Digital Newsroom Transformation: A Systematic Review of the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Journalistic Practices, News Narratives, and Ethical Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has an obvious flaw. It is seriously out of date. That matters much more than normal because it does not mention Generative AI or anything else post-2021. Generative AI is more important (potentially) than AI itself. It raises far more ethical and other issues and is qualitatively a different technology. If the article was to mention this and to say that it is an historical analysis then it would have some value as a survey of the pre-Generative AI academic consensus. Also it doesn't seem to define what it means by AI.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our article. We appreciate your thorough review and have taken your comments into serious consideration. In response, we have made significant revisions to address the points you raised. We have extensively updated the article to include a comprehensive discussion of Generative AI, its potential impact, and the unique ethical and technological challenges it presents. This addition brings the article up to date with current developments in the field. We have also clarified that the initial sections of the article provide a historical analysis of the pre-Generative AI academic consensus, which helps readers understand the evolution of AI technology and thought. Additionally, we have included a clear and concise definition of AI at the beginning of the article to establish a common understanding for readers. Overall, we have thoroughly reviewed and updated the entire article to include relevant developments and discussions post-2021, ensuring that the content is current and comprehensive. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the article's relevance and value, and we thank you again for your insightful comments, which have helped us enhance the quality and timeliness of our work.

Improvements and feedback from reviewer 1 have been incorporated into the article and are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sending your contribution and giving me the chance to review it. I find the study relevant and appropriate. Some aspects could be improved, for instance, in the methodological section, hypothesis, if needed, definitely research questions and initial categories of analysis should be explicitly mentioned. Some recent literature on journalism and AI is missing, so I suggest completing it. I do not know whether it is possible to provide a final list of the articles analyzed. Mentioning the journals where those have been published is also worthy, in my opinion. Otherwise, the review performed in this paper is systematic, it is well presented and discussed, and results are relevant. 

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our contribution. We greatly appreciate the time you've taken to review our work and provide such constructive comments. We are pleased to hear that you find the study relevant and appropriate.

We have carefully considered your suggestions and have made several improvements to address them. In the methodological section, we have now explicitly stated our research questions and initial categories of analysis. We have also updated our literature review to include recent publications on journalism and AI, ensuring our study reflects the most current discourse in the field.

Regarding your suggestion about the analyzed articles, we have included a comprehensive list of the articles reviewed, along with the journals in which they were published. We believe this addition enhances the transparency and reproducibility of our research.

We have thoroughly revised the paper to incorporate these changes while maintaining the systematic approach you noted. We are confident that these revisions have strengthened the overall quality and relevance of our work.

Once again, we thank you for your insightful comments and the opportunity to improve our contribution. Your feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the clarity and comprehensiveness of our research.

Improvements and feedback from reviewer 1 have been incorporated into the article and are highlighted in green.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is necessary to deepen ethical discussions, especially addressing basic ethical issues, because otherwise the discussion has no practical value in terms of academic interest and even beyond academia.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Ok, Some aspects don't sound right, but it's not serious. The language editor will catch them.

Author Response

Thank you for your additional feedback on our contribution. We appreciate your emphasis on the importance of ethical discussions in our work.

We fully agree with your assessment that deepening the ethical discourse is crucial, particularly regarding fundamental ethical issues. In light of your comments, we have substantially expanded our ethical discussion section. We have now addressed core ethical principles and their practical implications in the context of AI and journalism.

We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the practical and academic value of our work. The expanded ethical component now serves as a cornerstone of our analysis, providing a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities at the intersection of AI and journalism.

We are grateful for your insight, which has helped us enhance the depth and relevance of our ethical discussions. We trust that these changes address your concerns and contribute meaningfully to the ongoing dialogue in this field.

Improvements and feedback from reviewer 1 have been incorporated into the article and are highlighted in pink.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none