Next Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Mental Health of Journalists Reporting on War, Conflict and Terrorism: Gaps and Recommendations for Future Studies
Previous Article in Journal
De-Westernizing Intercultural Communication: Power, Language, Identity, and Digital Mediation Across Contexts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Mass Media on Career Choices of Final-Year High School Students in Brașov County, Romania
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Substack, the New “Home” for Cultural Journalism

Journal. Media 2025, 6(3), 128; https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6030128
by María Yanet Acosta Meneses * and Gloria Gómez-Escalonilla
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Journal. Media 2025, 6(3), 128; https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6030128
Submission received: 22 May 2025 / Revised: 11 August 2025 / Accepted: 12 August 2025 / Published: 18 August 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a welcome addition to the growing body of literature on Substack and other newsletter platforms and it is exciting to see a contribution to the literature that focuses on newsletters not written in English and not from the United States—an angle that I would recommend to the authors be highlighted in the abstract and in the introduction (i.e. that of what current research exists, the vast majority of it is focused on English, U.S.-based writers).

However, this article in my view needs to be considerably reworked to a) have a clearer focus and b) more critically engage with existing literature. Indeed, a major point of concern for me as a reviewer is that this article reads at times more like an advertisement for Substack than it does a critical examination of trends in journalism, as for example when the authors write that “Substack, as shown in this study, is not simply a platform, but a narrative space where authors reclaim editorial control and redefine how journalistic knowledge is produced and shared.” This statement is not proven by the findings of the article or by other research on Substack. Indeed, this article does not engage much with critical scholarship on Substack or on newsletters, in the findings section or in the discussion section, beyond stating that this other research exists. Part of this is caused by the methodology of the research, as this article draws on the experiences of only the most successful writers on Substack (see more about my comments on methods below). I think that this approach can still bring in valuable insights, but this is nevertheless a significant limitation to the findings that needs to be acknowledged more explicitly in this article, as it is highly natural that the most successful writers on the platform will be largely positive about what it offers.  

The research findings are quite broad, and the discussion section is very brief and, again, does not engage with other scholarship on influencers, on journalism as a genre, or on other more critical studies of Substack or newsletters. In this vein, there is no discussion of geography, race/ethnicity, or gender with regard to the chosen newsletters or interviews conducted. Given how much research exists on women’s experiences as online creators and as journalists, as well as the fact that existing research on Substack (cited by the author) stresses that the experiences of racialized newsletters writers is different from white writers, this seems to me to be an aspect of the research that warrants discussion, even briefly. On page 6 under Results, the authors seem to specify that all of the newsletters studied are by writers from Spain. This is worth clarifying, as “Spanish-language” is far more general and global.

Regarding methods, I would like to see more detail on how the newsletters were chosen. Were they from top performing Spanish newsletters, or is the Top Substack Newsletters list for all languages and then the top Spanish newsletters were chosen? When it’s stated that “both top-ranked and lower-ranked creators” were chosen, is this lower-ranked creators from the Top Newsletters list? The “reader interview” that was conducted could also be further explained: what was the rationale for conducting only one questionnaire, and with a reader instead of writers, given this article is largely about the production and circulation of newsletters rather than focusing on audience reception (as stated on page 6 when it is written that “the study aims to capture both the structural characteristics and symbolic dimensions of cultural production in this emerging publishing environment”)? On page 6, it’s written “In the case of the written interview conducted through Substack, participants were informed that their responses would be used solely for academic purposes.” However, earlier it was stated that there is only one written interview, so it’s unclear if this is a typo or if more than one reader was interviewed. Were interviews translated or conducted in English? If in Spanish, were they translated and by whom/what?

On page 12, the authors make suggestions for how Substack might change its business model and subscription model—this is unrelated to the article and again, speaks to my concern about this article reading at times like an ad for the platform rather than a study of it.

There are also examples of this article lacking citations or making assertions that are inaccurate. On page 12, the authors state that Substack is giving rise to a “new form of journalism rooted in subjectivity and authorial presence.” There is a long history of journalism rooted in subjectivity that goes back at least to the New Journalism of the 1960s if not earlier—again, I believe this is an example of how this article might benefit from further engagement with existing research. Similarly, the authors write: “On Substack, content creators are generally journalists or writers, as is the case in this study.” There is no citation for this statement and I am unclear how the authors came to this conclusion.

I am very interested in seeing an article on Spanish-language newsletters, and on the experiences of journalists flocking to the platform, published. However, I believe this article requires more work, a narrowing of its scope, and a deeper engagement with other scholarship on newsletters and on influencers/content creators before it is publishable. 

Author Response

Comment 1. This article is a welcome addition to the growing body of literature on Substack and other newsletter platforms and it is exciting to see a contribution to the literature that focuses on newsletters not written in English and not from the United States—an angle that I would recommend to the authors be highlighted in the abstract and in the introduction (i.e. that of what current research exists, the vast majority of it is focused on English, U.S.-based writers).

Response 1. Thank you very much for your thoughtful and generous comment. We're especially grateful for your recognition of the article’s contribution. Substack is still an underexplored topic in academic research.

Comment 2. Have a clearer focus.

Response 2. Thank you for your observation. Based on your feedback, we have rewritten the introduction so that the focus of the paper is now much clearer. We truly appreciate your suggestion—it helped us strengthen the structure and clarity of our work. Here is the revised text: 

The crisis in the media industry has led some journalists to explore professional alternatives on platforms like Patreon, Ghost, Medium, and Substack—best known for their newsletter services and member-based paid subscriptions. These platforms operate independently of social media, allowing writers to build and maintain their own communities.

This article explores a contemporary model of online literary mediation through a qualitative case study that combines cultural studies approaches with in-depth interviews. Focusing on a platform called Substack, the research analyzes how cultural content—particularly book recommendations and cultural commentary—is produced by journalists and writers.

Despite the increasing presence of such content in mass media, this phenomenon remains underexplored in academic literature. This study addresses that gap by examining the practices of cultural journalists in Spain on Substack.

We have also revised the objectives to ensure greater clarity, as outlined below:

    1. To analyze the most-followed cultural content published on Substack in Spanish, with the aim of understanding the writing styles employed by its authors.
    2. To analyze, through in-depth interviews, the intentions of the journalists involved.
    3. To to provide an overview of how the ecosystem of a platform like Substack may be transforming the practice of cultural journalism in Spain through microinfluencers who operate outside of mainstream social media. 

Comment 3: Part of this is caused by the methodology of the research, as this article draws on the experiences of only the most successful writers on Substack (see more about my comments on methods below). I think that this approach can still bring in valuable insights, but this is nevertheless a significant limitation to the findings that needs to be acknowledged more explicitly in this article, as it is highly natural that the most successful writers on the platform will be largely positive about what it offers.  

Response 3: Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback on the methodology. You're absolutely right in pointing out that focusing on the most successful Substack writers may introduce a bias, as they are more likely to highlight the platform's positive aspects. However, we considered this a reasonable way to obtain a representative sample. That said, we will certainly take your observation into account in future studies. We present all of these ideas in section 2.6, Limitations of the Study, in the following paragraph:

While combining platform data, content analysis, and interviews strengthens the research, the relatively small sample size—particularly in the interview phase—may limit the diversity of viewpoints represented. Additionally, focusing on the most successful Substack writers may introduce a bias, as they are more likely to emphasize the platform's positive aspects. However, we considered this a reasonable approach for capturing a representative sample. Nevertheless, the study serves as an exploratory contribution that opens avenues for further empirical and comparative research.

Comment 4: The research findings are quite broad, and the discussion section is very brief and, again, does not engage with other scholarship on influencers, on journalism as a genre, or on other more critical studies of Substack or newsletters. 

Response 4: To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no academic studies specifically focused on the Substack platform. We conducted a careful review of the existing literature and consulted with colleagues at U.S. universities to ensure we were not overlooking relevant work. This article aims to offer an initial contribution to this emerging area of research.

Comment 5: In this vein, there is no discussion of geography, race/ethnicity, or gender with regard to the chosen newsletters or interviews conducted. Given how much research exists on women’s experiences as online creators and as journalists, as well as the fact that existing research on Substack (cited by the author) stresses that the experiences of racialized newsletters writers is different from white writers, this seems to me to be an aspect of the research that warrants discussion, even briefly.

Response 5: Thank you for this thoughtful observation. We fully agree that geography, race/ethnicity, and gender are relevant aspects that deserve attention in any analysis of digital media practices. In fact, one of our interviewees specifically reflected on what it means to write from the perspective of a “new masculinity” and how this positioning shapes his voice and relationship with a more niche, emotionally engaged community. In response to your comment, we have revised one of the opening paragraphs of the article to make this dimension of the research clearer from the outset:

He launched Nada importa on Substack in 2020 and added a paywall a year later for his Claves articles, which include travel and food recommendations, reflections on trends, creativity, culture, and knowledge. He also offers a "Fearless Advice" section—answering paid subscribers' questions—and a paywalled podcast titled Un rato en casa ("A Little Time at Home"), where he shares casual conversations with his girlfriend. A large part of his writing explores his evolving understanding of new masculinity. He positions himself in an emotionally engaged and empathetic way alongside his partner to explore issues such as obstetric violence. The journalist himself acknowledged during this research that he sometimes loses readers because of this. In fact, he recalled that on one occasion, a former male reader told him: “You’ve abandoned us,” referring to the new topics he addresses and the perspective from which he writes.

Comment 6. On page 6 under Results, the authors seem to specify that all of the newsletters studied are by writers from Spain. This is worth clarifying, as “Spanish-language” is far more general and global.

Response 6. Thank you for this important observation. While it is true that the newsletters analyzed are written by authors based in Spain, we acknowledge that many of them are read across the broader Spanish-speaking world. However, as clarified at the beginning of the article, our selection focuses on the most-read Substack newsletters in Spain. 

Comment 7. Regarding methods, I would like to see more detail on how the newsletters were chosen. Were they from top performing Spanish newsletters, or is the Top Substack Newsletters list for all languages and then the top Spanish newsletters were chosen?

Response 7. We explain in the Methods section that this is a statistic provided by Substack itself, as well as by two service platforms:

The data collection process included both quantitative and qualitative components. Quantitative data was sourced from platforms such as Substack, Backlinko, and SideStack—the latter being an analytics and automation tool that provides statistics on the most popular Substack newsletters, user growth, and content categories. These platforms were selected for their relevance in offering descriptive and analytical insights into the platform’s reach, user behavior, and monetization models.

Comment 8: On page 6, it’s written “In the case of the written interview conducted through Substack, participants were informed that their responses would be used solely for academic purposes.” However, earlier it was stated that there is only one written interview, so it’s unclear if this is a typo or if more than one reader was interviewed. Were interviews translated or conducted in English? If in Spanish, were they translated and by whom/what?

Response 8. The first language of both the researchers and the interviewees is Spanish, so the interviews were conducted in Spanish and later translated into English by the researchers themselves for the purpose of this research article.

Comment 9.  On page 12, the authors make suggestions for how Substack might change its business model and subscription model—this is unrelated to the article and again, speaks to my concern about this article reading at times like an ad for the platform rather than a study of it.

Response 9. We deeply regret having given that impression. We have removed the section you pointed out in order to avoid any confusion in this regard. Moreover, the article clearly presents the platform’s limitations from the outset and explains that Substack is comparable to others such as Ghost. One of the interviewees even states that if the platform’s evolution no longer suits him, he would switch to a similar one without hesitation.

Comment 10. There are also examples of this article lacking citations or making assertions that are inaccurate. On page 12, the authors state that Substack is giving rise to a “new form of journalism rooted in subjectivity and authorial presence.” There is a long history of journalism rooted in subjectivity that goes back at least to the New Journalism of the 1960s if not earlier—again, I believe this is an example of how this article might benefit from further engagement with existing research.

Response 10. We have reviewed the text and removed those sentences. However, in 1960s Spain, narrative journalism did not develop in the same way as it did in the United States, largely because the country was under the Francoist dictatorship, a political regime removed from such stylistic movements.

Comment 11. Similarly, the authors write: “On Substack, content creators are generally journalists or writers, as is the case in this study.” There is no citation for this statement and I am unclear how the authors came to this conclusion.

Response 11. Thank you for pointing out the error. The sentence has now been corrected to: "In this study, the content creators are primarily journalists and writers."

Comment 12. I am very interested in seeing an article on Spanish-language newsletters, and on the experiences of journalists flocking to the platform, published. However, I believe this article requires more work, a narrowing of its scope, and a deeper engagement with other scholarship on newsletters and on influencers/content creators before it is publishable. 

Response 12. Thank you so much for your encouraging words and thoughtful feedback. We’re truly excited about the opportunity to contribute to the growing conversation around Spanish-language newsletters and the experiences of journalists on these platforms. We are grateful for all your suggestions, which have contributed significantly to improving the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article represents a valuable study of emerging practices in digital journalism focusing on cultural journalism. The idea is clear as are the results of study, although relatively poor representation and discussion of the results leaves the reader with an impression that there can be much more concluded said about the topic, if the work with data would be done in a more careful, systematic and in-depth manner. This is difficult because of the complexity of topic, from one side, and some gaps in the formulation of the hypothesis and research questions and objectives. In order to concentrate the research focus and make the article more compelling following improvements can be done:

1) The theoretical and previous research part is very interesting, however, more courageous advance of own ideas and own theoretical view on, for example, challenges of the defining journalism in social media space, but also terminological innovation regarding all types of influencers mentioned regarding the research topic of the article would be very valuable. In other words, a serious engagement with existing theory and research, in order to harmonize the approach and terminology of the described field would provide a very valuable ground for both this and further related work. Also, there are some gaps regarding theory, especially, if the title suggests the focus is on cultural journalism, the definition and description of theoretical issues related to cultural journalism today could be added.

2) The hypothesis is very unclear and difficult to prove (it is also not done in the following parts), objectives don't completely match the hypothesis, it is also unclear how it relates to cultural journalism. This part must be rewritten in a more concise and concrete, precise way, to ensure focus in following (methodological design, results, discussion, conclusions) parts.

3) After the focus of the research is corrected, please, review the results, discussion and conclusions the refresh the text in the light of corrected focus - the information included in these parts is interesting and valuable, but it is possible that some restructuring and revision is necessary. 

4)I did not found reference to Scolari's work in the text, otherwise the references, style and format is well done.

At the end, I would like to express my positive assessment and my support for this very valuable and interesting research and encourage the author to make mentioned changes, in order to make it accessible to the academic community and future researchers.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We truly appreciate your recognition of the article’s contribution to the study of emerging practices in digital and cultural journalism. 

Comment 1. The theoretical and previous research part is very interesting, however, more courageous advance of own ideas and own theoretical view on, for example, challenges of the defining journalism in social media space, but also terminological innovation regarding all types of influencers mentioned regarding the research topic of the article would be very valuable. In other words, a serious engagement with existing theory and research, in order to harmonize the approach and terminology of the described field would provide a very valuable ground for both this and further related work. Also, there are some gaps regarding theory, especially, if the title suggests the focus is on cultural journalism, the definition and description of theoretical issues related to cultural journalism today could be added.

Response 1. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your comments. This article represents an initial approach, as there are no previous studies on the topic. We believe it can be further developed through ongoing research.

Comment 2. The hypothesis is very unclear and difficult to prove (it is also not done in the following parts), objectives don't completely match the hypothesis, it is also unclear how it relates to cultural journalism. This part must be rewritten in a more concise and concrete, precise way, to ensure focus in following (methodological design, results, discussion, conclusions) parts.

Response 2. Many thanks for your thoughtful feedback. We have rewritten the hypothesis and objectives in a clearer and more direct way:

2.1. Hypothesis

The central hypothesis of this research is that Substack has gained influence and visibility as a platform for cultural content creation primarily due to a combination of social, technological, and communicative factors that respond to broader transformations in digital media.

2.2. Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are as follows:

  1. To analyze the most-followed cultural content published on Substack in Spanish, with the aim of understanding the writing styles employed by its authors.
  2. To analyze, through in-depth interviews, the intentions of the journalists involved.
  3. To to provide an overview of how the ecosystem of a platform like Substack may be transforming the practice of cultural journalism in Spain through microinfluencers who operate outside of mainstream social media.

 

Comment 3.  After the focus of the research is corrected, please, review the results, discussion and conclusions the refresh the text in the light of corrected focus - the information included in these parts is interesting and valuable, but it is possible that some restructuring and revision is necessary. 

Response 3. Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the focus of the research as indicated, and accordingly reviewed and updated the results, discussion, and conclusions. 

Comment 4. I did not found reference to Scolari's work in the text, otherwise the references, style and format is well done.

Response 4. We believe the reference may not have been identified because it was included indirectly. To avoid this confusion, we have rewritten the passage to make the reference more explicit.

Community has always mattered in digital media. As Carlos A. Scolari notes in Hipermediaciones, blogs first showed this (Scolari, 2008). They became spaces for shared reading and book recommendations (Driscoll, 2019; Foasberg, 2012).

Thank you very much for your kind words and encouraging assessment. We truly appreciate your endorsement of our work and your constructive suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this revised copy of the article. I believe that clarifying the geographic specificity of the article is a helpful addition, and overall I think there is great improvement to this article. At this stage I have only a few smaller recommendations. Firstly, I think that the clarification about translation could be put in the article itself, in the methods section, since the language of interviews and translation is in my mind a relevant part of how the research was conducted. 

Secondly, the authors in their response to my comment wrote: "To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no academic studies specifically focused on the Substack platform. We conducted a careful review of the existing literature and consulted with colleagues at U.S. universities to ensure we were not overlooking relevant work." However, an academic study specifically focused on Substack is cited in this article (Hewa & Cohen, 2025. Note that it is cited incorrectly as Hewa et al., 2025). This is of course only one article, which is why this article is an excited addition to a very recently emerging body of literature. However, given that there is a large body of literature on freelance writers, this existing literature could be further engaged with. How do the experiences of these writers in Spain differ from the mainly North American writers in the Hewa & Cohen study (that study, for example, also finds that journalists flock to Substack to escape the "noise" of social media)? How do their experiences differ from the experiences of freelance journalists or crowdfunding, as studied in research by e.g. Hunter & Di Bartolomeo, 2019; Hunter, 2015; Heft & Dogruel, 2019? There is a large body of work on various forms of journalism that arguably aren't so different from the kind of work being done on Substack, so the notion that Journalism Studies as a field has not paid attention to it risks being an overstatement. Again of course, all of these studies are Anglophone and North American, so this geographical and linguistic gap is certainly worth pointing out, but relevant scholarship exists on which to draw.

Thank you again for the revision, and I hope these comments are helpful!

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We truly appreciate your insights and recommendations.

Comments 1: Firstly, I think that the clarification about translation could be put in the article itself, in the methods section, since the language of interviews and translation is in my mind a relevant part of how the research was conducted. 

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that the translation clarification is important and we have included it in the methods section as follows:

“The in-depth interviews were conducted in Spanish, which is the language of both the interviewees and the authors of this research. For this article, the responses have been translated as faithfully as possible by the researchers themselves.”

Comments 2: Secondly, the authors in their response to my comment wrote: "To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no academic studies specifically focused on the Substack platform. We conducted a careful review of the existing literature and consulted with colleagues at U.S. universities to ensure we were not overlooking relevant work." However, an academic study specifically focused on Substack is cited in this article (Hewa & Cohen, 2025. Note that it is cited incorrectly as Hewa et al., 2025). This is of course only one article, which is why this article is an excited addition to a very recently emerging body of literature. However, given that there is a large body of literature on freelance writers, this existing literature could be further engaged with. How do the experiences of these writers in Spain differ from the mainly North American writers in the Hewa & Cohen study (that study, for example, also finds that journalists flock to Substack to escape the "noise" of social media)? How do their experiences differ from the experiences of freelance journalists or crowdfunding, as studied in research by e.g. Hunter & Di Bartolomeo, 2019; Hunter, 2015; Heft & Dogruel, 2019? There is a large body of work on various forms of journalism that arguably aren't so different from the kind of work being done on Substack, so the notion that Journalism Studies as a field has not paid attention to it risks being an overstatement. Again of course, all of these studies are Anglophone and North American, so this geographical and linguistic gap is certainly worth pointing out, but relevant scholarship exists on which to draw.

Response 2: We really appreciate your encouragement for the researchers to add nuance. We have removed the paragraph you mentioned and incorporated these considerations into the 'Limitations of the Study and Researchers’ Reflexivity' section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop