Clickbait Contagion in International Quality Media: Tabloidisation and Information Gap to Attract Audiences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposal for the journal “Social Sciences” about “Clickbait contagion in quality media: Tabloidisation and information gap to attract audiences” sounds well, centered on the communication sector. The authors should improve the next questions:

-Title. The title is right, but I recommend to refer it to the international used sample not only “quality media”).

-Abstract. It is right and attractive.

-Theoretical framework. This chapter seems right, but check if some references can be updated, because it is a very changeable study object. For example, there are references from 2001, 2009 or 2013.

-Methods. The authors of this study use content analysis about clickbait. They choose a sample of four journals, “digital and international media of reference among digital audiences in their countries”. They refer the sample to prestige references: The New York Times (NYT) in the United States (Newman et al., 2021); The Guardian in the UK (Gayle, 2021); El País, in Spain (AIMC, 2022); and Público, in Portugal (Newman et al., 2021). They analyze content collected from three specific sections of each media (front page, listing of the most read articles on the website, and the most shared articles on X by the media analyzed in 2022). This is a weakness of the article: two years ago, in communication, is a cleavage. Why not updating the sample in 2024 and comparing the results?

Furthermore, in this case it is possible to incorporate a qualitative new source, like in-deep interviews, for example. Triangulation can consolidate this research, but priority is to update the data.

-Results. They are right. Figures are correct.

-Conclusion and discussion. They are right.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment 1: Title. The title is right, but I recommend to refer it to the international used sample not only “quality media”).

Response 1: Title now refers to the international sample: “Clickbait contagion in international quality media: Tabloidisation and information gap to attract audiences.

Comment 2: Theoretical framework. This chapter seems right, but check if some references can be updated, because it is a very changeable study object. 

Response 2: Theoretical framework has been updated to add more new and up-to-date references (Lischka & Garz, 2021; Peterson-Salahuddin & Diakopoulos, 2020; Swart, 2021), that sums to the ones already in the manuscript (e.g. Scott, 2023, Mont’Alverne et al., 2022; Scacco & Muddiman, 2020; Peña-Salas, 2020; Flores-Vivar & Zaharía, 2022; Bravo et al., 2021; Palau-Sampio, 2022) while maintaining the older ones (e.g. 2001, 2009, 2013). This helps to contextualize the clickbait phenomenon through time.

Comment 3: Why not updating the sample in 2024 and comparing the results?

Response 3: We understand the interest of the suggestion of comparing the sample that is already on the research with another one from the year 2024, but we clarify that it does not correspond to the object of this study. The reason is that the design of this research is a long-range longitudinal analysis involving the study of a sample over a long period of time. In this case, the year 2022. For this purpose, the selected sample meets a statistically representative criterion according to Riffe et al. (1993), with the last week of November 2022 being the last week in which the sample was collected and coded, while 2023 was dedicated to the development of the research, data analysis and results of the initial sample (N= 1,680) and the final sample (N=516). Adding now another sample from 2024 means changing the object of analysis with a cross-sectional study which, being a one-off study, would require constant updating and would lose the aforementioned statistical representation. The chronological period chosen is considered appropriate because it allows the clickbait phenomenon to be observed and analyzed over a long period of time, which helps to really detect its characteristics, its changes and its invariable elements with a standardized method. However, the reviewer’s proposal is included in the new version of the manuscript as a prospective study, together with the interesting proposal of triangulation and in-depth interviews.

Comment 4: In this case it is possible to incorporate a qualitative new source, like in-deep interviews, for example. Triangulation can consolidate this research, but priority is to update the data.

Response 4: This proposal is added together with the aforementioned comparative 2024 content analysis as an interesting prospective study and a limitation of this research, but would need an entire new study to do it and deviates from the object of study in this research.

Comment 5: Minor editing of English language required. 

Response 5: The manuscript has been translated by a professional native English translator. We remain at the disposal of the editors of the journal for any changes in form or style they may deem necessary.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a manuscript focused on a topic as specific as it is current in the world of communication and specifically journalism: clickbait. Congratulations.

A pertinent introduction is made with numerous updated references. However, at least one reference should be included on the importance of web positioning, Google indexes and internet consumption, to even better explain the importance of the phenomenon.

Although the methodology is precise, the sample selection should be better explained. Why was that sample taken? Why not a French newspaper for example? Why public and not the most read serious newspaper in Portuguese in the world? 

The conclusions lack a connection between the findings and misinformation. There is no mention of it, something obvious in the loss of quality and trust in the information.

Author Response

Comment 1: At least one reference should be included on the importance of web positioning, Google indexes and internet consumption, to even better explain the importance of the phenomenon.

Response 1: Explanation of the relevance of SEO and web position in the theoretical framework. This is now added with also new references (Lischka & Garz, 2021; Peterson-Salahuddin & Diakopoulos, 2020; Swart, 2021). Example: "A way to get engagement and metrics –even if it’s only in the form of clicks and views- in a digital and multiplatform context that rewards popularity through algorithmic curation and SEO where is critical for media to be seen and found to gain profit (Lischka & Garz, 2021)".

Comment 2: the sample selection should be better explained. Why was that sample taken? Why not a French newspaper for example? Why public and not the most read serious newspaper in Portuguese in the world? 

Response 2: Further explanation of the criteria used to delimit the selected media is given. First, all media must be in a language that can be codified by the researchers (Englisn, Spanish and Portuguese). Taking advantage of this opportunity and the focus of the study on an analysis of clickbait and its production-consumption-viralization among media and audiences, we opted for a comparative perspective between countries. Therefore, the sample is limited to 1. The most relevant English-speaking countries and 2. The selection of Portugal-Spain (instead of, for example, Brazil) allows us to compare the territory of the Iberian Peninsula.

Comment 3: The conclusions lack a connection between the findings and misinformation. There is no mention of it, something obvious in the loss of quality and trust in the information.

Response 3: References are added to the conclusions regarding misinformation and disinformation linked to the loss of quality and trust in the information: “This study shows that the media uses clickbait despite its implications for trust (Kaushal & Vemuri, 2021) and its close relationship with deceptive information (Scott, 2023)”; “This occurs either because the content is not what they expected – deceptive and misleading content (Jodlowiec, 2022), nearing disinformation –“.