AI Pioneers and Stragglers in Greece: Challenges, Gaps, and Opportunities for Journalists and Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First off, this is an interesting and relevant piece! But I think there are a couple of things that need to be addressed. Below are my thoughts, framed as constructive suggestions to help refine and strengthen your work.

Title & Abstract

• The title is solid but could be more direct about the study’s focus. Maybe specify the challenges or gaps Greek journalists face with AI?
• The abstract does a great job summarizing the study, but the phrase “without strategy and/or training” (Line 16) could be expanded—how exactly is this affecting journalistic quality?
• “Age and gender do not constitute limiting factors” (Line 17) is a great point! Did your research look at other demographic factors like education, experience, or newsroom roles?

Introduction

• You’ve captured the broader shift AI is causing in journalism well. But, the transition into the Greek context (Lines 24-34) could be smoother. Maybe ease into it with a clearer bridge from the global AI scene to what’s happening in Greece?
• “The way news is produced is changing rapidly” (Line 35) is a bit generic—perhaps add a striking example to hook the reader?
• The claim that ChatGPT's release in November 2022 led to a "very big leap" (Line 34) is interesting, but it would be great to include adoption data or examples from Greek media.

Literature Review

• You’ve brought in some strong references, but a quick comparison with other European countries could help contextualize Greece’s position in AI adoption.
• The bit about AI in sports journalism (Lines 64-65) is cool, but how does it tie back to Greek newsrooms specifically? Maybe make that connection a little clearer.
• The statement about ChatGPT 3.5 gaining widespread attention (Line 71) could use a citation just to solidify that claim.

Background on AI in Media

• Great discussion here, but one thing that stood out: why is Greece still in the “experimental” phase while other European countries are integrating AI more fully?
• You mention that mistakes have already appeared (Line 90)—what kind? AI hallucinations? Biases? Some examples would be helpful.
• The explanation of AI’s role in newsrooms (Lines 82-110) is strong, but it would be useful to highlight why Greek media are lagging compared to other regions.

• Your section on risks (Lines 177-201) is well thought out, particularly the concerns about bias and misinformation. However, some claims could use clearer examples or supporting evidence.
• The discussion about marginalized communities being disproportionately affected by AI errors (Lines 198-200) is super important—if you can, add a real-world example to drive it home.
• You touch on AI transparency (Lines 186-189), but linking this discussion to the EU AI Act would strengthen it from a policy standpoint.

Method & Findings

• Nice breakdown of your methodology! But the transition between the two rounds of interviews (Lines 276-282) could be smoother—maybe make the timeline clearer?
• The study is purely qualitative, which is fine, but did you consider adding a quantitative component (like a broader survey) to supplement your findings?
• The sample size (25 journalists first, 14 in the second round) is on the smaller side. A quick acknowledgment of this limitation would add transparency to your study.

• Love the categorization of journalists as “tech-savvy,” “curious,” and “indifferent” (Lines 315-319). Would be great to see a rough percentage of how many fall into each category!
• The statement “Greek media and journalists use AI tools, but this use... does not affect all the segments of the newsroom” (Lines 407-409) is interesting, but which newsroom areas are most and least impacted?
• The section on AI’s impact on workflow efficiency (Lines 461-472) is great, but an example of how AI is actually being used in a Greek newsroom would make it even stronger.

• I find the idea that Greece's media systems aligning more with the Global South (Line 573) to be fascinating! Would love to see more elaboration on what factors contribute to that. And probably some comparisons with existing findings from the global south.
• The mention of AI literacy (Lines 564-568) is important—perhaps outline some specific recommendations for training Greek journalists?
• The conclusion is strong, but it would help to explicitly summarize the study’s key contributions—how does your research push forward our understanding of AI in journalism?

References & Formatting

I am not sure what citation style the author(s) are using, but it seems to be all over. I would suggest that they explore different styles and remain consistent.

• Some references (e.g., Line 601, Panagopoulos et al.) are mentioned in the text but not fully detailed in the bibliography. Just a heads-up to check for any missing ones.
• The citation format is a little inconsistent (e.g., Line 624, Beckett)—standardizing them will improve clarity.
• The EU AI Act (mentioned in Line 44) isn’t cited in the bibliography. Including an official EU source would strengthen this section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the paper is well-written and presents its ideas clearly, but there are areas where the quality of English could be improved for clarity, readability, and coherence. Below are some key observations and suggestions: There are several long and complex sentences that could be broken down for better readability. For example (Lines 7-10):  “Although newsrooms worldwide explore AI adoption in order to improve information sourcing, news production, and distribution, a gap exists between resource-rich organizations and those with limited means.”

 (Line 82):  “Some of the leading tech minds in the world and in media have heralded Generative AI as the next-generation technology.” The phrase "in the world and in media" is redundant.

(Line 90): “Mistakes have already popped up.” What kind of “mistakes” are being referred to?.

(Line 34): “Since ChatGPT 3.5 was released, the use of AI in media took a very big leap.” “Very big leap” sounds conversational and could be replaced with “significant leap” for a more formal tone.

 (Lines 41-45): “The Greek media have also started to use AI tools but are still in an experimental stage. AI has not yet been fully integrated into Greek newsrooms. Journalists currently use AI on an experimental basis for personal purposes, lacking established guidelines or formal training.”

This version avoids unnecessary repetition and improves readability.

The paper sometimes shifts between past and present tense inconsistently:  Example (Line 42):  “Journalists currently use AI on an experimental basis for personal purposes, lacking established guidelines or formal training.”

But then in Line 276:  “In our previous research, we took a total of 25 semi-structured interviews…” The present tense is used in Line 42, while past tense is used in Line 276. The paper should maintain a consistent tense depending on whether discussing past research or current findings.

Missing commas in compound sentences: Example (Line 8): “This development is characterized by the growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) which has begun to link journalists with generative systems and synthetic technologies.” A comma is needed after “(AI)” because the clause "which has begun to link journalists..." is non-essential.

Author Response

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title & Abstract Comments 1: The title is solid but could be more direct about the study’s focus. Maybe specify the challenges or gaps Greek journalists face with AI? Response 1: Title changed to be more comprehensive for the study Comments 2: The abstract does a great job summarizing the study, but the phrase “without strategy and/or training” (Line 16) could be expanded—how exactly is this affecting journalistic quality? Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out.  Therefore, we have added an additional sentence in Line 17-19. Comments 3: “Age and gender do not constitute limiting factors” (Line 17) is a great point! Did your research look at other demographic factors like education, experience, or newsroom roles? Response 3: The research is qualitative and we did not collect any demographic factors but our sample included women, and ages from 25 to 55 and broad editorial roles We added the phrase editorial roles -Line 20   Introduction Comments 1: You’ve captured the broader shift AI is causing in journalism well. But, the transition into the Greek context (Lines 24-34) could be smoother. Maybe ease into it with a clearer bridge from the global AI scene to what’s happening in Greece? Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added an additional paragraph  ( Line 45-54). Comments 2: The way news is produced is changing rapidly” (Line 35) is a bit generic—perhaps add a striking example to hook the reader? Response 2: We added an extra sentence and rephrased (line 38-40) Comments 3: The claim that ChatGPT's release in November 2022 led to a "very big leap" (Line 34) is interesting, but it would be great to include adoption data or examples from Greek media Response 3: Added a phrase and citation line 37-38     Literature Review Comments 1: You’ve brought in some strong references, but a quick comparison with other European countries could help contextualize Greece’s position in AI adoption. Response 1: Greece has no AI adoption and the study is about that finding. Please see below. Comments 2: The bit about AI in sports journalism (Lines 64-65) is cool, but how does it tie back to Greek newsrooms specifically? Maybe make that connection a little clearer. Response 2: There is no direct relation with Greek newsrooms, it is a reference aimig to show that AI was used by different kinds of reporting in journalism prior to the boom of GAI. Comments 3: The statement about ChatGPT 3.5 gaining widespread attention (Line 71) could use a citation just to solidify that claim. Response 3 Citation added, Line 83    Background on AI in Media Comments 1:Great discussion here, but one thing that stood out: why is Greece still in the “experimental” phase while other European countries are integrating AI more fully? Response 1: We have already answered on that, “This is mainly due to the to the delay of the Greek media industry to adopt the developments and to the financial crisis that hit Greece from 2010 to 2018”. Added a line (70) and citation. Comments 2: You mention that mistakes have already appeared (Line 90)—what kind? AI hallucinations? Biases? Some examples would be helpful. Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out Therefore, we have added examples and a new citation in Lines 102 -107. Comments 3: The explanation of AI’s role in newsrooms (Lines 82-110) is strong, but it would be useful to highlight why Greek media are lagging compared to other regions. Response 3: We believe that we have already answered previously. we added extra lines and citations. (lines 47-57 & 71-73). Comments 4: Your section on risks (Lines 177-201) is well thought out, particularly concerning bias and misinformation. However, some claims could use clearer examples or supporting evidence. Response 4: Added lines and citation 209-211. Comments 5: The discussion about marginalized communities being disproportionately affected by AI errors (Lines 198-200) is super important—if you can, add a real-world example to drive it home. Response 5: Added lines 223-226 and citations. Comments 6: You touch on AI transparency (Lines 186-189), but linking this discussion to the EU AI Act would strengthen it from a policy standpoint. Response 6: There is already a reference to the EU AI Act Lines 215-217. Added lines 232- 236   Method & Findings Comments 1: Nice breakdown of your methodology! But the transition between the two rounds of interviews (Lines 276-282) could be smoother—maybe make the timeline clearer? Response 1: Added extra lines 314- 318 explaining the methodology. Comments 2: The study is purely qualitative, which is fine, but did you consider adding a quantitative component (like a broader survey) to supplement your findings? Response 2: We examine specific media and news journalists working there in order to understand what is happening in the ecosystem. Quantitative analysis is an approach which in our study, we believe, would not help our aim. Comments 3: The sample size (25 journalists first, 14 in the second round) is on the smaller side. A quick acknowledgment of this limitation would add transparency to your study. Response3: Added lines 314-318. Comments 4: Love the categorization of journalists as “tech-savvy,” “curious,” and “indifferent” (Lines 315-319). Would be great to see a rough percentage of how many fall into each category! Response 4: We believe that providing percentages for a qualitative sample might be misleading. We added numbers and extra information in Lines 349-352 and 356-357. Comments 5: The statement “Greek media and journalists use AI tools, but this use... does not affect all the segments of the newsroom” (Lines 407-409) is interesting, but which newsroom areas are most and least impacted? Response 5: Provided specific details for the newswork in lines 446-448. Comments 6: The section on AI’s impact on workflow efficiency (Lines 461-472) is great, but an example of how AI is actually being used in a Greek newsroom would make it even stronger. Response 6: In Lines 459 – 496 we describe the use of AI in Greek newsroom and the following lines describe potential use according to the practices of international media. Comments 7: I find the idea that Greece's media systems aligning more with the Global South (Line 573) to be fascinating! Would love to see more elaboration on what factors contribute to that. And probably some comparisons with existing findings from the global south. Response 7: Rephrased. Comments 8: The mention of AI literacy (Lines 564-568) is important—perhaps outline some specific recommendations for training Greek journalists? Response 8: Exists. Comments 9: The conclusion is strong, but it would help to explicitly summarize the study’s key contributions—how does your research push forward our understanding of AI in journalism. Response 9: Reconstructed.   References & Formatting Comments 1: I am not sure what citation style the author(s) are using, but it seems to be all over. I would suggest that they explore different styles and remain consistent. Response 1: We use the proposed from the journal citation format.   Comments 2: Some references (e.g., Line 601, Panagopoulos et al.) are mentioned in the text but not fully detailed in the bibliography. Just a heads-up to check for any missing ones. Response 2: Done, Comments 3: The citation format is a little inconsistent (e.g., Line 624, Beckett)—standardizing them will improve clarity. Teskare ayta poy soy exv kitrisei sthn bibl;iografia Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out, done. Comments 4: The EU AI Act (mentioned in Line 44) isn’t cited in the bibliography. Including an official EU source would strengthen this section. Response 4: Added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is considered the manuscript focuses on a current and innovative topic . And that it has attracted attention within existing communication research. However, it is recommended to be improved in some ways. For this article some suggestions in this context are presented below:

- It is suggested a review of punctuation. Especially, after some text citations, some punctuation marks are missing. 

-  It is recommended to use graphs and/or tables on the pages, which statistical data are presented. The absence of graphs and tables in the whole aticle text is considered an important deficiency. It is considered that, tables and/or graphs can support the understanding of seemingly complex mathematical data (e.g. percentages) with visual elements.

-    It is suggested to support the idea that “Although Greece is classified as part of the Global North, its digital technology sector exhibits characteristics typically associated with the Global South” with theoretical evidence. Scientific studies confirming this point could be presented or some other indicators of similar meaning could be added to the relevant section of the paper. 

-    It is suggested to detailed the process of using AI tools utilized in the study (which tools ans versions were used to transcribe images and sound?)

- It should be emphasise In what ways does this article differ from similar studies? The gap in the literature that this research contributes to filling should be made clearer, especially in the introduction.

-    It is recommended to add a theoretical background to the article . Which theoretical approach is criticized or supported? It is suggsted that the answer to this question should be included in the article. It is also suggested that the findings of the study, the theoretical background and the research questions should be discussed more comprehensively in the “discussion” section.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is considered the manuscript focuses on a current and innovative topic . And that it has attracted attention within existing communication research. However, it is recommended to be improved in some ways. For this article some suggestions in this context are presented below:

 

Comments 1:

It is suggested a review of punctuation. Especially, after some text citations, some punctuation marks are missing.

Response 1: Thank you! Done.

Comments 2:

It is recommended to use graphs and/or tables on the pages, which statistical data are presented. The absence of graphs and tables in the whole aticle text is considered an important deficiency. It is considered that, tables and/or graphs can support the understanding of seemingly complex mathematical data (e.g. percentages) with visual elements.

Response 2: You are right, but there are no statistical data; it is a qualitative analysis.

Comments 3:

It is suggested to support the idea that “Although Greece is classified as part of the Global North, its digital technology sector exhibits characteristics typically associated with the Global South” with theoretical evidence. Scientific studies confirming this point could be presented or some other indicators of similar meaning could be added to the relevant section of the paper.

Response 3: Done, added citation and a further explanation.

Comments 4:

It is suggested to detail the process of using AI tools utilized in the study (which tools ans versions were used to transcribe images and sound?)

Response 4: It is an important note. Tools are referred to and included in our study, but not Versions during the interviews. We don’t believe the version is necessary since there is no evaluation of the tool.

Comments 5:

It should be emphasise In what ways does this article differ from similar studies? The gap in the literature that this research contributes to filling should be made clearer, especially in the introduction.

Response 5: Υes, thank you

Comments 6:

It is recommended to add a theoretical background to the article. Which theoretical approach is criticized or supported? It is suggested that the answer to this question should be included in the article. It is also suggested that the findings of the study, the theoretical background and the research questions should be discussed more comprehensively in the “discussion” section.

Response 6: Υes, thank you, discussion reconstructed.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment

This manuscript would benefit from a tighter theoretical anchoring, improved organization in the Results and Discussion sections, and stronger linkage between findings and prior literature. In additions, I recommend the following specific considerations.

Abstract (Page 1, Lines 4–24)

• Line 12–14: “we found that Greek newsrooms are in an experimental stage…” — consider making this more precise by referencing what defines the “experimental stage” in this context (e.g., lack of policy, self-directed usage).
• Line 19–20: “Age, gender, and newsroom roles…” — commendable finding, but it should be more explicitly addressed later in the paper (see Results section).

Introduction (Page 2, Lines 27–63)

• Lines 36–37: “but not Greek newsrooms” — this phrasing is abrupt. I recommend rewording to, “...yet Greek newsrooms have not experienced the same rapid adoption.”
• Line 55–57: “Our study aims to explore…” — this could be better placed in a distinct “Research Objectives” paragraph to separate the context from your purpose.

Literature Review (Page 3–4, Lines 64–92)

• Lines 75–79: The section discussing Wordsmith lacks analytical depth. Consider reflecting briefly on critiques or limitations of such automation (e.g., concerns over data dependency or narrative formulaicity).
• Lines 86–91: The mention of the LSE JournalismAI database is useful. Still, it would strengthen the paper to include a sentence explaining how your study builds upon or diverges from the trends shown in that dataset.

Background (Page 4–5, Lines 93–184)

• Lines 132–141: The description of ChatGPT’s functionality is more encyclopedic than analytical. Condense this and contextualize its impact on Greek journalism specifically.
• Lines 174–181: The NYT case is compelling. Consider extending this to reflect on how such high-resource AI use may exacerbate disparities with resource-limited contexts like Greece.

Challenges and Risks (Page 5–6, Lines 190–248)

• Line 204: “...cost them their jobs…” — avoid overly deterministic phrasing. Consider “...raise concerns about job displacement...”
• Lines 214–217: Strong points on algorithmic bias. You could cite additional journalism-specific examples (e.g., AI’s failure in detecting minority speech patterns).
• Line 239: The discussion of isomorphism is intriguing. Consider elaborating briefly on its implications — are local norms overwritten by transnational standards?

Methodology (Page 6–7, Lines 249–313)

• Line 295–308: Your sample structure looks good, but the rationale for selecting this set of journalists is missing. Clarify how participants were recruited (e.g., snowball sampling, purposeful sampling?).
• Line 312: Consider referencing the qualitative framework or software used (e.g., thematic analysis, NVivo, manual coding).

Results (Pages 7–10, Lines 319–444)

• Lines 339–341: The classification into “tech-savvy,” “curious,” and “indifferent” journalists is insightful. It would be helpful to add operational definitions and even a small table summarizing these categories.
• Lines 361–363: The copyright discussion is critical — yet not explored further. This theme deserves elaboration in the Discussion (how might this affect collaborative journalism or platforms’ reuse?).
• Lines 427–430: Excellent point on language barriers. Consider referencing similar findings from other small-language contexts (e.g., journalism in Estonia or Georgia).

Results – Third-Party Tools (Page 10–11, Lines 445–495)

• Lines 470–471: "Without funding... Greek media cannot apply AI tools.” — This statement is a bit absolute. Consider softening: “...find it challenging to implement AI tools without external support.”
• Line 486–487: The mention of hyperpersonalization deserves more depth. How might this affect editorial independence?

Results – Training and Strategy (Page 11–12, Lines 496–552)

• Lines 522–526: The idea of an AI Governance Officer is important. It would be worth referencing models like the “AI Editor” roles at BBC or Reuters.
• Line 538: The reference to “isomorphism” (again) is interesting, but unexplained. Consider a one-line summary of what this term implies for policy diffusion.

Discussion (Page 12–13, Lines 553–603)

• Line 558–564: You mention “safe zones” — please clarify this term earlier in the paper and provide examples to avoid ambiguity.
• Lines 576–579: “Greek newsrooms are small…” — expand with a few statistics or comparative data (e.g., average number of journalists per outlet) to support this claim.
• Lines 590–593: The reference to the PFJU Code is important. Consider appraising its enforcement or practical uptake.

 

Minor Editorial Notes

• Line 89 (Page 3): Sentence starting with “case studies: Exploring…” appears awkwardly inserted. Consider rephrasing for clarity.
• Line 383 (Page 9): Typo: “which it will launch and use new tools…” — revise for grammatical correctness.
• Lines 4–5 (Abstract): “ongoing transformation… characterized by the growing integration…” — this is redundant. Consider revising for conciseness.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• The manuscript avoids excessive jargon and is generally accessible to a broad academic audience.

• Terminology is mostly consistent and aligned with journalism and AI scholarship.

• Key concepts such as “safe zones,” “self-learners,” and “third-party tools” are introduced clearly

Author Response

 For research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments   This manuscript would benefit from a tighter theoretical anchoring, improved organization in the Results and Discussion sections, and stronger linkage between findings and prior literature. In addition, I recommend the following specific considerations   Abstract (Page 1, Lines 4–24) Comment: Line 12–14: “we found that Greek newsrooms are in an experimental stage…” — consider making this more precise by referencing what defines the “experimental stage” in this context (e.g., lack of policy, self-directed usage). Response: Done   Comment: Line 19–20: “Age, gender, and newsroom roles…” — commendable finding, but it should be more explicitly addressed later in the paper (see Results section). Introduction Response: Ok   Page 2, Lines 27–63 Comment: Lines 36–37: “but not Greek newsrooms” — this phrasing is abrupt. I recommend rewording to, “...yet Greek newsrooms have not experienced the same rapid adoption.” Response: Done Comment: Line 55–57: “Our study aims to explore…” — this could be better placed in a distinct “Research Objectives” paragraph to separate the context from your purpose. Response: Done   Literature Review (Page 3–4, Lines 64–92) Comment: Lines 75–79: The section discussing Wordsmith lacks analytical depth. Consider reflecting briefly on critiques or limitations of such automation (e.g., concerns over data dependency or narrative formulaicity). Response: Done   Comment: Lines 86–91: The mention of the LSE JournalismAI database is useful. Still, it would strengthen the paper to include a sentence explaining how your study builds upon or diverges from the trends shown in that dataset. Response: Done     Background (Page 4–5, Lines 93–184) Comment: Lines 132–141: The description of ChatGPT’s functionality is more encyclopedic than analytical. Condense this and contextualize its impact on Greek journalism specifically. Response: Done   Comment: Lines 174–181: The NYT case is compelling. Consider extending this to reflect on how such high-resource AI use may exacerbate disparities with resource-limited contexts like Greece. Response: Done   Challenges and Risks (Page 5–6, Lines 190–248) Comment: Line 204: “...cost them their jobs…” — avoid overly deterministic phrasing. Consider “...raise concerns about job displacement...” Response: Done   Comment: Lines 214–217: Strong points on algorithmic bias. You could cite additional journalism-specific examples (e.g., AI’s failure in detecting minority speech patterns). Response: Done   Comment: Line 239: The discussion of isomorphism is intriguing. Consider elaborating briefly on its implications — are local norms overwritten by transnational standards? Response: Done   Methodology (Page 6–7, Lines 249–313) Comment: Line 295–308: Your sample structure looks good, but the rationale for selecting this set of journalists is missing. Clarify how participants were recruited (e.g., snowball sampling, purposeful sampling?). Response: Done   Comment: Line 312: Consider referencing the qualitative framework or software used (e.g., thematic analysis, NVivo, manual coding). Response:Done     Results (Pages 7–10, Lines 319–444) Comment: Lines 339–341: The classification into “tech-savvy,” “curious,” and “indifferent” journalists is insightful. It would be helpful to add operational definitions and even a small table summarizing these categories. Response: Done   Comment: Lines 361–363: The copyright discussion is critical — yet not explored further. This theme deserves elaboration in the Discussion (how might this affect collaborative journalism or platforms’ reuse?). Response: Done   Comment: Lines 427–430: Excellent point on language barriers. Consider referencing similar findings from other small-language contexts (e.g., journalism in Estonia or Georgia). Response: Done   Results – Third-Party Tools (Page 10–11, Lines 445–495) Comment: Lines 470–471: "Without funding... Greek media cannot apply AI tools.” — This statement is a bit absolute. Consider softening: “...find it challenging to implement AI tools without external support.” Response: Done   Comment: Line 486–487: The mention of hyperpersonalization deserves more depth. How might this affect editorial independence? Response: Done     Results – Training and Strategy (Page 11–12, Lines 496–552) Comment: Lines 522–526: The idea of an AI Governance Officer is important. It would be worth referencing models like the “AI Editor” roles at BBC or Reuters. Response: Done   Comment: Line 538: The reference to “isomorphism” (again) is interesting, but unexplained. Consider a one-line summary of what this term implies for policy diffusion. Discussion (Page 12–13, Lines 553–603) Response: Done   Comment: Line 558–564: You mention “safe zones” — please clarify this term earlier in the paper and provide examples to avoid ambiguity. Response: word altered, done   Comment: Lines 576–579: “Greek newsrooms are small…” — expand with a few statistics or comparative data (e.g., average number of journalists per outlet) to support this claim. Response: Done   Comment: Lines 590–593: The reference to the PFJU Code is important. Consider appraising its enforcement or practical uptake. Response: done, lines 598-600     Minor Editorial Notes Comment: Line 89 (Page 3): Sentence starting with “case studies: Exploring…” appears awkwardly inserted. Consider rephrasing for clarity. Response: Done   Comment: Line 383 (Page 9): Typo: “which it will launch and use new tools…” — revise for grammatical correctness. Response: done   Comment: Lines 4–5 (Abstract): “ongoing transformation… characterized by the growing integration…” — this is redundant. Consider revising for conciseness. Response: done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations for your successful work. Your additions are sufficient. Just a note: Tables and graphs (if relevant) can also be included in a qualitative study.

Best regards,

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments Congratulations for your successful work. Your additions are sufficient. Just a note: Tables and graphs (if relevant) can also be included in a qualitative study. Response: done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sharing the revised version of your manuscript titled "AI Pioneers and Stragglers in Greece: Challenges, Gaps and Opportunities for Journalists and Media." I want to start by acknowledging the thoughtful improvements you've made, particularly in clarifying the scope of the study, strengthening the contextualization of Greek media, and refining the flow of the literature review. It’s clear that this version moves the paper in the right direction.

That said, I’d like to offer a few suggestions to help further polish and clarify the manuscript before final submission: You’ve done well to restructure the abstract, but it still feels slightly repetitive in places. For example, the phrases "Greek newsrooms are currently situated in an experimental phase" and “self-directed and individualized approach” are closely related and could be merged more smoothly. I suggest tightening this section by consolidating overlapping ideas and making the implications of the findings more precise. You might also consider ending the abstract with a clearer take-home message or recommendation.

The introductory section establishes context well, especially the historical view of media’s digital transformation. However, the transition to Greece-specific content still needs smoothing. For instance, Line 38 trails off awkwardly, “but not Greek newsrooms [4]” and seems like a leftover edit. That part needs revision for coherence. I’d also suggest making your research questions or aims more explicit, perhaps in a brief paragraph before the literature review.

The literature review includes valuable references and context, especially regarding early AI tools like Wordsmith. I appreciate how you positioned Greece in relation to international trends. To improve readability, consider breaking up longer sentences—particularly the one starting with “AI applications can automate content creation…” (Line 80). Adding subheadings might also help guide the reader through different themes such as automation, resource disparities, and ethical concerns.

Also, there are still a few instances of clunky or redundant phrasing. For example, “journalists use tools in a hybrid model, both on a professional level and as individuals…” could be simplified for clarity. Consider rephrasing to something like: “Greek journalists engage with AI tools both professionally and personally, often without organizational guidance or formal training.”

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the manuscript is generally clear and readable. However, there are occasional instances of awkward phrasing, redundancy, and inconsistent sentence structure that could benefit from further revision. Some sentences are overly long or contain repetitive language, which affects readability. I recommend a careful language edit to enhance clarity, improve flow, and ensure grammatical precision throughout.

Author Response

Done, the quality of English was improved and revised. We would like to thank you for your indications. In any case, we would like to remind you that English in the previous edition of manuscript (2nd) had been under your official revision and improved by you.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf