A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Mental Health of Journalists Reporting on War, Conflict and Terrorism: Gaps and Recommendations for Future Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

journalmedia--3712222: Investigating the Mental Health of Journalists Covering War and Conflict: A Review of the Current Literature and Recommendations for Future Scholars

The authors are commended for the extensive literature and elaborate thematic qualitative analysis of literature on mental health of journalists reporting war, conflict and terrorism. This manuscript contributes to literature on the psychological wellbeing of journalists in conflict/war reporting. The study unveiled substantial gaps in literature including absence of longitudinal studies and neurobiological approaches to trauma in journalism, and limited investigations of trauma among journalists in the Global South (particularly in Africa), informing the recommendations for future studies. Hence, the title could be amended to encapsulate this uniqueness of the manuscript.

My comments are as follows;

1. Suggested Title; Systematic Review of Literature on Mental Health of Journalists Reporting War, Conflict and Terrorism: Gaps and Recommendations for Future Studies

 

2. Abstract:

• Include the database/s from where articles were retrieved.

 

• 88 articles were said to have been used for analysis but the list of articles in Table 1 did not correspond to the number in Line 8.

 

• Capitalize all words in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and include abbreviation at first mention (PTSD). Abbreviations only could be used for subsequent mentions

 

3. Keywords: include conflict and war reporting.
4. Theoretical framework- Lines 58-59: provide reference for the statement “Within the realm of war journalism, these resources include physical safety, professional autonomy, economic security, and emotional welfare”.
5. Lines 82-85: there is confusion in this paragraph. You can use bullet points or numbering for better expression and comprehension.
6. Lines 154-155: delete the sentence- Danan et al. (2024) argued that mental health workers with previous trauma experience higher anxiety, acute stress, and media-induced secondary trauma. It is out of context.
7. Lines 169-171: provide reference for this statement “Depression rates among war journalists also surpass the general population averages, with Israeli journalists reporting higher somatic and anxiety-related distress than their Western counterparts”.
8. Line 193-195: Label as Ogunyemi & Price, 2023a; Ogunyemi & Price, 2023b.
9. Method: the author should include the number of articles retrieved at the initial search using the keywords and the number used for analysis after employing the inclusion criteria.
10. Line 203: the sub-head “Substance Use among Journalists Facing Trauma-Related” is incomplete. Add to conflict/war reporting.
11. Lines 217-226: should be moved to the section where prevalence of PTSD was discussed ealier.
12. Table one should be moved to the beginning of the results section where the articles used for analysis were described.
13. Avoid repetition. This sentence journalists who cover conflict zones exhibit psychological distress comparable to that of combat veterans was repeated countless times in the manuscript.
14. Proofread for typographic errors
15. Rearrange multiple citations in preceding order. For example 2011 should come before 2015.
16. Check the manuscripts for other comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1:  Systematic Review of Literature on Mental Health of Journalists Reporting War, Conflict and Terrorism: Gaps and Recommendations for Future Studies

Response: I adopted this topic, it suits the article better than the previous one

Comment 2: 88 articles were said to have been used for analysis but the list of articles in Table 1 did not correspond to the number in Line 8.

Response, it is an oversight, the total reviewed is 52, I addressed all the concerns in the work 

Response: All the other corrections were addressed accordingly in the work, which I attached here 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important and timely topic—journalists' mental health while reporting on war and conflict. The effort to synthesize existing research and provide guidance for future scholarship is commendable. However, several issues should be addressed to strengthen the clarity, methodological rigor, and comprehensiveness of the review.

1. Language and Grammar (p. 3, lines 107–108):

There are grammatical inaccuracies that need correction for better clarity. I recommend a thorough proofreading of the manuscript to ensure academic style and linguistic accuracy.

2. Methodology and Inclusion Criteria:

The methodology section lacks clarity. It is unclear by what criteria the reviewed articles were selected. Given the extensive academic coverage of journalists' mental health, the sample size and selection process need to be more explicitly described and justified. Additionally, the exclusion of major databases such as Web of Science raises concerns about the comprehensiveness of the literature review. This omission should be explained or rectified.

3. Lack of Clarification – for example, “Western Institutions” (p. 4, lines 130–131):

The phrase "Western institutions" is vague. It would be helpful to specify which institutions are meant (e.g., universities, media organizations, funding bodies?) and provide examples to support the claim. 

4. Regional Imbalance and Need for Conflict-Zone Context:

While the study correctly notes the imbalance in geographical focus, it misses an important distinction: the location of the conflict zones in which journalists operate is crucial. The mental health effects may differ significantly depending on the intensity, duration, and nature of the conflict. Simply grouping journalists by origin may obscure important contextual differences.

5. Absence of Coverage of Journalists in Ukraine:

A major omission is the lack of discussion regarding journalists covering the war in Ukraine, which has been ongoing since 2022 and involves substantial engagement from both Ukrainian and international (especially Western) journalists. This is a critical case that should be considered, especially given its relevance, longevity, and visibility in global media. Its absence weakens the review’s claim to be up to date and comprehensive. A substantial body of literature exists on the psychological challenges faced by journalists covering the Russian-Ukrainian war, yet none of these studies are referenced in the review.

6. Table 1 – Lack of Representation of Ukraine Coverage:

Table 1 similarly omits studies or data on journalists reporting from Ukraine. Considering the significance of this conflict in recent years, it is strongly recommended to include relevant works.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are grammatical inaccuracies that need correction for better clarity. I recommend a thorough proofreading of the manuscript to ensure linguistic accuracy.

Author Response

Comment 1:Language and Grammar (p. 3, lines 107–108)

Response: I addressed it 

Comment 2: Methodology and Inclusion Criteria

Response: I rewrote the entire part and addressed all the issues raised 

Response: All other issues raised in the paper were addressed accordingly. I attached the paper here 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript in its present form makes an important contribution by collating a large body of work, but substantial revisions are needed before it can meet publication standards. An essential first step is to decide unambiguously whether the article is intended as a systematic review, a scoping review, or a narrative synthesis. Once that decision is made, every section, from the abstract through the discussion, should follow the conventions of the chosen review type. For example, a systematic review must present a reproducible search strategy, whereas a narrative synthesis may justifiably adopt more flexible, illustrative methods.

Transparency is a second critical requirement. Readers must be able to trace exactly how each study entered the corpus. This means providing full Boolean search strings, naming every database consulted, stating any language or date limits, specifying the calendar date on which the final search was run, and supplying a PRISMA-2020 flow diagram that discloses record counts at every screening stage. A supplementary spreadsheet or comma-separated file listing every included study, along with its key characteristics, will greatly improve credibility.

Current inconsistencies in the dataset also need attention. The text refers to eighty-eight studies, yet Table 1 shows roughly forty unique entries, some of which appear twice. Also, the table name is a bit weird / cut off. All duplicates should be removed, and the headline study count should match the tables, the in-text tallies, and the reference list. With the corpus settled, the next priority is to conduct a formal quality or risk-of-bias assessment using a recognised tool such as JBI or Newcastle-Ottawa. Summarising these ratings in a dedicated table and, where appropriate, performing sensitivity analyses that down-weight high-risk studies will help readers judge the strength of the evidence.

If prevalence figures are to be pooled, they should be synthesised with an explicit random-effects meta-analysis. Effect sizes, confidence intervals and heterogeneity statistics must accompany any pooled estimate so that the robustness of the findings is transparent. If heterogeneity is too great to justify pooling, the narrative should say so plainly and report individual study figures alongside their denominators, allowing readers to verify the calculations. Regardless of whether a meta-analysis is performed, data presentation will benefit from a single master table that lists author, year, country, sample size, participant type, design, outcome measures, main results and risk-of-bias rating. Graphic elements such as a PRISMA diagram will make the findings more accessible.

Interpretation of results should be calibrated to the strength of the evidence. Comparisons with combat veterans, police officers or other occupational groups are persuasive only if based on identical measurement tools and sampling frames. Where such equivalence is absent, the paper must either adjust statistically or adopt more cautious language. The discussion should return explicitly to the three theoretical lenses: Conservation of Resources, Organisational Support Theory and Trauma Risk Management and show how the empirical patterns confirm, refine or challenge those models. The conclusion could propose two or three concrete, theory-derived hypotheses that future investigators might test.

Although literature reviews do not involve, an ethics statement and a data-availability statement would be useful. A brief note explaining that ethical approval was unnecessary and pointing readers to the deposited search log, extraction sheet and analysis code will suffice.

The reference list needs both pruning and expansion. At present it relies heavily on one research group and duplicates several entries. Removing duplicates, correcting typographical errors, and bringing in large-scale industry surveys (for example, the International Federation of Journalists’ 2024 mental-health survey) and recent meta-analyses on moral injury and newsroom resilience will create a more balanced scholarly foundation. All inclusion and exclusion criteria should then be applied consistently. If opinion pieces and editorials fall outside the empirical scope, they should be removed; if the authors wish to retain them, they should re-label the article as a scoping review and explain the decision.

Finally, prose refinement will improve readability. Redundant sentences can be trimmed, tense usage made consistent, and multiple citations of the same source in a single paragraph consolidated. Acronyms such as TRiM and OST should be spelled out the first time they appear, and columns in tables should be clearly labelled and logically ordered.

With these revisions: a greater methodological transparency, corrected dataset inconsistencies, rigorous risk-of-bias appraisal, strengthened quantitative synthesis, balanced referencing and polished prose, the manuscript will be well positioned to serve as a robust and authoritative resource in the field.

Author Response

Response: All the issues raised in the paper were addressed accordingly. I attached it to this platform

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved, and the theoretical framework has been strengthened. However, comment 5 from the reviewer has not been addressed, and comment 6 has only been partially taken into account. Specifically, only one additional article mentioning Ukraine has been added. Moreover, in the table, it is inaccurately stated that there is a “conflict” in Ukraine, rather than a war, which does not appropriately reflect the current situation.

Author Response

Comment: However, comment 5 from the reviewer has not been addressed, and comment 6 has only been partially taken into account.

Response: I rewrote the section that Comment 5 is talking about for better expression and flow of the article, as you requested me to do. 

Comment:  Specifically, only one additional article mentioning Ukraine has been added. Moreover, in the table, it is inaccurately stated that there is a “conflict” in Ukraine, rather than a war, which does not appropriately reflect the current situation.

Response: It was an oversight, but I addressed it in this corrected version of the article 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper makes powerful points by citing prevalence rates of PTSD and comparing them to combat veterans. These comparisons would be even more robust if you briefly used more cautious phrasing, as the measurement tools in the underlying studies may differ.

 "Of the articles that met the inclusion criteria, 42% of which 88 articles focused primarily on PTSD...". This sentence is grammatically incorrect.

The rest of the issues were mostly addressed.

Author Response

Comment: "Of the articles that met the inclusion criteria, 42% of which 88 articles focused primarily on PTSD...". This sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Response: I rewrote the sentence for a more grammatically correct expression. Also, I addressed some of the issues that will make it flow in a coherent form. I attached the corrected version of the paper  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf