Strategic Use of Disinformation Terminology in Political Communication: Media Narratives of Delegitimisation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

SCIENTIFIC REVIEW REPORT

Article Title: Strategic Use of Disinformation Terminology in Political Communication: Media Narratives of Delegitimisation

1. Originality and Focus
Comment: The article addresses a highly relevant contemporary topic — disinformation in political communication — through an original approach that combines discursive and media analysis within the Spanish context. The comparative focus on two specific cases (Begoña Gómez and Alberto González Amador) adds novelty and pertinence, particularly by introducing the notion of disinformation as a “language of power.”

2. Theoretical Framework and Bibliography
Comment: The theoretical framework is solid, well-structured and up-to-date, referencing key and recent literature (2020–2025), including authors such as Wardle, Palomo, Swire-Thompson, and Vaccari. The article appropriately contextualises the disinformation phenomenon within the AI-mediated digital ecosystem and establishes clear connections with concepts such as framing, agenda-setting, and narrative warfare.

3. Methodology
Comment: The study employs a suitable mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 178 journalistic items. The definition of variables is precise and comprehensive, and the use of the chi-square test to validate differences between categories adds statistical robustness. However, it would benefit from a more detailed justification for the exclusion of certain media outlets (e.g., 20Minutos, OK Diario) to enhance objectivity.

4. Clarity and Writing
Comment: The writing is clear, precise, and academically sound. The article is well-structured and maintains a logical sequence across sections, facilitating reader comprehension. The presentation of results aligns with the stated objectives. It is recommended to review some lengthy paragraphs to improve readability and the argumentative flow.

5. Contribution and Relevance
Comment: The article makes a significant contribution to the field of political communication. It offers relevant empirical evidence on the strategic use of disinformation terminology by Spanish media — a phenomenon still underexplored with such discursive depth. The comparative analysis of two political figures with different affiliations adds value and enhances the study’s applicability to future research.

6. Compliance with Scopus / Elsevier Standards
Comment: The article meets formatting and citation standards (including APA 7th ed. guidelines), as well as methodological and ethical expectations for indexed publications. The use of an IMRaD structure, clear statement of objectives, and academic sources make it suitable for journals indexed in Q1/Q2.

FINAL CONCLUSION:
☐ Accepted
☑ Accepted with minor revisions
☐ Major revision required
☐ Rejected

Additional Remarks (optional):
It is recommended to strengthen the final discussion by incorporating practical implications for journalists or public policy decision-makers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall: This manuscript is located as topic in the area of ​​interest of „Social Sciences” journal and has a very interesting research idea.

 

1. The Title, “Strategic Use of Disinformation Terminology in Political Communication: Media Narratives of Delegitimisation”, is generally clear and communicates the focus of the study. It includes relevant keywords such as “disinformation,” “political communication,” and “media narratives,” which will help readers locate the manuscript.
2. Abstract – This should be shortened to a maximum of 200 words, as recommended by the MDPI Style Guide. Additionally, the link between the data and the conclusions should be clarified.

„In conclusion, disinformation can be defined as a language of power – rhe torical, emotional and algorithmic in nature. In order to understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to integrate responses of an editorial, technological and educational nature. The purpose of these responses is to strengthen media transparency and public confidence in public debate.” – This phrase should be removed or replaced so that it does not appear as if a definition has been given at the end, even if it is rhetorical.

 

3. The introduction is well written and includes recent references. It clearly explains the gap in the literature and how the article fills this gap.
4. Objectives – I don't think this section should be included. It could be integrated into Materials and Methods, according to the recommendations in the MDPI template provided to authors. 
5. The methodology is clear
6. The results are clear
7. The Discussion section is solid: well anchored in the literature, and coherently connected to the results.
8. The conclusions are accurate and supported by the content.

 Conclusion: This manuscript requires minor corrections and additions

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your article explores an important subject (disinformation), yet it remains too generic and descriptive to constitute an original scientific contribution. Many of the claims are already well documented, and the paper misses key perspectives that would have deepened its analysis, especially the cognitive and social dimensions of disinformation. The introduction lacks a clear conceptual path, the discussion does not meaningfully engage with existing research, and the conclusions read as an extension of the discussion. I would advise a thorough rethinking of the paper’s objectives, theoretical framework, and structure. To turn this into a publishable scientific article, focus on producing new insight: conceptual, methodological, or empirical, rather than reiterating established knowledge. 

As it stands, this paper doesn't advance the understanding of disinformation and doesn't contribute to any original scientific insight.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

I don’t see any original or novel knowledge being put forward. All the claims or findings of the study are well established already with at least one dimension being missed (the social and sense of belonging)

 

Line 33-35: claim requires at least 2 or 3 sources

Line 35-39: not disagreeing with this claim, but even for an introduction it still feels too generic. Exactly how AI simplifies and accelerates this process? A simple line with “by using or facilitating etc etc” would improve clarity.

Line 43-46: this might be so for some authors, but it’s an extremely limited view on disinformation. The disinformation problem isn’t a technological one, but rather a cognitive problem. Please correct or complement this perspective with insights from the following study (and mayhaps even others):

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The Psychology of Fake News. In Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Vol. 25, Issue 5, pp. 388–402). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007

This means that an overfocus on technology risks reducing disinformation to a technical problem that can also be easily solved with tools, which is verifiable not the case, as no amount of tools can do much about the creationg and sharing of disinformation. On the other hand, considering disinformation a cognitive issue (mainly from our passive consumption of information, emotions and the social aspects of belonging), the correct answer isn’t more technology, but again, back to the basics, the training and creating of media literate subjects able to identify and deal with FN. This is a perspective that is sorely missing from this paper as it is only concerned with the technical side of FN.

Lines 49-53: this comes out of nowhere. The introduction dedicates itself to the technical side of Disinformation and suddenly says the focus will now be on political communication. This does not follow with the previous perspective, which makes it even more obvious the need to introduce the cognitive and social side of the disinformation, talk about the communication logic and then introduce the disinformation bridged with political communication where the use of Disinformation is less of the technical side and the fact of the creation and sharing of false information, but more as a political weapon to throw around the political opponents. These are very different traditions and a path between needs to be traced for it to make sense. As it stands, that path is non existent.

Line 54-59: And now, we go back to disinformation as the phenomenon and not as a political weapon. Overall, the introduction needs a restructure. The claims aren’t wrong, but the way they are presented is very lacking.

Please revisit the whole introduction for it to make sense, introduce the psychological perspective and walk the proper path.

Also, the introduction is extremely long and at some point it starts to read as a literature review, something that shouldn’t happen.

 

 

Materials and methods:

Variable 5 “Term” – the description makes it seem as though the authors are equating terms associated with disinformation as disinformation itself. This needs to be clearer as I’m under the impression that this variable is only to identify the use of the terms as a rhetorical weapon.

 

Discussion:

Very poorly constructed. Too descriptive and not enough dialogue with the literature except “this confirms that”. Also, I don’t see any original or novel insight

Conclusions:

Too long and reads as an extension of the discussion and not as a proper conclusion. Also suffers from a lack of originality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version and the response to reviewers. Unfortunately, I cannot see substantive improvements in the manuscript. The text appears largely unchanged, with only small additions that are not well integrated and do not address the major structural and conceptual issues raised in the reviews.

In the response letter you state that several sections were restructured, shortened, and placed in dialogue with the literature, but these changes are not clearly reflected in the revised manuscript. This mismatch makes it difficult to assess the revision and suggests that you may have uploaded the wrong revised file.

I also note a new paragraph in the conclusion written in Spanish, which is not acceptable for an English language submission and indicates insufficient quality control at the revision stage.

Overall, the revision reads as an additive exercise rather than a meaningful reworking of the argument. A proper revision requires substantial rewriting and restructuring, not only adding a few lines in response to comments.

Authors are HIGHLY recommended to take revision seriously as this is unpaid work that requires a lot of effort and time to ensure scientific quality.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the time devoted by the reviewer and the rigour of the evaluation of our manuscript, as well as the comments made throughout the process, which have undoubtedly improved the final result.
As detailed in the response to the first round of review, and in accordance with the reviewers' suggestions, we have incorporated adjustments aimed at improving the clarity of presentation and conceptual accuracy of the text.
We would like to emphasise that all the modifications made in response to reviewer 3 have been implemented while preserving the overall structure of the manuscript, which was positively evaluated and validated by reviewers 1 and 2. Both reviewers explicitly considered that the organisation, methodological design and argumentative coherence of the article were suitable for publication, and only suggested minor or formal adjustments.
We consider that the reiteration of additional requests, which in practice would involve substantive modifications, would entail a complete rethinking of the work carried out, a circumstance that is extremely difficult to address at this stage of the editorial process.
We have chosen to strengthen the theoretical articulation, clarify the empirical and conceptual contributions, and improve the transitions between sections, rather than make major structural changes that could compromise the internal coherence already endorsed by the majority of reviewers (1 and 2).
We believe that this approach provides a balanced response to the review process, addressing its recommendations without contradicting the favourable assessments issued by the other reviewers, while respecting the journal's editorial standards.