continues to be one of the most interesting topics in current times across all continents and societies, a concern that A.I. has only made more evident.

Line 6: This aim of this research - The aim of this research

Lines 28-29:  Cohen argued that the press is not very effective in telling audiences what to think, yet highly successful in telling its readers what to think about- Please check. Maybe a problem with the translation (?). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf