Strategic Communication: Journalists’ Role Amid the Rise in Digital Influencers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions:
The manuscript addresses a timely and important topic at the intersection of journalism and strategic communication in the era of digital influencers. The theoretical framework is well articulated, drawing on relevant literature in media relations and gatekeeping theory. The research design, combining survey data with qualitative interviews, is appropriate and effectively executed.
The arguments are coherent and supported by recent empirical findings, and the discussion demonstrates a deep understanding of the evolving dynamics between journalists and influencers. The manuscript is well-structured, and the results are contextualised in both global and regional (Portuguese) media environments.
Only minor revisions are recommended:
- Consider expanding the conclusion to include more practical implications for communication practitioners.
- While the referencing is strong, a few more recent sources from 2024 could enhance the timeliness of the discussion.
- Ensure full alignment between the research questions and the structure of the discussion section to facilitate easier navigation for readers.
Overall, this is a solid and original contribution to the field and deserves publication after minor revisions.
Author Response
Comment 1: Consider expanding the conclusion to include more practical implications for communication practitioners.
Response 1: “This reconfiguration aligns with the description provided by GT, which has evolved from positioning journalists as exclusive custodians of information to recognising a more complex, distributed process involving multiple human and non-human actors, as we mentioned in the theoretical framework. For communication professionals, this shift requires strategies that navigate an ecosystem where influence is shared across multiple gatekeepers. While the human filter of journalism remains essential for ensuring credibility, accountability, and transparency, and DIs introduce new layers of mediation that organisations must strategically manage. Although both journalists and DIs are described as opinion makers, their functions diverge: journalists are situated within the realm of strategic reputation management, serving as allies of organisations in upholding transparency and the public interest, whereas DIs are more closely associated with entertainment-oriented content, marketing objectives, and consumer behaviour." (Page: 12 and 13; Paragraph 9 from, page 12; Lines: 426 to 437). Following the revision proposal, we have complemented the conclusion by highlighting the implications of the study for communication professionals, as well as for the theoretical framework of the research.
Comment 2: While the referencing is strong, a few more recent sources from 2024 could enhance the timeliness of the discussion
Response 2: Following the suggestion, we added 3 more recent sources (Durani, 2024; Voinea, 2025; Sobreira & Arriscado, 2025). (Page: 12 and 13; Paragraph 9, from page 12; Lines: 426 to 437).
Comment 3: Ensure full alignment between the research questions and the structure of the discussion section to facilitate easier navigation for readers.
Response 3: Following the proposal, we added the first question on the discussion. (Page: 10; Paragraph 2 from Discussion; Lines: 324 and 325). And, if we understand the suggestion, we consider that the second question is present in the discussion, albeit with a different formulation: The second guiding question of this study (“Are communication professionals replacing journalists with DIs?) ought to determine whether communication professionals, in their efforts to disseminate content, are replacing journalists with DIs.”). (Page: 11; Paragraph 2 from Page 11; Lines: 339 and 341).
We are grateful for the valuable suggestions and thoughtful evaluation of our article, and we hope that our revisions have met expectations and addressed the proposals put forward.
We are attaching the revised manuscript, which incorporates the changes suggested by the different reviewers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents an interesting analysis of strategic communication and the role of journalists in the context of the rise of digital influencers. The topic is timely and deserves to be investigated adequately from a scientific point of view. However, the author(s) need to work on the following aspects:
- The introduction should clearly state the aim and main objectives of the study. The author(s) should expand the introduction to make it do its expected role.
- Poor attempts were made to connect the study to existing literature. The author(s) should clary capture the gap and link their attempts to previous investigations.
- What is referred to as “Theoretical Framework” as presented in the paper is just a hanging phrase. The theory on which this study is based is not sufficiently comprehensive and clear. The authors should rewrite this section to include a particular theory, its propositions and how such propositions drive the study. Also, the author(s) should explain more about the concepts mentioned (e.g. journalistic attributes, influencer marketing, digital influencer, sponsored content etc.)
