Between Fact and Fiction: Elizabeth II’s Funeral and Its Connection to The Crown on X (Twitter)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-       The rationale for the paper is buried deep into pages two. However, even after reading, it, the author does not strongly justify the “why” of the study. This makes it an exploratory study at best or a confirmation bias study at the worst.

-       The little mention of second screen viewing and engagement across media platforms are not justifications enough.

-       The front matter is too limited. We have a lengthy intro but really not literature review.

-       Some of the concepts raised in the paper lack a theoretical foundation. For instance:

o   Second screen use may be tied to the uses and gratifications theory.

o   This statement (There is a debate about how society perceives the world of fiction as if it were some-108 thing true – line 108) may relate to cultivation analysis or parasocial interaction.

-       Nothing in the front manner speaks to RQ 1. Also, how does the author define characteristics?

-       Same thing with RQ 3, where interactions are not defined. These could refer to another theoretical concept – social media engagement (SME).

-       The method section does not detail the data validity measures applied.

Author Response

-       The rationale for the paper is buried deep into pages two. However, even after reading, it, the author does not strongly justify the “why” of the study. This makes it an exploratory study at best or a confirmation bias study at the worst.

We appreciate the comments made on the article, which have allowed us to improve it for its final version. Below we respond to each of the indications with the changes made.

To clarify and strengthen the “ why ” of the study , new sections have been created in the structure of the text and the objective of the work has been stated with greater specificity, so that Introduction , Literature are clearly differentiated. Review , Research Questions and what refers to Sample and data analysis . These changes can be observed in lines 38-43 and in the structure of the text.

- The little mention of second screen viewing and engagement across media platforms are not justifications enough.

With respect to this observation, the literature referring to second screens and audience participation in social networks has expanded. This can be seen in lines: 54-56 ; 59-64; 67-77 and 80-83.

-The​ front matters es too limited . We have a lengthy intro but really not literature review.

As indicated, the structure and order of the paper has been improved , in addition to increasing the review of academic literature. This can be notice in the lines 38-41.

- Some of the concepts raised in the paper lack a theoretical foundation. For instance:

o Second screen use may be tied to the uses and gratifications theory.

o This statement (There is a debate about how society perceives the world of fiction as if it were some-108 thing true – line 108) may relate to cultivation analysis or parasocial interaction.

In response to this observation, a review of the theory of uses and gratifications applied to the digital context and use of social networks has been included. This can be identify in the lines 98-122.

 - Nothing in the front manner speaks to RQ 1. Also, how does the author define characteristics?

To improve this part, what is related to the characteristics of the audience has been strengthened with more specificity and new references on the characteristics of the audience of series that participate in networks. This modification this in the lines 59-64 , 67-77 and 80-83 .

- Same thing with RQ 3, where interactions are not defined. These could refer to another theoretical concept – social media engagement (SME).

We have identified that, in effect, confusion has been generated in the text around the concept "interactions", so it has been modified to clarify that what we study are connections. This can be find out On the line 259, 264 and 532 .

- The method section does not detail the data validity measures applied.

To clarify this concern, the type of statistical validity (Pearson Correlation Analysis) has been specified on lines 402-404.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s), the study is interesting under the initial theoretical appreciation, there is a good methodological use that could be improved, for example exposing a clear and determined timeline between events, audience behavior and actions.

The Theory of Uses and Gratifications would contribute a lot to your analysis.

Another point I would like to refer to is the relationship of content and action with the series The Crown on Netflix, the question that remains for me is: if the series promotes audience participation in front of the queen's funeral, how the audience views this fact. ? it's sad? is it anti empire? or does it generate social rapprochement?

Author Response

Dear author(s), the study is interesting under the initial theoretical appreciation, there is a good methodological use that could be improved, for example exposing a clear and determined timeline between events, audience behavior and actions.

We are grateful for the observations made to the article, which have allowed it to be improved for its final version. Below we respond to each of the indications with the changes made.

