The Critical Impact and Socio-Ethical Implications of AI on Content Generation Practices in Media Organizations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research regards the Socio-Ethical Implications of AI on Content Generation Practices in Media Organizations. The researchers focus on three recurring themes: (1) AI in Media Bias Detection, (2) Storytelling and Human-AI Collaboration, and (3) Ethical Frameworks and Governance Models.

The topic is original and relevant to the field. The innovation of this study relates to the introduction of a new conceptual model, called the Human–AI Co-Creation Continuum, to understand the production of hybrid narratives, as well as proposing practical recommendations for the ethical adoption of Artificial Intelligence in journalism.

The methodology adopted is the literature review on the socio-ethical implications of artificial intelligence in the production of media content. It identifies a gap in the literature regarding this area of study, which is still scarce, particularly regarding the socio-ethical implications of the use of Artificial Intelligence. It is this gap that the research contributes to filling.

The methodology adopted uses relevant databases such as Scopus, among others, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the articles reviewed are detailed. The reliability of the analysis is ensured using three different researchers, with an 89 per cent success rate among all of them, and the remaining 11 per cent being resolved by consensus among the researchers.

The three recurring themes are examined in detail and are consistent with previous studies. The conclusions are sound. The references are relevant and up to date. The study identifies it’s limitations and presents suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Response: 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for the recognition of the study’s originality. We particularly appreciate your acknowledgement of the clarity of the recurring themes and the relevance of the conclusions drawn.

While no changes were required in direct response to your comments, we have implemented minor clarifications throughout the manuscript based on suggestions from Reviewer 2. These involved specifying that our focus is on language-based AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), rather than artificial intelligence in general. These adjustments do not affect the scope or conclusions of the paper as assessed in your review.

Thank you once again for your valuable evaluation and support of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has a clear logical structure: abstract, introduction, methodology, and conclusions.
English is clear and free of grammatical and semantic errors.
It provides valuable insights into the use of LLM models in a variety of text productions – articles, books, and stories.
It is based on the most recent sources.
The paper is a valuable contribution to the use of LLMs.

Decision:
Accept with minor clarification:
Line 7, 22… – This is not AI in general but specific AI systems – LLMs; in fact, this mistake is consistent throughout the introduction and in other parts of the paper. The paper is specifically about the use of LLM systems - aka language tools, not AI in general.  Again, the author must be specific – the issue is LLM systems, not AI as a whole. Maybe the author should state - "the paper is about LLM tools and when we state AI we mean  specifically these systems" or similar comment.

Author Response

Comment: 

Decision:
Accept with minor clarification:
Line 7, 22… – This is not AI in general but specific AI systems – LLMs; in fact, this mistake is consistent throughout the introduction and in other parts of the paper. The paper is specifically about the use of LLM systems - aka language tools, not AI in general.  Again, the author must be specific – the issue is LLM systems, not AI as a whole. Maybe the author should state - "the paper is about LLM tools and when we state AI we mean  specifically these systems" or similar comment.

Response: 

Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree with the reviewer’s observation. Therefore, we have clarified throughout the manuscript that our focus is on language-based AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) and NLP tools, rather than AI in general.

Changes made:

• We added the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph in the Introduction (see page 2, lines 7–9):
  “Throughout this review, the term ‘artificial intelligence (AI)’ is used to refer specifically to language-based AI systems, such as large language models (LLMs) and natural language processing (NLP) tools, as these constitute the primary technologies discussed in the included literature.”

• We have reviewed and updated section headings, and narrative text to use more precise terms, such as “language-based AI systems,” “LLMs,” or “NLP tools”, when referring to these technologies.

• Minor textual updates were made in the Literature Review, Discussion, and Conclusion sections for consistency.

Location of changes:

• Introduction: page 2, lines 22–28 (new clarification sentence)

• Throughout the manuscript: language and terminology updates. 

Manuscript updates:

All changes have been marked in red(Please see the attachment)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx