AI and Digital Literacy: Impact on Information Resilience in Indonesian Society

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article explores a topic at the intersection of AI and digital literacy, highlighting the gap between media coverage of AI and public understanding—particularly in Indonesia—while offering insights that are broadly applicable to other contexts.

The introduction effectively situates the study within a broader context and explains well its relevance; however, it lacks a clear articulation of the article’s specific objectives, including defined research questions or testable hypotheses.

The literature review of Section 2.2, Digital Literacy and Information Resilience would benefit from the inclusion of more recent references from 2024 or 2025, as the most up-to-date source currently cited dates from 2020.

In the final paragraph of Section 2.2, it is noted that “studies specifically focused on developing countries reveal additional challenges in building digital literacy and information resilience”, with a reference to Oyedemi (2012). The article also states that “similar patterns have been observed in Southeast Asian contexts”; however, these claims would be more convincing if supported by additional cited references, as only one is provided.

Regarding the methodology section, the article states that “the content analysis component examines AI-related coverage in five major Indonesian news outlets selected to represent different media types, ownership structures, and audience segments”. However, the rationale for selecting these specific outlets would benefit from a more detailed explanation. Furthermore, additional information about the composition of the survey respondents would be necessary to strengthen the study. It would also be important to indicate who conducted the survey—for example, whether it was carried out by a polling or research firm—and to include more details regarding the survey’s content.

The coding categories established in the content analysis should be presented in the methodology section prior to the results, as they currently appear for the first time within the results section. For example, on page 9, it is stated that 41.6% of the analyzed articles contain at least one factual error or significant oversimplification of AI capabilities or limitations, yet these categories are not described in the methodology. Similarly, the indicators of information resilience should also be briefly explained in the methodology section before the results are presented.

The findings from the content analysis, survey research, and qualitative interviews could be presented with greater depth and detail, including additional illustrative examples. For the interviews, for instance, incorporating a table that summarizes the most relevant statements for each issue would enhance clarity and insight.

The conclusions section does not include any references. Ideally, the literature review should be connected to the conclusions, helping to address the research questions or hypotheses outlined earlier in the article.

There are some formal aspects that should be addressed:

• Remove the final full stop in the abstract.
  
  
• On page 3, line 114, “Conceptualize” should not begin with a capital letter in the phrase “Humprecht, Esser, and Van Aelst (2020:501) conceptualize”.
  
  
• On page 4, line 161, “Identify” in “Nisbet and Scheufele (2009) Identify” should be lowercase.
  
  
• On page 4, line 177, the sentence “The research design follows the recommendations Creswell and Plano Clark (2018) for integrating multiple data sources to address complex social phenomena” should be revised to: “The research design follows the recommendations provided by Creswell and Plano Clark (2018)...”

Author Response

Dear Editorial Team and Esteemed Reviewers,

We express our sincere gratitude for the thorough and constructive feedback provided by both reviewers on our manuscript "AI and Digital Literacy: Impact on Information Resilience in Indonesian Society" (journalmedia-3691139). The detailed comments have significantly improved the quality and rigor of our research.

We have carefully addressed all the concerns and suggestions raised by both reviewers. Given the extensive nature of the revisions requested, we have implemented track changes throughout the manuscript to facilitate easy identification of all modifications made in response to the reviewer feedback.

Summary of Major Revisions Implemented:

Responding to Reviewer 1: We have added explicit research questions and study objectives in the Introduction section, reordered the Literature Review sections as suggested for better logical flow, provided detailed explanations for our choice of South Sulawesi as the research site, clarified our television content collection methodology, expanded the description of coding categories and digital literacy measurement instruments, enhanced the interview protocol details, and provided systematic presentation of qualitative findings with thematic analysis results and representative quotes.

Responding to Reviewer 2: We have included brief theoretical references in the Introduction, updated the Literature Review with recent 2023-2024 references, provided additional Southeast Asian context with proper citations, enhanced the rationale for media outlet selection, added survey implementation details including the conducting organization, moved technical descriptions from Results to Methodology sections, incorporated more detailed examples and illustrations throughout the Results section, and added proper references to the Conclusions section connecting findings to existing literature.

Additional Improvements: All formal aspects identified by both reviewers have been corrected, including capitalization issues, missing articles, and punctuation errors. We have also enhanced the methodological transparency by providing more detailed explanations of our coding procedures, sampling rationale, and analytical approaches. The qualitative findings are now presented more systematically with clear thematic organization and supporting evidence.