- The methodology is not comprehensive enough to give the reader a clear picture of how the data was collected. The authors should explain how they arrived at the number of communication professionals who responded to the questionnaire; the selection procedure; the justification for choosing a certain number of professionals from companies, public organizations, or agencies; and how many refused to respond to the questionnaire.
- Also, the role of the two interviews should be explained more clearly. If they had been conducted before the questionnaire was developed, it might have been clearer that journalists and DIs are not competitors and do not perform similar roles, so perhaps the research questions would have been different. The academic and social relevance of the research is only weakly substantiated. Is this methodology sufficient for the intended purpose, or perhaps other methods are needed?
- For me, the article has an important limitation: the author(s) do not correctly distinguish between the different roles of journalists and DIs. The author(s) cover the role of journalists very superficially and fail to mention one of the most important studies aimed at defining the role of journalists, namely the Journalistic Performance Role (https://www.journalisticperformance.org/). I consider this to be an important shortcoming of the article.
Author Response
Comment 1: The introduction should clearly state the aim and main objectives of the study. The author(s) should expand the introduction to make it do its expected role.
Response 1: “The purpose of the investigation is to analyze the perceptions of communication professionals regarding this transformation. Specifically, it seeks to address two core objectives: (1) to understand the respective roles attributed to journalists and DIs in strategic communication; and (2) to assess whether communication professionals are replacing journalists with DIs in their strategic choices.” (Page: 2; Paragraph 3; Lines: 56 to 61). We complement the introduction with the two core objectives of this research.
Comment 2: Poor attempts were made to connect the study to existing literature. The author(s) should clary capture the gap and link their attempts to previous investigations.
Response 2: “The genesis of this article lies in the research gap identified through journalistic chronicles (Pereira, 2016; Oliveira, 2019; Tashijan, 2023), which address the rise of DIs and their impact on media relations. While the relationship between organisations and the media has been historically grounded, and the emergence of DIs has increasingly attracted academic attention, little has been said about the implications of their coexistence within the strategic communication practices of organisations and brands, which can be framed within the broader debate on the evolution of Gatekeeping Theory (GT).” (Page: 1 and 2; Paragraph 2, from Introduction; Lines: 39 to 45). Following the review, we classified the gap that motivated this research and integrated it into the scope of the GT research.
Comment 3: What is referred to as “Theoretical Framework” as presented in the paper is just a hanging phrase. The theory on which this study is based is not sufficiently comprehensive and clear. The authors should rewrite this section to include a particular theory, its propositions and how such propositions drive the study. Also, the author(s) should explain more about the concepts mentioned (e.g. journalistic attributes, influencer marketing, digital influencer, sponsored content etc.)
Response 3: “From a theoretical standpoint, the continued relevance of GT has been increasingly debated in light of the digital environment, where anyone can create, publish, and share content. The central question is whether GT, once instrumental in framing the role of mass media in the public sphere, remains adequate to explain the influence of new communicative actors such as DIs and algorithms. Traditionally, GT positioned journalists as the primary custodians of information, controlling what entered the public sphere and shaping how social reality was framed. Yet this paradigm has become insufficient to capture the complexity of news selection, distribution, and interpretation in the digital era. Wallace (2018) shows that journalists no longer hold a monopoly over gatekeeping, as DIs, platforms, and algorithms play decisive roles in shaping visibility, legitimacy, and engagement. Durani (2024) also highlights non-institutional actors, including prosumers and online communities, who actively influence how information is framed and circulated. Voinea (2025) advocates for a reconceptualization of GT in the era of artificial intelligence, where algorithms and automated recommendation systems serve as opaque yet powerful gatekeepers. Collectively, these contributions illustrate a profound transformation. Gatekeeping has shifted from a linear process dominated by journalists to a multidirectional, hybrid, and contested practice shaped by multiple human and non-human actors. Against this backdrop, it becomes relevant to examine both the historical relationship between journalists and organisations and the rise of DIs as new players in strategic communication.” (Page: 2; Paragraph 1, from Theoretical Framework; Lines: 66 to 86). Following the review, we present the seminal principles of GT and update the references. Concerning the suggestion “to explain more about the concepts mentioned (e.g. journalistic attributes, influencer marketing, digital influencer, sponsored content etc.)”, we chose to focus exclusively on those concepts directly relevant to the scope of the investigation, thereby avoiding unnecessary digressions and respecting the keywords identified at the beginning of the article.
Comment 4: The methodology is not comprehensive enough to give the reader a clear picture of how the data was collected. The authors should explain how they arrived at the number of communication professionals who responded to the questionnaire; the selection procedure; the justification for choosing a certain number of professionals from companies, public organizations, or agencies; and how many refused to respond to the questionnaire.
Response 4: “Participants were explicitly selected based on our knowledge of their experience for this investigation and within the context of our professional network. Accordingly, each prospective participant was first approached by telephone, in person, or via email to emphasize the importance of their contribution. A total of 24 communication professionals, from 30 identified (…).” (Page: 4 and 5; Paragraph 2, from Methods; Lines: 188 to 191). We respectfully take a different view from the review proposal and have therefore included a clarification regarding participant selection and the composition of the sample population. Participants were selected based on their professional experience rather than the organisations they were affiliated with at the time. This information is now clearly presented according to the characteristics of the sample.
Comment 5: Also, the role of the two interviews should be explained more clearly. If they had been conducted before the questionnaire was developed, it might have been clearer that journalists and DIs are not competitors and do not perform similar roles, so perhaps the research questions would have been different. The academic and social relevance of the research is only weakly substantiated. Is this methodology sufficient for the intended purpose, or perhaps other methods are needed?.
Response 5: As indicated in the article, the two face-to-face interviews conducted after the questionnaire were intentionally designed to deepen and complement its results. The questions, both in the survey and in the interviews, were carefully formulated, and in the case of the interviews, they explicitly built on the analysis of the questionnaire findings. From a methodological standpoint, because our objective was to understand the phenomenon through the perceptions of corporate professionals, we consider the use of qualitative methods to be the most appropriate. At the same time, we acknowledge their inherent limitations and recognise the potential of quantitative approaches for future studies with different objectives.
Comment 6: For me, the article has an important limitation: the author(s) do not correctly distinguish between the different roles of journalists and DIs. The author(s) cover the role of journalists very superficially and fail to mention one of the most important studies aimed at defining the role of journalists, namely the Journalistic Performance Role (https://www.journalisticperformance.org/). I consider this to be an important shortcoming of the article.
Response 6: We respectfully note that the purpose of our study is not to define the role of journalists from the perspective of journalism studies, but rather to examine their relevance in light of the rise of digital influencers, specifically within the framework of strategic communication. In our view, a detailed analysis of journalistic roles, such as those outlined in the Journalistic Performance Role, would constitute a separate line of inquiry situated in a different research field. Regarding the distinction between journalists and digital influencers, we consider this to have been adequately addressed, particularly in the discussion and conclusion sections, where participants themselves emphasize the importance of journalists within strategic communication practices. Accordingly, while the suggested source is valuable within journalism studies, our investigation is situated in the domains of strategic communication, media relations, and public relations.
We sincerely thank the reviewer(s) for all comments and suggestions for improvement. We trust that the revisions made, together with our explanations, sufficiently contribute to strengthening this article. We remain available for any further clarification if needed.
We are attaching the revised manuscript, which incorporates the changes suggested by the different reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for allowing me to review this manuscript again.