First of all, we have included an explanatory chronology of the events that occurred regarding the death of the British queen, her evolution on Twitter (X) and how this was related to the development of the Netflix series The Crown.   These changes can be seen in lines 146-158.

The Theory of Uses and Gratifications would contribute a lot to your analysis.

To strengthen this part, a review of the theory of uses and gratifications applied to the digital context and use of social networks has been included. This can be identify in the lines 98-122.

Another point I would like to refer to is the relationship of content and action with the series The Crown on Netflix, the question that remains for me is: if the series promotes audience participation in front of the queen's funeral, how the audience views this fact. ? it's sad? is it anti empire? or does it generate social rapprochement?

The observation made by the reviewer in this sense is very interesting, although it transcends our object of study, which has a more preliminary nature and does not delve as deeply into the contents of the messages issued on the social network Twitter (X). In any case, we consider it important to address this concern in order to improve the paper , which is why the sentiment analysis has been strengthened and some examples have been included, linked to the most used words. Lines 427-439

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article Between Fact and Fiction: Elizabeth II's Funeral and its Connection to The Crown on Twitter seeks to analyze a topic of interest to the community, but could undergo adjustments to be published by this journal. The four RQs presented are not discussed deeply, which indicates that the article could choose a more restricted approach, based on specialized literature. RQ4, for example, is barely presented in the results and discussions, and this research question alone would already generate several useful interpretations for the area. The literature review focuses a lot on explaining aspects of the monarchy and the series The Crown, while it should give space to research that has already addressed the use of Twitter to discuss television series, so that the reader understands what conclusions can now be drawn. Especially with regard to sentiment analysis, there needs to be a thorough explanation, so that the results can be properly debated. As an example of texts that can serve as a starting point, we mention:   Buschow, C., Schneider, B., & Ueberheide, S. (2014). Tweeting television: Exploring communication activities on Twitter while watching TV. Communications, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0009   Acerbi, A., Burns, J., Cabuk, U., Kryczka, J., Trapp, B., Valletta, J. J., & Mesoudi, A. (2023). Sentiment analysis of the Twitter response to Netflix’s Our Planet documentary. Conservation Biology, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14060   In the methodological section, it is necessary for the authors to point out in more detail which methodological procedures will be held to answer each of the questions.  When discussing the results, the authors spend several paragraphs explaining which accounts tweeted the most. However, it would be much more interesting to focus on a more detailed explanation of sentiment analysis, exemplifying what could be considered neutral, positive and negative. This could lead to the exclusion of aspects that are not explored (such as the number of tweets coming from iPhones or Android) to focus on aspects that the literature has already highlighted as relevant to the discussion on Twitter about spectators.   Graphs 1 and 2 could be better presented because it is difficult to visualize and understand how they help to answer the research questions.   Finally, the discussion section never opens up a debate with the literature about the possible contributions of this study to the area.   Thus, these points can be reviewed to ensure that the work makes a better contribution to the area.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article Between Fact and Fiction: Elizabeth II's Funeral and its Connection to The Crown on Twitter seeks to analyze a topic of interest to the community, but could undergo adjustments to be published by this journal.

We are grateful for the observations made to the article, which have allowed it to be improved for its final version. Below we respond to each of the indications with the changes made.

The four RQs presented are not discussed deeply, which indicates that the article could choose a more restricted approach, based on specialized literature. RQ4, for example, is barely presented in the results and discussions, and this research question alone would already generate several useful interpretations for the area.

We strongly appreciate this observation from the reviewer, which has made us reflect a lot on the scope of our research and the possibility of making inferences from the findings obtained. To clarify this concern and improve the final text, RQ4 has been eliminated, while the reflections on transmedia narrative are taken up again as part of the conclusions and possibilities of future work, assuming that, in effect, our work is not articulated so much around this category and the findings obtained do not allow us to offer solid conclusions in this sense. To check these settings, you can review lines 59-64 , 502-506, 540-546 and 551-556.

The literature review focuses a lot on explaining aspects of the monarchy and the series The Crown, while it should give space to research that has already addressed the use of Twitter to discuss television series, so that the reader understands what conclusions can now be drawn. Especially with regard to sentiment analysis, there needs to be a thorough explanation, so that the results can be properly debated. As an example of texts that can serve as a starting point, we mention:   Buschow, C., Schneider, B., & Ueberheide, S. (2014). Tweeting television: Exploring communication activities on Twitter while watching TV. Communications, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0009   Acerbi, A., Burns, J., Cabuk, U., Kryczka, J., Trapp, B., Valletta, J. J., & Mesoudi, A. (2023). Sentiment analysis of the Twitter response to Netflix’s Our Planet documentary. Conservation Biology, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14060  

In response to this observation, which we consider very pertinent, the academic literature related to second screens and the audience of network series has expanded. Likewise, this part of the conclusions has been improved, relating our findings to this literature. Changes can be​ notice in the lines 54-56; 59-64; 67-77 and 80-83.

In the methodological section, it is necessary for the authors to point out in more detail which methodological procedures will be held to answer each of the questions.

To respond to this observation, the methodological strategy (common to all RQs) used has been clarified. This can be seen in lines 263-264.

 When discussing the results, the authors spend several paragraphs explaining which accounts tweeted the most. However, it would be much more interesting to focus on a more detailed explanation of sentiment analysis, exemplifying what could be considered neutral, positive and negative. This could lead to the exclusion of aspects that are not explored (such as the number of tweets coming from iPhones or Android) to focus on aspects that the literature has already highlighted as relevant to the discussion on Twitter about spectators. 

The observation made by the reviewer in this sense is very interesting, although it transcends our object of study, which has a more preliminary nature and does not delve as deeply into the contents of the messages issued on the social network Twitter (X). In any case, we consider it important to address this concern in order to improve the paper , which is why the sentiment analysis has been strengthened and some examples have been included, linked to the most used words. Lines 427-439

Some aspects that are not explored in depth in this work, such as the devices from which the audience connects, seem interesting to us to present, although they are explored in depth in other works that we are developing.

 Graphs 1 and 2 could be better presented because it is difficult to visualize and understand how they help to answer the research questions.  

In response to this observation, the graphics are expanded, although the program has some limitations in this regard.

Finally, the discussion section never opens up a debate with the literature about the possible contributions of this study to the area.   Thus, these points can be reviewed to ensure that the work makes a better contribution to the area.

To address this observation, which we consider pertinent, we have strengthened the conclusions and discussion section, incorporating the contributions of our study and relating the findings obtained with the academic literature. This can be notice on the lines : 502-506; 520-521; 527-531; 540-546 and 565-568.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While there are improvements to the manuscript, these are not enough to change my initial decision.  

Author Response

We appreciate the observations. In the previous version (round 1) we made substantial changes that improved the final version of the article and were conveniently detailed in the corresponding report (marked in yellow). For this new version, we have made the following additional changes (marked in pink):

Regarding the findings and discussions ( Must be improved ): the articulation between the literature worked on in the theoretical framework and the findings obtained has been strengthened. The additions can be reviewed on the following lines: lines 550-552; lines 569-571; lines 579-582; lines 602-604; lines 611-612.

Regarding clarity in the presentation of results ( Must be improved ): In the previous version, new sections were created and some additional elements were clarified, which improved the article. In this version (round 2), new details have also been included about the methodological strategy and the way to operationalize the categories (278-300). The articulation between the findings and academic literature has been strengthened and lines have been drawn on future work, which consolidates the relevance of the work and its inclusion in a line of studies on social networks and new television formats.

We consider that the proposed changes have significantly improved the paper with respect to the initial version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors satisfactorily observed my suggestions and the manuscript is much better structured in this second version, which makes it relevant for publication.

Author Response

  

Thank you very much for your comments, we believe they have contributed very positively to the article.