Issues and Challenges Facing the Greek Regional Press: Fight for Survival

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Whenever we have quotations in inverted commas 
   we have to put the page - it’s mandatory;
2. Suggestion: in the introdution, when it talks about the challenges facing these hyperlocal media organisations, it could be the ‘logical extension of community, participatory and citizen journalism (Paulussen & D'heer, 2013, p.591), which produces content to be consumed mainly by residents of the geographical area, as alternative media, making these residents an active part in the production of this content (Singer et al., 2011); 
3. Also in the introduction, it would be interesting and important, after this general context of the local press, to create a paragraph or two about the local Greek reality, what local researchers say about the reality of local and/or community media, before moving on with the study and its objectives. Perhaps the last paragraph of the introduction (with this local context) should be at the back, where I said (in the document) the Greek context was missing.
4. In the discussion, I recommend a full stop rather than an exclamation mark. More scientific language.
5. There is a problem with the discussion. This section is not a discussion of results. In fact, it concludes on the data that was obtained, with no cross-referencing with previous studies and/or with the bibliography/authors/studies used in the theoretical part of the work. I would call this part a ‘conclusion’ and I would advise creating a real discussion, i.e. you need to take the main results of the study and cross-reference them with other identical studies, in Greece (or elsewhere) and with the data presented in the introduction and theoretical framework, thus contributing more to the science and to the conclusions that are presented with the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: [whenever we have quotations in inverted commas 
we have to put the page - it’s mandatory]

Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. I appreciate your attention to detail. I have now included the page numbers for all quotations in inverted commas, as required. The manuscript has been updated accordingly]

Comments 2: [It would be interesting and important, after this general context of the local press, to create a paragraph or two about the local Greek reality, what local researchers say about the reality of local and/or community media, before moving on with the study and its objectives]

Response 2: [I have revised the section to better reflect the local Greek reality, as you recommended. Although I did not create an entirely separate paragraph, I have reconstructed the context and enhanced the discussion with relevant insights from local researchers regarding the state of local and/or community media in Greece. This revision aims to provide a stronger foundation for the study and its objectives. I believe this adjustment strengthens the contextual background of the manuscript]

Comments 3: [Perhaps this last paragraph of the introduction should be at the back, 
where I said the Greek context was missing]

Response 3: [I have moved the last paragraph of the introduction to the section where the Greek context is discussed, as you recommended. This revision improves the flow of the manuscript and ensures that the Greek context is properly integrated before proceeding with the study’s objectives. I believe this restructuring strengthens the overall coherence of the introduction]

Comments 4: [I recommend a full stop rather than an exclamation mark. More scientific language]

Response 4: [I have replaced the exclamation mark with a full stop, as recommended, to ensure a more formal and scientific tone in the manuscript]

Comments 5: [This section is not a discussion of results. In fact, it concludes on the data that was obtained, with no cross-referencing with previous studies and/or with the bibliography/authors/studies used in the theoretical part of the work. I would call this part a ‘conclusion’ and I would advise creating a real discussion, i.e. you need to take the main results of the study and cross-reference them with other identical studies, in Greece (or elsewhere) and with the data presented in the introduction and theoretical framework, thus contributing more to the science and to the conclusions that are presented with the study]

Response 5: [I have restructured this section to reflect your suggestion. I have renamed it to "Conclusion" and revised the content to focus on presenting the study’s main results more effectively. Additionally, I have incorporated a discussion that cross-references the findings with relevant studies, both in Greece and internationally, as well as integrating the data presented in the introduction and theoretical framework. This revision aims to contribute more robustly to the academic discourse and to strengthen the conclusions drawn from the study]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents an in-depth analysis of the challenges the Greek regional press faced in maintaining its existence. The research is based on a survey of 176 employees (owners/publishers, journalists, and editors) from 199 legally operating local newspapers in Greece today.

The main findings of this research are very concerning. In the past decade, more than 130 Greek regional newspapers have ceased their print publication. Respondents showed great pessimism about the future of the local press, with more than 90% believing that the number of newspapers will further decline in the next two decades.

The research methodology was well designed, using a quantitative questionnaire covering demographics, work experience, views on government support, and challenges faced. The statistical analysis used, including the chi-square test to test the independence of variables, adds credibility to the research findings.

The article successfully identified several key factors contributing to the regional press crisis. These include the prolonged financial crisis, media digitization, declining readership, the COVID-19 pandemic, and lack of adequate government support. The finding that 74.9% of respondents felt the government did not recognize the value of the local press is particularly significant.

What is commendable is how this research connects the challenges of the local press with the challenges of the regional media.

After taking an in-depth look at this article, I found some parts that need improvement to improve the quality of the article:

In lines, 91-94 (introductory research objectives section), the statement “Therefore, the motives and goals of writing this article were set within this frame...” seems repetitive and inefficient. It would be better to explain the specific objectives of the research directly without such a long opening sentence.

In lines 161-167, the research methodology is explained in a too wordy way. The definition of “Quantitative research” can be shortened because journal readers are generally familiar with this concept. Just focus on the specific application of quantitative methods in this study.

In the results section (lines 303-315), there is unnecessary repetition of information. The data on the level of satisfaction with government support is explained twice in almost the same way. It would have been better to present the data in a table directly and provide a more in-depth interpretation.

Lines 448-458 in the discussion section contain some statements that are too general and lack data support. Particularly when discussing respondents' negative views, a more specific analysis of why they hold them should be added.

The conclusion section (lines 533-537) is too brief and lacks concrete recommendations. Specific suggestions on steps that can be taken to overcome the regional press crisis should be added.

Several references in the bibliography (lines 539-575) are inconsistently formatted, especially in the writing of journal names and the use of punctuation. The format of the references needs to be uniform according to the journal's style.

In general, this article would be more substantial if:

• Add a comparative analysis with regional press situations in other countries.
• Strengthen the discussion on the implications of the research findings for media policy
• Provide more specific and applicable recommendations
• Simplify some of the explanations that are too wordy
• Improve consistency in formatting and referencing

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several sections require improvements in grammar and clarity of expression to improve the article's readability.

Author Response

Comments 1: [In lines, 91-94 (introductory research objectives section), the statement “Therefore, the motives and goals of writing this article were set within this frame...” seems repetitive and inefficient. It would be better to explain the specific objectives of the research directly without such a long opening sentence]

Response 1: [I have revised the introductory research objectives section by directly explaining the specific objectives of the research. This revision improves clarity and ensures a more concise presentation of the study’s goals]

Comments 2: [In lines 161-167, the research methodology is explained in a too wordy way. The definition of “Quantitative research” can be shortened because journal readers are generally familiar with this concept. Just focus on the specific application of quantitative methods in this study]

Response 2: [I have revised the research methodology section to make it more concise. The definition of “Quantitative research” has been shortened to avoid unnecessary elaboration, as I focused on the specific application of quantitative methods in this study, which I believe is more relevant to the readers]

Comments 3: [In the results section (lines 303-315), there is unnecessary repetition of information. The data on the level of satisfaction with government support is explained twice in almost the same way. It would have been better to present the data in a table directly and provide a more in-depth interpretation]

Response 3: [I have revised the results section to eliminate the unnecessary repetition of information regarding the level of satisfaction with government support. Instead, I have presented the data in a table for clarity and conciseness. I have also provided a more in-depth interpretation of the findings to offer a clearer analysis of the results]

Comments 4: [Lines 448-458 in the discussion section contain some statements that are too general and lack data support. Particularly when discussing respondents' negative views, a more specific analysis of why they hold them should be added]

Response 4: [I have revised the discussion section to provide more specific analysis and data support, particularly regarding respondents' negative views. I have expanded on the reasons behind these views, incorporating relevant data to offer a clearer and more detailed explanation of the findings]

Comments 5: [The conclusion section (lines 533-537) is too brief and lacks concrete recommendations. Specific suggestions on steps that can be taken to overcome the regional press crisis should be added]

Response 5: [I have expanded the conclusion section to provide more detail. In response to your suggestion, I have added concrete recommendations on steps that can be taken to address the regional press crisis. These suggestions are based on the findings of the study and aim to offer practical solutions for improving the situation]

Comments 6: [Several references in the bibliography (lines 539-575) are inconsistently formatted, especially in the writing of journal names and the use of punctuation. The format of the references needs to be uniform according to the journal's style]

Response: [I have carefully reviewed the bibliography and corrected the formatting inconsistencies, particularly with the journal names and punctuation. The references have now been standardized to align with the journal's required style]

Comments 7: [In general, this article would be more substantial if:

Add a comparative analysis with regional press situations in other countries.
Strengthen the discussion on the implications of the research findings for media policy
Provide more specific and applicable recommendations
Simplify some of the explanations that are too wordy
Improve consistency in formatting and referencing]

Response 7: [I have made several revisions based on your recommendations to strengthen the manuscript: Comparative analysis: I have added a comparative analysis of the regional press situation in other countries, providing a broader context for the study and enhancing the depth of the discussion. Implications for media policy: I have expanded the discussion to address the implications of the research findings for media policy, emphasizing how these results can inform and shape future policy decisions. Specific and applicable recommendations: I have revised the conclusion to include more specific and practical recommendations for addressing the challenges faced by regional press, based on the findings of the study. Simplification of explanations: I have simplified some of the sections that were previously too wordy, ensuring clarity and conciseness without sacrificing the depth of the analysis. Consistency in formatting and referencing: I have thoroughly reviewed and corrected any inconsistencies in formatting and referencing, ensuring that all references are consistent with the journal’s required style. I believe these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript and make it more substantial, as suggested.]