Podcasting: The Radio of Generation Z in Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author(s),
I have read your paper and really enjoyed it.
However there are some changes that can improve the text.
- The introduction section needs to be revised. It is very useful to understand the whole work as it establishes the importance of research, establishes a theory-based gap, research question, some contribution, and the paper’s structure. Please, add all these information in it.
- The paper’s sections/subparagraphs require some revisions, the linkage between the title of the paper, the content and theoretical and practical implications need to be reinforced (they are practically absent now).
- The link between research questions (what the author tries to achieve) and new contribution of the study is not so convincing.
- At the moment, the paper looks as theoretical work and the author should have more focus on practical/managerial value.
- I liked the fact that the positioning of the study is presented in the introductory section, identifying important gaps in the literature and considering some contributions to existing theoretical knowledge (but these contributions need to be deepened).
- Definition for the constructs are well structured.
Please make some linkage between the existing paragraphs (especially in the first part of the paper).
- Methodology section: the method and methodology employed is very interesting. However, there are some parts that should be explained and correctly interpreted.
Have you checked common method bias?
- Research Design: Reflect on your structure – you could restructure this chapter – approach, method, sample and analysis.
Explicitly link your research design back to your research questions and hypotheses – a sentence or two can be incorporated into the paper and this will strengthen your argument.
Stronger signposting between research design and findings will improve the flow of your argument.
- Findings-results:
Well written – however in the introduction section of your findings you should remind the reader of the research aim or gap in the body of knowledge
- Discussion:
Return to the main research questions of the study in the introduction section of your discussion.
More references-sources from the literature review should be embedded in the discussion as this will link your findings-results back to the body of knowledge and reinforce your contribution.
Perhaps headings in the discussion will strengthen the flow of your argument?
- Implications-Conclusions:
They are clear, but too concise. Be more explicit with calls for future research. Calls for future research could be bullet pointed for clarity.
General comments
- Cross check all references within text with your reference list and make sure that all references used in within text are listed in your reference list and remove any uncited reference from the reference list. You must also make sure that each reference in your reference list is accurate and complete in terms of authors’ names, title, volume number, issue number, pages, publisher etc.
- Check again the number of words of your document.
- Make sure that the flow of your article is improved. Academic journals do not prefer short paragraphs with one-three sentences or long paragraphs longer than half page.
Best of luck in your review.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviews provided by revisor 1, that whit out a doubt have helped to improve the quality of the article. We have tried to improve all possible and we pass to describe the changes we have made and the ones we could no make by the indicated reasons.
We have added the mentioned by the revisor one referring to the introduction.
We revised and tried to linked the literacy of the article.
We have tried to improve the questions of investigations sector.
We have tried to highlight the practical value of the work.
We have tried to better connect the paragraphs of the introduction.
Concerning the methodology, this section has been completely restructured so, firstly, the method used is discussed and it ends with a section referring to the sample selection.
Concerning the result discussion, it has been completely relaborated the epigraph to give better solidness.
It has been highlighted futures lines of investigation.
We have tried to solve all the matters in discussion of revisor one.
Morever, in order to give responce to the other two reviewers:
We have added the mentioned by the revisor two referring to the introduction.
In response to the reviewer, we have not found specific reports on the topic addressed apart from those already mentioned throughout the text.
We address the answer since the radio moves towards new business models (111-114).
The principal web Spanish broadcasters lodge podcast, but don’t allow a clear distinction between native podcast and recover audios of previous emissions. It stands out the case of PODIUM podcast form PRISA Audio group as an example of innovation (118-121)
Concerning the methodology, this section has been completely restructured so, firstly, the method used is discussed and it ends with a section referring to the sample selection.
As for the sample, being of convenience, all are university students from Spain.
For example, observing closely what BBC is doing in their eagerness of incorporating the young listeners, creating quality contents specially for them through a new App BBC Sounds. (133-138)
We have replaced it with: “check weather forecasts” (291).
The radio cannot stay behind, it has to be part of the business of this surround. Working conjointly will reduce this risk. For example, on a common platform but keeping its independence (519-521).
We have tried to restructure the entire section on results and conclusions to give greater clarity to the final object of the study. Also, We have tried to solve all the matters in discussion of revisor two.
Morever, (rev. 3).:
We have tried to improve all possible and we pass to describe the changes we have made and the ones we could no make by the indicated reasons.
Concerning the methodology, this section has been completely restructured so, firstly, the method used is discussed and it ends with a section referring to the sample selection. We try to respond on the lines (220-225).
We have tried to restructure the entire section on results and conclusions to give greater clarity to the final object of the study. Also, We have tried to solve all the matters in discussion of revisor three
Reviewer 2 Report
In truth, 81.8% of respondents believe that podcasts can be a useful educational tool in the learning process (230), but whether they would actually reach out more often for academic knowledge than for weather and sports is always a challenge. However, I think Podcasting is still underrated. I'm glad this article came about and congratulations.
The article is interesting, but needs a little fine-tuning to present the highest scientific standards.
1. Already in the abstract we see theses about a large 'abandon' of young people away from listening to the radio. Research - especially during the COVID-19 pandemic - does not support this. Please see two examples. These are examples of reports worth highlighting from a scientific point of view. This is about giving some data or answering if such changes are recorded in Spain?
1.1. The first is: RADIO FACTS AND FIGURES „Commercial radio ratings up half million since lockdown, with ery positive outlook”
published:onhttps://newsgeneration.com/broadcast-resources/radio-facts-and-figures/
„Radio is the leading reach platform: 92% of us listen to AM/FM radio over the airwaves, which is higher than TV viewership (87%), PC use (54%), smartphone use (81%), and tablet use (46%). More than 244.5 million American adults listen to the radio each month. Audiences are becoming more diverse with more than 45 million Hispanic listeners and more than 35 million Black listeners a month
Adults 18-34:
More than 71.2 million adults 18-34 use radio each month;
90% of adults 18-34 are reached monthly by radio
Radio Listenership Figures and Trends
According to the Pew Research Center,“…terrestrial radio reaches almost the entire U.S. population and remains steady in its revenue.” In 2018, according to Nielsen Media Research, 89% of Americans 12 or older listened to terrestrial radio in a given week. News/talk/information stations are one of the most popular broadcast radio formats, with a 12% share of listeners among the age 12-and-up demographic in 2019. In 2019, 41% of Americans ages 12 and older listen to online radio listening to AM/FM stations online or streaming other online audio”.
1.2. A second example of research and different conclusions about the situation of commercial radio and about young people listening to the radio see:
People in the age range to 18-24 21.6% listens KIIS1065
Survey Summary Reports (including DAB+) Sydney Survey 2, 2022
https://www.gfk.com/hubfs/ANZ%20MEDIA/AU/Metro%20Survey%20Summary%20Reports/2022/Survey%202/qnxGfK_Summary%20Report%20Sydney_Survey%202%202022.pdf
Media buyers tell Campaign they’re impressed by how well commercial radio ratings have held up since the Covid lockdown, in first Rajar report for 18 months. There are various reports. Such scientific reports are missing from the article for me. Here it must be stressed that they often do not concern podcasts, but are there such reports in Spain?
1.2. A second example of research and different conclusions about the situation of commercial radio and about young people listening to the radio see:
People in the age range to 18-24 21.6% listens KIIS1065
Survey Summary Reports (including DAB+) Sydney Survey 2, 2022
https://www.gfk.com/hubfs/ANZ%20MEDIA/AU/Metro%20Survey%20Summary%20Reports/2022/Survey%202/qnxGfK_Summary%20Report%20Sydney_Survey%202%202022.pdf
Media buyers tell Campaign they’re impressed by how well commercial radio ratings have held up since the Covid lockdown, in first Rajar report for 18 months. There are various reports. Such scientific reports are missing from the article for me. Here it must be stressed that they often do not concern podcasts, but are there such reports in Spain?
2. Methodology
Two important methodological issues. First, we have calculation formulas for a reliable study group. We know from the article that 410 students were surveyed, but how many are all students in Spain? These data will determine the reliability of the research cohort in quantitative studies.
Second and maybe third point. Full agreement that „In general, the media has experienced a huge transformation over the last 20 years (Herrero y Rodríguez, 2009)” (29-30) and here it should be noted that another thesis dates from 21 years ago (from 2001), see: „Taking into account the importance of listener interaction, the main radio stations create their own accounts on social media (Herrero, 2011), the goal being to create new channels in which to connect and interact with their audience. It is their first form of contact with these new ways of communicating, where the follower can also recycle and generate content (Castells 2001 p. 521)”. Has there really been no change in Spain on this issue since 2001?
This raises the question: are there really many traditional 'one-way' radio stations left in Spain? Herrero, quoted already in 2011 (63), wrote that the main radio stations in Spain have their accounts on social networks. According to research today, not only do most of the well-known radio stations have a channel either on TV or online, but smaller radio stations have social media attached and provide interactivity, etc. What is the actual situation today? Do the vast majority of radio stations really not have podcasts?
3. Please document with research the sentence "The BBC, for example, is winning young listeners by creating high-quality targeted content" (71-72). Or maybe I missed who verified this thesis. Then I apologise in advance.
4. Is this how it should be written: “Checking the weather” (06%)? (206)
5. I disagree with the sentence: "As a last resort, the radio industry should come together at some point and forget about their absurd competition". We live, fortunately, in free countries and one radio, e.g. Radio Putin or Radio Lavrow, is not the "only right one". Pluralism and democracy are important. Competition makes us know more.
6. The conclusion, after discussing the research hypotheses, lacks one sentence of summary on the problem contained in the theme: Podcasting: The Radio of Generation Z in Spain.
The comments made in the review demonstrate an attempt to have a good understanding of the article and scientific standards.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviews provided by revisor 2, that whit out a doubt have helped to improve the quality of the article. We have tried to improve all possible and we pass to describe the changes we have made and the ones we could not make by the indicated reasons.
We thank the revisor for considering such an investigation appropriate.
We have added the mentioned by the revisor two referring to the introduction.
In response to the reviewer, we have not found specific reports on the topic addressed apart from those already mentioned throughout the text.
Morever (rev. 1):
We have added the mentioned by the revisor one referring to the introduction.
We revised and tried to linked the literacy of the article.
We have tried to improve the questions of investigations sector.
We have tried to highlight the practical value of the work.
We have tried to better connect the paragraphs of the introduction.
Concerning the methodology, this section has been completely restructured so, firstly, the method used is discussed and it ends with a section referring to the sample selection.
Concerning the result discussion, it has been completely relaborated the epigraph to give better solidness.
It has been highlighted futures lines of investigation.
We have tried to solve all the matters in discussion of revisor one.
Reviewer 3 Report
Define the following terms on first mention: voice assistant, smart speakers, voice control.
On first line on page 4, you might follow "different statistical tests" with "such as" and indicate.
Using a non-probability, convenience sample is not ideal, as you indicate, but the study works well as a pilot study for future research in this area.
On page 9, line 384, use a better word than "absurd."
Provide a few lines of closure, perhaps noting areas for further research; the paper ends abruptly.
O
Author Response
The authors thank the reviews provided by revisor 3, that whit out a doubt have helped to improve the quality of the article. We have tried to improve all possible and we pass to describe the changes we have made and the ones we could no make by the indicated reasons.
We try to respond on the lines (180-182).
We try to respond on the lines (220-225.
Concerning the methodology, this section has been completely restructured so, firstly, the method used is discussed and it ends with a section referring to the sample selection. We try to respond on the lines (220-225).
We have replaced by the word illogical (517).
We have tried to restructure the entire section on results and conclusions to give greater clarity to the final object of the study. Also, We have tried to solve all the matters in discussion of revisor three.
Morever (rev. 1):
We have added the mentioned by the revisor one referring to the introduction.
We revised and tried to linked the literacy of the article.
We have tried to improve the questions of investigations sector.
We have tried to highlight the practical value of the work.
We have tried to better connect the paragraphs of the introduction.
Concerning the methodology, this section has been completely restructured so, firstly, the method used is discussed and it ends with a section referring to the sample selection.
Concerning the result discussion, it has been completely relaborated the epigraph to give better solidness.
It has been highlighted futures lines of investigation.
We have tried to solve all the matters in discussion of revisor one.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author(s),
I can clearly see that you improved the paper following my comments.
I think the paper is now ready for publication
Good Luck
