Applying the Constructive Journalism Approach to Combat Chinese Information Disorder in the Digital Age
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
· The abstract should clarify the methodology used and anticipate some of the most striking results of the investigation.
· The paragraph about Wardle (lines 93-104) focuses on the elements of disinformation, but those elements can apply, literally to all contents (informative and not); so it may be wiser to introduce instead her categorization of dis-, mis-, and malinformation. If the reason to choose that from Wardle (2018) is to continue the logic of agent, message and interpreter later, then I’d suggest to add to the epigraph about the characteristics of Chinese receivers of disinformation a reference to the following DOI: 10.1177/01634437241249164
· I think the chapter about the Chinese media ecology is quite solid and contributes to building up the narrative the authors are trying to present. The same goes for the analysis of the different variables in the disinformation phenomenon (agent, medium and receiver), possibly the biggest strength of the article.
· As a reader, I would understand the train of thought better if the methodology followed by the authors was more clearly stated in a specific epigraph for the method. I understand that this is mostly a literary review and, as such, I think it is solid, but I struggle to see the authors clearly indicating and detailing the method used.
· The conclusions fall too short in reflecting about the results given. They should be further thoughts apropos of what’s been researched, rather than short summaries of what we have already read. Also, some of the proposed future lines of research have been already researched (see, for instance, niches of vulnerability have been researched in Gelado-Marcos, Moreno-Felices & Puebla, 2022), so maybe be more specific on what has not been studied yet (maybe niches of vulnerability in China?).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe text would benefit from a professional proofreading service. Minor mistakes like “information disorder endangers” instead of “information disorders endanger” (the “information disorder” as a phenomenon appears recurringly -see, for instance, lines 45, 54-55, 58, etc.-: it should be “information disorders”, since they include several typologies underneath -namely, disinformation, misinformation and malinformation).
Author Response
Comments 1:The abstract should clarify the methodology used and anticipate some of the most striking results of the investigation.
Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with this comment. We have reintroduced the research methodology as well as some of the results of the study in the abstract.
Comments 2: The paragraph about Wardle (lines 93-104) focuses on the elements of disinformation, but those elements can apply, literally to all contents (informative and not); so it may be wiser to introduce instead her categorization of dis-, mis-, and malinformation.
Response 2:Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a detailed explanation of the typology of the concept of information disorder from (page 3, lines 2-23).
Comments 3: If the reason to choose that from Wardle (2018) is to continue the logic of agent, message and interpreter later, then I’d suggest to add to the epigraph about the characteristics of Chinese receivers of disinformation a reference to the following DOI: 10.1177/01634437241249164
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with this comment. This article you suggested is really helpful for our article. Therefore, we have quoted some contents from Luka Moon for analysis of audience (page 8, lines 13-23).
Comments 4: As a reader, I would understand the train of thought better if the methodology followed by the authors was more clearly stated in a specific epigraph for the method.
Response 4: We recognize that the lack of research methodology is indeed one of our major shortcomings in this article, and the literature review method is the main approach we applied. Therefore, we have reintroduced a clear mention of our research methodology, questions and aims in the epigraph.
Comments 5:The conclusions fall too short in reflecting about the results given. They should be further thoughts apropos of what’s been researched, rather than short summaries of what we have already read.
Response 5:We strongly agree with this part of the reviewer's comments. Therefore, we have rewritten the conclusion section to add more content and details, especially from the producer, media and audience perspectives.
Comments 6:so maybe be more specific on what has not been studied yet (maybe niches of vulnerability in China?).
Response 6:Thanks to the reviewers' comments, we have revisited the limitations of this study. We discuss future research directions from two main perspectives: the methodological limitations of the study and the geographical limitations of this study.
Comments 7: The text would benefit from a professional proofreading service. Minor mistakes like “information disorder endangers” instead of “information disorders endanger” (the “information disorder” as a phenomenon appears recurringly -see, for instance, lines 45, 54-55, 58, etc.-: it should be “information disorders”, since they include several typologies underneath -namely, disinformation, misinformation and malinformation).
Response 7: We have re-proofread the English expression of the article. Thanks for the review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article attempts to build a theoretical bridge between the elements of constructive journalism and the concept of information disorder. The title seems hopeful, but reading the full article I have several important concerns as follows:
The marginal contribution of the article seems to be questionable. The authors may intend to appropriate elements of constructive journalism to provide an operational framework for managing information disorder. However, this framework is difficult to establish: if it is aimed at journalists, the six elements of constructive journalism already provide guidelines teaching journalists what to do, which is already a method to counter information disorder and is not new. If it is aimed at platforms and readers, they are not the producers of news themselves, so how can they utilize the elements of constructive journalism?
