Profile, Incidence, and Perspectives of Disinformation among Ecuadorians
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is adequately written, the issue it addresses is current and of value for compressing a local reality, but also for a better general knowledge of the perception of disinformation, and the way in which individuals deal with this same problem.
The methodology used is simple and suitable for an exploratory study, and the sample appears to be of convenience. It therefore refers to developments to be carried out later, which involve a deeper analysis of the media and content studied.
Nothing to say regarding the structure of the article and the conclusions presented - safeguarding, as mentioned, its exploratory dimension.
Author Response
We express our thanks to the evaluator for the time dedicated.
We have welcomed the suggestions provided by the other peer reviewers because they help us improve the writing of the scientific article and implicitly help future readers and the academic community that we intend to reach.
In the attached file is the text with the modifications generated from the points expressed by other evaluators. New texts are marked in red letters.
We look forward to your feedback.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think this is a high-quality paper, the result of serious and interesting research. Furthermore, it addresses an issue in Ecuador - expressing the importance of research in other parts of the globe - which is not just a problem in the country or in South America, but a worrying global phenomenon: disinformation.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor corrections in English can enrich the content.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his time and specific suggestions. We have welcomed the proposals because they help us to improve the writing of scientific articles and implicitly help future readers and the academic community we are trying to reach.
In the attached file is the text with the modifications generated from the points expressed by the evaluator. The new texts are marked in red letters. We hope that we have best understood the evaluator's intention. We look forward to your feedback.
Specifically, in response to the evaluator's observations, we must specify that:
Comments. I doubt if the interviews and their names should be identified or not in the References’ list, and in the text itself (M. Luzuriaga, D. Acosta, etc.), for ethical problems
Response. Among the changes implemented are the anonymization of the names of interviewees and focus group participants.
Comments. I suggest that the phrase on lines 55-56 would be clearer: “Paradoxically, fake news dismantles the monopoly of institutional disinformation coming from the mainstream media, in a bid to emancipate readers (Tanz, 2017).” Which is the “institutional disinformation coming from the mainstream media”? Why fake news dismantles the so-called monopoly?
Response. The explanation of what is "institutional disinformation coming from mainstream media" and why fake news dismantles the so-called monopoly. Finally, part of the text of line 243 was removed to avoid confusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Language should be revised, but there are no major concerns in this regard.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his time and specific suggestions. We have welcomed the proposals because they help us to improve the writing of scientific articles and implicitly help future readers and the academic community we are trying to reach.
In the attached file is the text with the modifications generated from the points expressed by the evaluator. The new texts are marked in red letters.
We hope that we have best understood the evaluator's intention. We look forward to your feedback.
Among the changes implemented are:
Comments. Previous research measuring public perceptions about disinformation, information verification, the role of social media in the amplification of the phenomenon, etc in the country of interest and/or in the region, and, potentially, current global trends revealed in other studies across varied geographical spaces.
Response. We include previous research showing public perceptions of disinformation, the role of social media in amplifying the phenomenon in Ecuador and the region, and current global trends.
Comments. More background information on the situation in Ecuador (specificities of the media and information ecosystem, measures and policies for countering disinformation, specific vulnerabilities, incidence of disinformation)
Response. We include Information on the situation in Ecuador, its media context and current legislation to counter disinformation.
Comments. The second objective cannot be fulfilled based on the chosen method.
Response. The wording of the second objective, the wording of the scope and achievement of the objective, was modified.
Comments. The research questions assigned to each method need to stand out more clearly in the text. The complementarity of methods in fulfilling the research objectives should be discussed.
Response. The research questions assigned to each method are highlighted in the text. The complementarity of the methods in meeting the research objectives is also discussed.
Comments. The quantitative method of choice has some limitations that must be acknowledged in the discussion section: the small number of respondents and the fact the sample is not representative for the Ecuadorian population.
Response. In the conclusions and discussion, the limitations of the chosen quantitative method are pointed out.
Comments. The expert interviews have a limitation that should be acknowledged in the discussion related to the diversity of participants.
Response. In the conclusions and discussion, the limitations in the application of the interviews are pointed out.
Comments. Survey: the authors claim that “Figure 1 shows that a lot of fake news would be generated by political leaders and citizens” – line 139, when, in fact, these are simply the perceptions of respondents. This should be clearly marked both in the analysis and in the discussion of the results. It is unclear what is the added value of the focus groups in the greater logic of the research and with respect to the research questions and objectives.
Response. The methodology section clarifies the added value of the focus groups in the overall logic of the research and with respect to the research questions and objectives.
In the results, the evaluator's findings from the survey were corrected. In addition, the information in table 2 that caused confusion was removed.
Comments. Interviews The interpretation of the interview data should focus more on what the answers have in common/different, the identification of certain patterns in the answers, what is striking, novel and valuable stemming from the expertise of interviewees.
Response. The conclusions interpret the interview data, focusing more on what the responses have in common/different, the identification of certain patterns in the responses, what is striking, novel and valuable derived from the experience of the interviewees.
Comments. Focus groups: the authors rely too much on giving direct quotes with minimal interpretation and analysis. I recommend the anonymization of the respondents’ names.
Response. In the conclusions, the testimonies of the focus group participants are interpreted. The names of the interviewees were anonymized.
Comments. The novelty of the research results should be pointed out.
Response. The novelties of the research results are pointed out.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for improving your manuscript! I have one final recommendation to the authors. I would like to challenge the novelty of the finding "One of the novel findings is the identification of the role that the media and digital platforms play in the spread of fake news." - it is well-known, at the moment that social media account for rampant disinformation. So, starting with this premise, I think you should find a way to reframe this point in your discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor revision of English language is needed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you again for your time.
The observations and comments you sent us are very helpful, they allow us to see mistakes we made and to improve the quality of the paper.
We appreciate your role, professionalism and academic vision.
Here are the changes, based on your recommendations.
Comment 1. I would like to question the novelty of the finding: "One of the novel findings is the identification of the role that the media and digital platforms play in the spread of fake news". - it is well-known, at the moment, that social media account for rampant disinformation.
Response 1. In the attached document we modified the text, included new wording in this part of the discussion, and added two quotations related to the argument we are making. The changes are marked in red letters.
Comment 2. Minor revision of English language is needed.
Response 2. We have reviewed and amended the errors identified in the document.
We look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Yours faithfully.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