I have carefully read the current version of the article and appreciate the authors' efforts to improve the manuscript compared to the previous version. It is clear that some of the comments received in the first round of review have been incorporated, improving the content and bringing greater clarity. For me, however, the article has a significant limitation in terms of research methods, and I find the research results unremarkable. Although the authors have included clarifications regarding participant selection and sample composition, they provide very few details about the questionnaire used. The questions in the questionnaire appear to be quite similar to the research questions. In the case of the interviews, the authors did not specify how they selected the two participants and did not provide details about the interview guide. It is unclear how the interview data was analyzed, what method of interpretation was used, and so on.
Recommendations for improvement:
• Provide a more explicit description of the questionnaire content.
• Clarify the selection criteria for the two participants interviewed and justify their selection (why only two, why these two in particular).
• Explain in more detail the analysis method used to interpret the responses.
Author Response
Comment 1: Provide a more explicit description of the questionnaire content.
Response 1: “The questionnaire was structured into three main sections. Following an initial section dedicated to characterizing the sample, the second section focused on the relationship between brands and journalists, comprising questions designed to explore the nature and perceived importance of this relationship, as well as the contribution of journalists’ work to organizations, based on participants’ experiences and perceptions. The third section of the questionnaire applied the same analytical framework to assess the perceived relevance and contribution of DIs.“ (Page: 4 and 5; Paragraph 3, from Methodology; Lines: 185 to 192). We complement the methodological description by adding specific details about the questions that compose the questionnaire.
Comment 2: Clarify the selection criteria for the two participants interviewed and justify their selection (why only two, why these two in particular).
Response 2: ”The selection of participants for the interviews followed the same criteria that guided the sampling of respondents to the questionnaire. Given that two distinct types of organizations were involved, each adopting different approaches in their interactions with journalists, two interviewees were purposefully chosen. One represented an in-house media relations department, responsible for promoting the organization, while the other represented a specialized agency providing media relations services.“ (Page: 5; Paragraph 2, from methodology; Lines: 204 to 209). The decision to include only two interviewees was deliberate, as the objective was not to ensure statistical representativeness but to capture contrasting perspectives from both organizational contexts. This comparative approach allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play, while ensuring alignment with the exploratory and qualitative nature of this component of the study
Comment 3: Explain in more detail the analysis method used to interpret the responses.
Response 3: “The content analysis followed the approach outlined by Bardin (2011), which enabled the interpretation of responses and facilitated the identification of categories, patterns, and meanings within the collected material. The procedure was structured in three conventional stages: (i) pre-analysis, consisting of a preliminary and compre-hensive reading of the corpus to gain overall familiarity with the data and to organize the material for subsequent analysis; (ii) exploration of the material, during which re-sponses were coded — Identification Code in database (IC) — and context units were categorized according to both predefined objectives and themes emerging inductively from the material; and (iii) treatment and interpretation of the results, where the coded data were organized into analytical categories, allowing for the identification of regu-larities, as well as convergences, divergences, and complementarities among partici-pants. At this stage, particular emphasis was placed on preserving participants’ direct speech, thereby bringing the richness of their 'voices' to the center of the analysis and preserving the uniqueness of their reported experiences. This methodological choice, grounded in Bardin (2011), Demo (2001), and Kleinheksel et al. (2020), proved ade-quate for capturing perceptions and statements, as it allowed qualitative data to be systematized rigorously and interpretatively, while maintaining the depth and integrity of the original content.” (Page: 5; Last paragraph from methodology; Lines: 215 to 231). We acknowledge the pertinence of the suggestion and have accordingly expanded the section to include further detail on the procedures undertaken for data analysis and interpretation.
We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive suggestions offered. We are confident that the revisions made address all concerns and align with the expectations of both the reviewer and the journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for allowing me to revise this manuscript again.
This version is improved compared to the previous one, and I noted that the authors provided rigorous responses to all the comments made during the previous evaluation stage. The amendments made to the manuscript improve the content and bring greater clarity. I have no other comments or suggestions regarding the content of this manuscript.