I think the lack of confidence in this framework is why only some content in the latter half of the article clearly addresses the connection between information disorder and constructive journalism techniques. At times, the article deviates from its main focus, such as when discussing positive psychology (mentioned too late) or AI-driven journalist fact-checking techniques. These discussions are somewhat scattered.
Therefore, the authors might consider focusing their efforts on the "constructive" aspect of managing information disorder, drawing on the concept of constructive journalism. This is your focus; avoid diverging into other theoretical discussions. For instance, among the various actors in the information ecosystem, past platform governance may have leaned towards banning and prohibiting, whereas you advocate for incorporating positive psychological cues in algorithm and rule design. Government-operated quasi-news accounts (zheng wu xin mei ti) could also adopt methods to promote government-citizen interaction. Content published by the public can be guided by algorithms to provide friendly rather than aggressive texts. This might be a viable path.
Design some structures and charts to illustrate your framework. Since the article lacks any empirical material, visualizing some theoretical ideas is necessary. Similarly, the addition of a simple methodology is necessary.
Finally, I do not recommend using too many Chinese references. I understand that when discussing the Chinese news industry, it is appropriate to cite some local sources. However, the quality of these Chinese journals is mediocre, and sometimes it raises concerns about their ability to engage with the global research community.
I am pessimistic that the article can be revised in a short period of time. Perhaps rejecting and resubmitting is a more appropriate option.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOverall, it's okay. There are some Chinese-style English phrases and sentence structures. You can discuss with your native English editor on how to improve them.
Author Response
Comments 1:The authors may intend to appropriate elements of constructive journalism to provide an operational framework for managing information disorder. However, this framework is difficult to establish: if it is aimed at journalists, the six elements of constructive journalism already provide guidelines teaching journalists what to do, which is already a method to counter information disorder and is not new. If it is aimed at platforms and readers, they are not the producers of news themselves, so how can they utilize the elements of constructive journalism?
Response1: Many thanks for the review. This article focuses on the causes of information disorder in the Chinese context from the perspectives of producers, media and audiences respectively. We propose the use of constructive journalism to minimize the impact of information disorder. As journalists and media organizations are the main producers of constructive journalism, the second half of the article relies more on a producer-oriented discussion of combating information disorder. On the other hand, the audience can also use the concept of constructive journalism to build a more complete media reading habit and improve their media literacy. This point has been reinterpreted in the conclusion of the revised article.
Comments 2: I think the lack of confidence in this framework is why only some content in the latter half of the article clearly addresses the connection between information disorder and constructive journalism techniques.
Response 2: We understand very well the concerns of experts on this issue. We had the same considerations in mind during the writing and research process. Since it is a study conducted in China as a context, we think it is very necessary to re-discuss and rethink the concept of information disorder in the Chinese context, which was proposed by western academics. Since this is an article that uses literature review as the main research method, we believe that before proposing constructive journalism as a governance method, we need to explore in depth the reasons for the emergence of the phenomenon of information disorder in the Chinese context in order to provide the basis and background for the governance in the latter part of the article.
Comment 3: Design some structures and charts to illustrate your framework. Since the article lacks any empirical material, visualizing some theoretical ideas is necessary. Similarly, the addition of a simple methodology is necessary.
Response 3: Thanks for this point which is more helpful. We have added some charts and structures to illustrate our framework.
Comment 4:I do not recommend using too many Chinese references. I understand that when discussing the Chinese news industry, it is appropriate to cite some local sources. However, the quality of these Chinese journals is mediocre, and sometimes it raises concerns about their ability to engage with the global research community.
Response 4: We need to declare here that all the Chinese journals cited in the article are core journals in China, and some of the English papers written by Chinese are also very classic studies on China's digital media era, such as Wang Haiyan, Guo Lei, etc. These research papers are influential in terms of citations as well as popularity.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work presented is based on an interesting and novel concept, there are elements that must be strengthened to improve this to be a product of scientific value.
1.- The theoretical support needs greater contributions, media convergence, ultramediation, digital societies.
2.- Disinformation and biased news.
3.- It is desirable that the methodological study be transferred to graphics and statistical forms, psychology and media variations in China alone are not enough.
4.- The methodology used or the empirical basis of the study is not clear.
5.- The conclusions must respond to the results, the hypotheses and the logical forms of findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA review by an English speaker native is important, there are linguistic usage errors.
Author Response
Comment 1: The theoretical support needs greater contributions, media convergence, ultramediation, digital societies.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions. Due to the word limit and the weight of the article, we have only carried out a presentation of the main transformations and changes in our discussion of digital media in China. We focus the article more on the causes of information disorder and governance through constructive journalism concepts in the Chinese context.
Comment 2: Disinformation and biased news.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We have added a more detailed explanation and diagram of the concept of information disorder and the different types of information it includes. We hope that the charts will allow for a more visual presentation.
Comment 3: It is desirable that the methodological study be transferred to graphics and statistical forms, psychology and media variations in China alone are not enough.
Response 3: Thank you for your advice. Since this is an article where literature review is the main research method, we have added diagrams to clarify the logic of the study.
Comment 4: The methodology used or the empirical basis of the study is not clear.
Response 4: We recognize that the lack of research methodology is indeed one of our major shortcomings in this article, and the literature review method is the main approach we applied. Therefore, we have reintroduced a clear mention of our research methodology, questions and aims in the epigraph.
Comment 5: The conclusions must respond to the results, the hypotheses and the logical forms of findings.
Response 5:We strongly agree with this part of the reviewer's comments. Therefore, we have rewritten the conclusion section to add more content and details, especially from the producer, media and audience perspectives.
Comment 6:A review by an English speaker native is important, there are linguistic usage errors.
Response 6: We have re-proofread the English expression of the article. Thanks for the review.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your reactiveness to the changes, I think the text has been improved largely. There is a minor detail I'd advise to correct (line 82: you refer to Wardle as "he", and she is a woman), and a more systemic element that I think needs to be further addressed.
You explain in your comments that your methodological approach is the systematic literature review, and it is a good point that you have added that in the text. However, as a reader I need a more detailed explanation about why you chose that methodology and how you implemented it (what databases did you search in, what keywords you used and why; and, generally speaking, what were you trying to achieve with a SLR and how that relates to your research goals).
Author Response
Comments 1: There is a minor detail I'd advise to correct (line 82: you refer to Wardle as "he", and she is a woman).
Respond 1: Sorry for our mistake. We have revised it in the manuscript.
Comments 2: As a reader I need a more detailed explanation about why you chose that methodology and how you implemented it.
Respond 2: Thanks for the remind. We have added the section about "Method" in the manuscript to explain how we use the systematic literature review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnfortunately, I think the authors' rebuttal letter did not address my concerns, but just insisted on their position. The current manuscript does not provide new insights, but only reviews the work that has been done by constructive and digital journalism. How do you intend to expand the concept of constructive journalism? It still cites a lot of Chinese journals.
Good.
Author Response
Comments 1: Expansion of Constructive Journalism
Respond 1: We are actively working on expanding the concept of constructive journalism by integrating it with contemporary challenges in digital media, specifically within the context of Chinese information disorders. Our revised manuscript will detail how constructive journalism can be adapted to counter information overload, algorithmic biases, and audience polarization. We aim to provide new theoretical and practical insights into how this approach can foster a more balanced and credible media environment.
Comment 1: Diversity of Sources
Respond 2: We cite a total of 48 references from scholars around the world on related topics. Among them, there are 20 research citations from Chinese scholars. We recognize that the richness of the cited literature may have over-cited research from Chinese scholars. This is because we describe the study of the Chineseization of constructive journalism and the current media ecology in China.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the authors' willingness to improve their work with the observations made previously.
While I understand that the context of analysis is China, it is also important that the authors project their work to the academic world, that is the value of science and knowledge. With this explanation, it is still important to analyze other theoretical elements that mark the differences or similarities between continents, societies and media. The basis of ultra-mediation could -in my opinion- explain the weaving of layers of information, for example.
Author Response
Comment 1: Theoretical Expansion through Ultra-Mediation
Respond 1: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We agree that ultra-mediation is a novel and accurate concept for explaining information dissemination. Due to the constraints of the manuscript's length, we were unable to provide a comprehensive discussion of this specialized concept. Although we did not explicitly use the term "ultra-mediation" in our analysis, we have extended our discussion in the conclusion to highlight how constructive journalism can address information disorders globally and Wardle's opinion about information dissemination.
