Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contains interesting data on the perception of the notion of fake news in Romania, but the overall argument concerns the general meaning of the term which, as the author implies (but does not prove) has some objective foundations. The discrepancy between the data and the argument is obvious. I would recommend focus on the meaning of the term fake news in Romanian context and its relation to the social, cultural and political specificiity of the country.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions given, which improve the quality of the study. Suggested changes are shown in the article.

 

The article contains interesting data on the perception of the notion of fake news in Romania, but the overall argument concerns the general meaning of the term which, as the author implies (but does not prove) has some objective foundations. The discrepancy between the data and the argument is obvious. I would recommend focus on the meaning of the term fake news in Romanian context and its relation to the social, cultural and political specificiity of the countr

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a pertinent and relevant topic, disinformation, and it leads to important conclusions, namely the areas that people tend to associate with disinformation. Despite of the intention to discuss the theme, we believe that there are several concepts that need to be clarified, since the theoretical framework is compromised.  

Fake news and false news are not the same and the authors use both concepts as synonyms. Also, misinformation and disinformation are not referring to the same reality and the authors use both to refer to the same ideas.

In the complex disinformation scenario and considering the high number of studies and the diverse concepts that apply in this area, it is important to distinguish fake news (as intentional mislead) from false news (as not intentional misinformation). Lazer et al (2018) is a reference used by the authors and in the article, “The Science of fake news”, Lazer and his colleagues address this difference. Other authors, such as Wardle & Derakhsahn (2017) distinguish mis-information from dis-information and mal-information.

This is a problem that extends to the questionnaire survey. For example, why should the authors ask respondents about fake news in the media outlets? Fake news is a term that refers to the intentional act of falsifying information (sometimes even imitating the form of traditional media) to deceive consumers and to convince them that they are consuming true and verified information. Also in the questionnaire, respondents are asked: how much time per day do you spend watching media? We believe that the answers may not reflect what the authors expect, since the question does not clarify what media we are talking about. Is it television (since the verb “watching” is used)? Or is it social media?

We should also note that the authors state that “the purpose of this study is to identify the risk factors that lead to greater success of these misinformation, and to look for a solution to stop the exponential growth of this phenomenon”. We have questions about achieving this purpose, considering the methods and the finding. How can a questionnaire on media consumption habits and perceptions of disinformation identify such risks?

We believe that the results can be read as perceptions that point to some paths, that is: what we say doesn't always represent what happens. That's why we think it's more accurate to talk about perceptions. When authors say that “over 85% of the participants in this study have been deceived by fake news through both devices that provide news and social media websites”, we need to consider that the dissemination of fake news is being attributed in equal parts to social media (where anyone can post about anything) and the media outlets (news organizations that provide information made by journalists, which can make mistakes, but with a few exceptions do not disseminate disinformation). Thus, it seems to us that the conclusion to be drawn from this perception is the need for media education and a commitment to media literacy in order to enlighten the public, precisely considering the importance of citizenship that the authors emphasize in the last paragraph of the conclusion.

Results could also be compared with the 2024 Digital News Report, which has data from Romania, in order to broaden the conclusions.

There are a few statements without any references, such as: “Rumors, misinformation, fake news are problems of contemporary society. We live in a world where the truth no longer holds as much importance, and the line that separates truth from lies, between real news and misinformation, becomes increasingly blurred and difficult to identify. People choose truth based on what they like best to hear, truths that fit their values and their own ideologies. Thus, we can say that we live in a “post-truth” era in which absolute truth has become very difficult to identify. With the advent of the internet and its recognition as a means of communication, scientists have identified it as a danger for the emergence of fake news and now, as the years go by, it is proving to be a worldwide problem”.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions given, which improve the quality of the study.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a pertinent and relevant topic, disinformation, and it leads to important conclusions, namely the areas that people tend to associate with disinformation. Despite of the intention to discuss the theme, we believe that there are several concepts that need to be clarified, since the theoretical framework is compromised.  

Fake news and false news are not the same and the authors use both concepts as synonyms. Also, misinformation and disinformation are not referring to the same reality and the authors use both to refer to the same ideas.

We have clarified with these terms to eliminate confusion, just fake news and disinformation.

In the complex disinformation scenario and considering the high number of studies and the diverse concepts that apply in this area, it is important to distinguish fake news (as intentional mislead) from false news (as not intentional misinformation). Lazer et al (2018) is a reference used by the authors and in the article, “The Science of fake news”, Lazer and his colleagues address this difference. Other authors, such as Wardle & Derakhsahn (2017) distinguish mis-information from dis-information and mal-information.

We have clarified these terms.

This is a problem that extends to the questionnaire survey. For example, why should the authors ask respondents about fake news in the media outlets? Fake news is a term that refers to the intentional act of falsifying information (sometimes even imitating the form of traditional media) to deceive consumers and to convince them that they are consuming true and verified information. Also in the questionnaire, respondents are asked: how much time per day do you spend watching media? We believe that the answers may not reflect what the authors expect, since the question does not clarify what media we are talking about. Is it television (since the verb “watching” is used)? Or is it social media?