We are confident that the revised manuscript now addresses all the concerns raised and meets the high standards expected by Journalism and Media. The track changes format should make it straightforward for you to review our responses to each specific comment and evaluate the improvements made.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to revise and improve our manuscript. We look forward to your feedback on the revised version and are ready to make additional minor adjustments.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any clarification regarding the revisions or if additional information would be helpful for the review process.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “AI and Digital Literacy: Impact on Information Resilience in Indonesian Society” offers a timely and highly relevant contribution to the growing literature on the intersections between media, artificial intelligence, and digital literacy. The study is well-structured and provides valuable empirical insights into how media framing of AI influences public understanding and information resilience in Indonesia, particularly in the context of a rapidly developing digital economy. However, some sections would benefit from further clarification and elaboration to strengthen the theoretical framing, enhance methodological transparency, and improve the clarity of findings.

Introduction

• The introduction would benefit from briefly referencing the theoretical underpinnings of the study; for example, including a short mention of framing theory at this stage would help orient the reader.
• Additionally, the authors could highlight more explicitly the novelty of combining media framing analysis with digital literacy measurement, which constitutes the paper’s main contribution.
• Clarifying the main objective of the study upfront would strengthen the introduction.
• Finally, providing a very brief overview of the methodological approach would help readers better understand the overall research design from the outset.

Literature Review

• Consider reordering the subsections by placing Section 2.4 Media Framing of Technology and Innovation before Section 2.3 Indonesian Media Landscape and Digital Transformation. This would allow the literature review to move from the general theoretical discussion on media framing toward the specific context of Indonesia, following a more logical progression from the broader literature to the national case study.

Methodology

- The authors may briefly elaborate on why South Sulawesi was chosen as the primary site (e.g., representativeness, diversity, or practical reasons) (line 184).

- The description of the content analysis would benefit from greater clarity regarding how articles or transcripts were collected from the television media outlets (Metro TV and TVOne). Since keyword searches are mentioned as the main sampling strategy, it would be helpful to specify how this process was operationalized for television content, including whether transcripts, program archives, or media monitoring services were used to identify relevant material.

- While the authors state that the coding categories include source utilization, technical accuracy, risk assessment, and policy discussion, it would strengthen the methodological transparency to provide clearer definitions or coding rules for these categories. Additionally, it would be helpful to explain how these coding categories were developed - for example, whether they were derived inductively from the data, adapted from previous studies, or based on established coding frameworks in the literature. This additional detail would enhance the study's replicability and allow readers to better assess the validity of the content analysis.

- In the survey subsection, the authors state that digital literacy measurement encompasses technical skills, critical evaluation abilities, and understanding of algorithmic processes. It would be helpful to provide more detail on how these dimensions were conceptualized and operationalized. Specifically, the authors should clarify how these particular categories were selected, whether they were drawn from existing validated scales, developed from prior literature, or designed specifically for this study. In addition, briefly defining what is meant by each of these components (e.g., what specific skills or knowledge are assessed under "technical skills" or "critical evaluation") would strengthen the transparency and replicability of the survey instrument.

- In the qualitative interview subsection, the authors could provide additional detail on the interview protocol to enhance transparency. Specifically, it would be helpful to briefly outline the structure of the interview guide and indicate the main thematic axes or question categories that guided the discussions. Furthermore, while the authors state that thematic analysis was used, more information is needed on how this was implemented, for example, how codes were developed, whether coding was inductive or deductive, and how themes were identified. Finally, it would strengthen the credibility of the qualitative findings to clarify whether any steps were taken to ensure reliability in the coding process (e.g., intercoder reliability checks).

- The paper would benefit from clearly stating the research questions that guided the study. Although the overall aim of exploring the relationship between media framing, digital literacy, and information resilience is well-articulated, explicitly formulating research questions would improve the clarity and structure of the manuscript. This would also help link each methodological component (content analysis, survey, and interviews) more directly to the specific analytical objectives.

Findings

• In lines 238–240, it is somewhat unclear whether the statements refer to findings from the thematic analysis of the interviews or from the content analysis of media articles. The distinction between the two data sources should be clarified here to avoid confusion. If the quote from the Kompas editor (line 239) derives from the interview data, it may be helpful to separate and clearly label findings originating from qualitative interviews versus those based on content analysis.
• While the content analysis provides useful quantitative data on media framing patterns, the inclusion of a few brief excerpts or examples from the analyzed articles would greatly enhance the clarity and transparency of the findings.
• In Table 4, the total number of sources equals the total number of articles analyzed (N=847). This suggests that only one source was coded per article. The authors should clarify whether they coded only the primary source per article or whether multiple sources per article were considered. If only one source was coded, it would be helpful to explain the rationale for this decision, as many news articles typically feature multiple sources, which may influence framing analysis.
• While the authors state that qualitative interviews were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis, the results section does not present the qualitative findings in a systematic way. A more structured presentation of the themes that emerged from the interviews would strengthen the integration of the qualitative data. Consider providing a brief summary of the main themes, supported by representative quotes, to enhance transparency and demonstrate how the interview data contributes to answering the research questions.

Discussion

• Since the study demonstrates that media framing significantly influences public understanding of emerging technologies, the discussion could more strongly emphasize the role of journalist education and professional development in improving the accuracy and complexity of technology reporting. Strengthening journalists' capacity to present nuanced and technically accurate representations of AI may be a crucial factor in enhancing public information resilience. Additionally, if the qualitative interview findings were presented more systematically, this section could better incorporate journalists' own perspectives and challenges, making the discussion of professional needs and educational interventions even more compelling.

Author Response

Dear Editorial Team and Esteemed Reviewers,

We express our sincere gratitude for the thorough and constructive feedback provided by both reviewers on our manuscript "AI and Digital Literacy: Impact on Information Resilience in Indonesian Society" (journalmedia-3691139). The detailed comments have significantly improved the quality and rigor of our research.

We have carefully addressed all the concerns and suggestions raised by both reviewers. Given the extensive nature of the revisions requested, we have implemented track changes throughout the manuscript to facilitate easy identification of all modifications made in response to the reviewer feedback.

Summary of Major Revisions Implemented:

Responding to Reviewer 1: We have added explicit research questions and study objectives in the Introduction section, reordered the Literature Review sections as suggested for better logical flow, provided detailed explanations for our choice of South Sulawesi as the research site, clarified our television content collection methodology, expanded the description of coding categories and digital literacy measurement instruments, enhanced the interview protocol details, and provided systematic presentation of qualitative findings with thematic analysis results and representative quotes.

Responding to Reviewer 2: We have included brief theoretical references in the Introduction, updated the Literature Review with recent 2023-2024 references, provided additional Southeast Asian context with proper citations, enhanced the rationale for media outlet selection, added survey implementation details including the conducting organization, moved technical descriptions from Results to Methodology sections, incorporated more detailed examples and illustrations throughout the Results section, and added proper references to the Conclusions section connecting findings to existing literature.

Additional Improvements: All formal aspects identified by both reviewers have been corrected, including capitalization issues, missing articles, and punctuation errors. We have also enhanced the methodological transparency by providing more detailed explanations of our coding procedures, sampling rationale, and analytical approaches. The qualitative findings are now presented more systematically with clear thematic organization and supporting evidence.

We are confident that the revised manuscript now addresses all the concerns raised and meets the high standards expected by Journalism and Media. The track changes format should make it straightforward for you to review our responses to each specific comment and evaluate the improvements made.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to revise and improve our manuscript. We look forward to your feedback on the revised version and are ready to make additional minor adjustments.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any clarification regarding the revisions or if additional information would be helpful for the review process.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the authors have generally addressed my comments from the previous review round, one important issue remains insufficiently resolved. Specifically, the qualitative findings are not presented in a systematic or structured manner, as would be expected given the thematic analysis approach outlined in the methodology (following Braun and Clarke). Although a few illustrative interview quotes are included, mainly in the Discussion section, thematic analysis requires a clearer articulation of the main themes that emerged from the data, including their scope, potential subthemes, and relevance to the research questions.

Furthermore, the current placement of the interview data solely within the Discussion section is problematic. Qualitative findings should be presented in the Results section, ideally through a structured summary of themes (e.g., narrative synthesis and/or a thematic map), supported by representative quotations. This would significantly enhance both transparency and analytical rigor and better demonstrate how the interview data contribute to the overall findings of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and Editor,

We are pleased to resubmit our revised manuscript addressing Reviewer 2's feedback regarding the inadequate presentation of qualitative findings from our thematic analysis.

Response to Reviewer 2
We acknowledge the reviewer's valid concern that our qualitative findings were not presented systematically as expected from rigorous thematic analysis methodology, and that interview data was inappropriately placed primarily in the Discussion section rather than the Results section.
Revisions Made
We have comprehensively addressed these concerns through substantial revisions that enhance the transparency and analytical rigor of our mixed-methods approach. All changes have been highlighted in yellow throughout the revised manuscript for easy identification.

The key improvements include:

• Systematic presentation of qualitative themes in a new Results subsection
• Restructured Discussion section with proper integration of findings
• Enhanced methodological transparency
• Better demonstration of convergent mixed-methods design

We believe these revisions fully address the reviewer's concerns and significantly strengthen our manuscript's contribution to the literature on AI media narratives and digital literacy.

Thank you for your consideration of our revised submission.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf