Information Pandemic: A Critical Review of Disinformation Spread on Social Media and Its Implications for State Resilience
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper addresses the issue of misinformation through a systematic review of the literature over the last 10 years. The systematic literature review that has been carried out complies with the methodological procedure required by this research methodology. It is reflected very graphically in Figure 1, with the PRISMA diagram.
It is recommended that references be used to reinforce the use of this research methodology, just as it is recommended that the author(s) expand on the bibliographical references that theoretically underpin the introduction to this work.
Author Response
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this review, and we have added references to enrich the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article provides a systematic review of articles published between 2014 and 2024 on disinformation and its impact on democratic life, emphasizing the importance of media literacy, fact-checking, and content regulation as means to combat disinformation in a context of ideological polarization and distrust of institutions. Its objective is clear and well-defined.
The systematic review of academic literature on a topic is a useful methodology when addressing a recurring research question, as is the case with disinformation. It is a preliminary step to identify research questions and trends. In this sense, the present work focuses on identifying the material to be studied by combining search fields in an original way. In the description of the resulting sample, there is a lack of identification of the geographic scope and mention of the type of publication (national, international, global, open access, methodology used, etc.), which would help to identify potential biases in the sample selection.
The presentation of the results is descriptive and synthesizes the data obtained well, relying mainly on enumerations. This material could then give way to a more reflective discussion and conclusions.
The references are appropriate.
The article is a good starting point to identify recurring research topics, as well as other related topics not addressed by the literature. However, although some of the conclusions are valid from a general perspective, they should take into account the diversity of democratic systems and possible responses to the phenomenon of disinformation.
Author Response
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this review. We have also clarified the geographical coverage and mentioned the type of publication (line 201, page 5)
Therefore, we agree with and accept the reviewer's suggestion that it is important to consider the diversity of democratic systems and their various responses to the problem of disinformation. These additions and feedback are from line 462, page 12.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article offers an interesting and necessary perspective, as scientific production on disinformation has been so abundant in the last five years that a compilation of studies highlighting the most important findings and trends is needed.
The text specifies that a review of 150 peer-reviewed texts in English has been carried out, but the bibliography, with 20 contributions, is scarce. It would be advisable to enrich the quantitative analysis with qualitative assessments, so that the different aspects related to the dissemination of disinformation are enriched with practical examples taken from the texts reviewed. Vosoughi's study on the speed of dissemination, for example, stands out. Other representative cases can be applied to the different thematic areas identified and to the different parameters analysed.
On the other hand, the theoretical framework should be enriched with other previous research that has had an impact on the compilation of research on this subject (e.g. Vukić, T. (2020). Journalism education and fake news: A review of the literature. Medijska istraživanja: znanstveno-stručni časopis za novinarstvo i medije, 26(2), 77-99) and future perspectives (e.g., Salaverría, R., & Cardoso, G. (2023). Future of disinformation studies: emerging research fields. Profesional de la información, 32(5)).
Both recommendations would enrich the bibliography, taking into account that this is a compilation study for the identification of trends.
Author Response
Thank you for pointing this out. We have incorporated the reviewers' suggestions, and we are grateful that their input has enriched the scientific analysis of this article. (line 317, page 9)
