Reconceptualizing Gatekeeping in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Theoretical Exploration of Artificial Intelligence-Driven News Curation and Automated Journalism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and structurally coherent.
It addresses a timely and relevant topic that, despite its growing societal impact, has received limited attention within academic literature. The implications of technological developments for news consumption and production are far-reaching, often occurring without public awareness, which underscores the importance of this line of research.

There are a few instances in which certain ideas are repeated throughout the manuscript. While the authors may consider removing some of these repetitions to improve the overall fluency, it is worth noting that such reiterations are typically presented with contextual nuances. Therefore, should the authors consider them useful for emphasis or clarification, maintaining the current phrasing would be acceptable.

It is recommended that the acronym CTS be defined and included in the glossary.

Additional suggestions (non-mandatory):
The following references are proposed solely for the authors’ consideration. They may enhance the contextual and theoretical framework of the manuscript, particularly regarding the integration of artificial intelligence into media production workflows and algorithmic influence on content consumption patterns.

To strengthen the argument concerning the impact of video duration variations in YouTube’s recommendation algorithm, the following source may be of interest:
Ribes, X. (2020). Is the YouTube Animation Algorithm-Friendly? How YouTube’s Algorithm Influences the Evolution of Animation Production on the Internet. Animation, 15(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746847720969990

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. I appreciate you highlighting its coherence, timeliness, and relevance, particularly given the societal importance and relative scarcity of academic focus on this topic.

We have not used the acronym "CTS" to include it in the glossary. We did however mislabel GPT as GTP, so thank you for that.

We are also grateful for the suggested additional reference. We found the paper by Ribes (2020) particularly insightful for strengthening our argument concerning the impact of video duration variations within YouTube’s recommendation algorithm. We have incorporated relevant clarifications informed by this work into the revised manuscript.

Thank you,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the paper describes a systematic literature review, it lacks details on the selection criteria, inclusion/exclusion rationale, and search methodology. Clarifying how the final corpus of 80 sources was identified would enhance replicability and academic rigor. I suggest in section 2, please do consider elaborating on the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the reviewed literature. While the overview of your systematic literature review is clear, greater detail on selection thresholds for example source databases, time frames, keywords used) would enhance the transparency of the study review process. I also suggest for the study to consider including a supplementary appendix that may summarizes the 80 key sources by category or theme.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank the for your comments regarding the methodology section. We agree that the initial description could imply a formal systematic literature review, and we acknowledge that the process undertaken, while comprehensive, did not adhere to the strict protocols (e.g., detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria reporting) typically required for such a designation. The primary goal was theoretical synthesis informed by a broad and targeted review of the relevant literature.

To address your valid point and accurately reflect our methodology, we have revised Section 2 to clarify the scope as a comprehensive literature review focused on theoretical synthesis.

We have specifically adjusted the description of how the core set of sources was selected to emphasize thematic relevance. Consequently, we have opted not to include a supplementary appendix summarizing sources by category, as this is less conventional for a theoretical review compared to a formal systematic review.

We believe these changes improve the clarity and precision of our methodological description.

Thank you,