Questionnaires were applied to respondents to identify time spent per day on both TV and social media programs. In the questionnaire is the question: How much time per day do you spend reading posts on social media? With answers expressed in hours, and the question: What do you think is the most reliable source of information? With answers: books, internet, radio, television, newspaper.

We should also note that the authors state that “the purpose of this study is to identify the risk factors that lead to greater success of these misinformation, and to look for a solution to stop the exponential growth of this phenomenon”. We have questions about achieving this purpose, considering the methods and the finding. How can a questionnaire on media consumption habits and perceptions of disinformation identify such risks?

We removed that phrase to avoid confusion.

We believe that the results can be read as perceptions that point to some paths, that is: what we say doesn't always represent what happens. That's why we think it's more accurate to talk about perceptions. When authors say that “over 85% of the participants in this study have been deceived by fake news through both devices that provide news and social media websites”, we need to consider that the dissemination of fake news is being attributed in equal parts to social media (where anyone can post about anything) and the media outlets (news organizations that provide information made by journalists, which can make mistakes, but with a few exceptions do not disseminate disinformation). Thus, it seems to us that the conclusion to be drawn from this perception is the need for media education and a commitment to media literacy in order to enlighten the public, precisely considering the importance of citizenship that the authors emphasize in the last paragraph of the conclusion.

We rearranged the conclusions.

Results could also be compared with the 2024 Digital News Report, which has data from Romania, in order to broaden the conclusions.

We read this report.

There are a few statements without any references, such as: “Rumors, misinformation, fake news are problems of contemporary society. We live in a world where the truth no longer holds as much importance, and the line that separates truth from lies, between real news and misinformation, becomes increasingly blurred and difficult to identify. People choose truth based on what they like best to hear, truths that fit their values and their own ideologies. Thus, we can say that we live in a “post-truth” era in which absolute truth has become very difficult to identify. With the advent of the internet and its recognition as a means of communication, scientists have identified it as a danger for the emergence of fake news and now, as the years go by, it is proving to be a worldwide problem”.

We omitted to refer, the requirement is now resolved.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors set out to discuss the issue of fake news in the context of the information warfare of the 21st century. The article attempts to define the phenomenon of disinformation, determine its impact on society and propose methods of defence against it. The article aims to draw attention to the threat posed by disinformation and present it as an “information pandemic.” Although the topic is relevant and the research results are interesting, the article suffers from several significant methodological weaknesses. The authors claim to have conducted a cross-sectional survey with a sample of 442 respondents but do not state how the sample was selected (was it representative? random? purposive?), what questions were asked to respondents and in what form (paper survey, online? open-ended or closed-ended questions?), whether the research tools were validated beforehand. The statement that “98.2% of participants detect false information” while “78.5% sometimes fall for it” suggests a contradiction. Did respondents overestimate their cognitive abilities? Were the questions inaccurate? The authors do not attempt to explain this paradox. The article treats fake news mainly as an informational and technological phenomenon, ignoring the social, political and cultural context. The implications, limitations and future research directions indicated are not recognized. 

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions given, which improve the quality of the study.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors set out to discuss the issue of fake news in the context of the information warfare of the 21st century. The article attempts to define the phenomenon of disinformation, determine its impact on society and propose methods of defence against it. The article aims to draw attention to the threat posed by disinformation and present it as an “information pandemic.” Although the topic is relevant and the research results are interesting, the article suffers from several significant methodological weaknesses. The authors claim to have conducted a cross-sectional survey with a sample of 442 respondents but do not state how the sample was selected (was it representative? random? purposive?), what questions were asked to respondents and in what form (paper survey, online? open-ended or closed-ended questions?), whether the research tools were validated beforehand. The statement that “98.2% of participants detect false information” while “78.5% sometimes fall for it” suggests a contradiction. Did respondents overestimate their cognitive abilities? Were the questions inaccurate? The authors do not attempt to explain this paradox. The article treats fake news mainly as an informational and technological phenomenon, ignoring the social, political and cultural context. The implications, limitations and future research directions indicated are not recognized. 

Data collection was done randomly and voluntarily. The data collection period was 5 months. The subjects completed a digital questionnaire, distributed on social media networks (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) due to better population compliance and the ease of centralizing responses. The subjects were informed of anonymity, data confidentiality, and the scientific purpose of the study, thus, by completing the questionnaire in full, we considered that the respondents are eligible for the study. Questionnaires that were not completed in full were excluded from the study. The questions were mostly closed, with ordered answers, closed with unordered answers, but also binary questions with a maximum time of 15 minutes to complete. There were instructions for each question on the type of answers: single or multiple.

Phrase: The statement that "98.2% of participants detect false information" while "78.5% sometimes fit into this statement" suggests a contradiction, has been verified and redacted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the revisions! They do improve the quality of the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the work, the theoretical concepts have been consolidated. Despite not including the theoretical contributions previously suggested to guide the concepts (namely Lazer et al (2018), Wardle & Derakhsahn (2017) and the results of the 2024 Digital News Report), the article meets the requirements for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

authors have revised accordingly and paper can be accepted for publication