Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Exploring Gamification in Online Journalism: Perspectives from Media Owners Through Interviews

Journal. Media 2025, 6(3), 151; https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6030151

by Maria I. Klouvidaki^1,*

, Nikos Antonopoulos², Ioanna Kostarella³

and Stelios Tsafarakis¹

Reviewer 1:

Gregory P. Perreault

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4:

Peter Tiako Ngangum

Journal. Media 2025, 6(3), 151; https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6030151

Submission received: 5 June 2025 / Revised: 27 August 2025 / Accepted: 3 September 2025 / Published: 12 September 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with “Exploring Gamification in Online Journalism.” Broadly, I think this is a promising paper that just requires a few elements to go from a good paper to a great one.

First and most importantly, the paper as it is currently set up does not offer an explicit conceptual theoretical framework. (Note: the authors flag “uses and gratifications” but this is most commonly employed quantitatively and by consumers/audience not by media producers). This would seem to be a great opportunity to employ Normalization Process Theory which is about integration just like this. Some great work by Perreault, Ferrucci, Hanusch and Belair-Gagnon on just this sort of integration. Original framework by May & Finch. You may also want to see Vos and Perreault’s piece on gamification

Vos, T. P., & Perreault, G. P. (2020). The discursive construction of the gamification of journalism. Convergence, 26(3), 470-485.

And here’s one of the May & Finch pieces:

May, C., Finch, T., & Rapley, T. (2020). Normalization process theory. In Handbook on implementation science (pp. 144-167). Edward Elgar Publishing.

It’s a great framework originally from the health sciences that’s found meaningful employment in our field. This is important because the discussion currently land a bit practically—not a problem!—but without offering the authors to make a strong conceptual contribution.

Second, the method section notes that the authored employed quantitative content analysis to explore the hypotheses, but there’s a mismatch between a hypotheses and the method (interviews). I see one research question, which seems to flag a *qualitative* approach: “Do media owners and editors-in-chief perceive gamification as a viable tool for enhancing user experience and engagement, or do they view it as a fleeting 79 trend with limited impact? “ Over all this is a good research question! Perhaps would be better as “How do media owners and editors in chief etc. etc” Quantitative analysis also doesn’t seem to reflect what the authors did in any case given the emphasis on semistructured interviews.

I’m not the sure that the hypotheses offered can be answered by the study—can we know what participants believed? We can know what they said they believed

Third, great point in the discussion: “However, this research contributes novel value by focusing specifically on the perspectives of media owners and editors-in-chief—a stakeholder group that is often overlooked in gamification research, which tends to prioritize users or developers”—this is absolutely true. Let’s set this up! Is there any research on newsroom leaders and tech employment that could be integrated here?

I hope this helps the authors as they revise the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1:

Vos, T. P., & Perreault, G. P. (2020). The discursive construction of the gamification of journalism. Convergence, 26(3), 470-485.

And here’s one of the May & Finch pieces:

May, C., Finch, T., & Rapley, T. (2020). Normalization process theory. In Handbook on implementation science (pp. 144-167). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Response:

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study employs Normalization Process Theory (NTP) as its primary conceptual framework to examine how media owners and editors-in-chief perceive and consider integrating gamification within their journalistic practices. NPT was originally developed to analyze the implementation of complex interventions in healthcare settings, but its applicability has expanded to a wide range of organizational contexts where new practices or technologies must become embedded in routine work [44]. In journalism studies, NPT has been recognized as a valuable lens for understanding how innovations are normalized within newsroom cultures, beyond simple adoption decisions [45]. It emphasizes the processual and relational work required to make new practices meaningful, sustainable, and collectively enacted. This especially relevant given that much prior research on gamification in journalism has focused primarily on user experience design or audience reception [20], [21], often neglecting the organizational and managerial dynamics that shape its adoption. NPT comprises four interrelated constructs that guide analysis: Coherence: The sense-making work by which stakeholders understand and define the innovation. Cognitive participation: The operational work to engage others and secure buy-in. Collective Action: The operational work of integrating the innovation into existing routines and systems. Reflexive Monitoring: The appraisal work of evaluating and adapting the innovation over time. Applying NPT in this study allows for an in-depth exploration of how media owners and editors-in-chief interpret gamification’s purpose, mobilize support, manage its practical implementation and assess its value. This is crucial because gamification is not merely a set of design features but a strategic choice with implications for editorial values, audience relationships, and organizational identity [41]. Moreover, as journalism increasingly engages with emerging technologies -including artificial intelligence and advanced analytics- understanding how innovations are normalized within professional cultures has become an urgent question [42]. NPT offers a systematic way to examine not only whether media leaders see gamification as beneficial but also how they conceptualize it role, anticipate challenges, and evaluate its alignment with their editorial mission. By adopting this framework, the study responds to calls in the literature to move beyond surface-level adoption metrics and to investigate the underlying organizational processes that shape how technological innovations are interpreted, enacted and institutionalized in newsrooms [44], [45]. This approach helps illuminate the complex balance that media owners and editors-in-chief must strike between engaging audiences through gamified features and upholding core professional and ethical standards.

REFERENCES

Regalado, F., Vale Costa, L., Martins, F., & Veloso, A. I. (2021). Gamifying online news in a senior online community: insights from designing and assessing the readers’ experience. Social Sciences, 10(12), 463.
Khosrawi-Rad, B., Borchers, A., Grogorick, L., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2023, October). Design Principles for Gamified Pedagogical Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (pp. 67-82).
AL-Kaabi, R. (2024). Factors affecting citizen engagement in the kingdom of bahrain through gamification. International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems, 16(1), 827-849.
Donald, N. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT press.
Mushtaq, N., Nazeer, N., Fayaz, I., & Gulzar, F. (2025). Next-Gen Learning: Gamifications impact on higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 1-27.
Bitrián Arcas, P., Buil Carrasco, M. I., & Catalán Gil, S. Analysing the effectiveness of gamification: a strategy to create engaging, motivating and enjoyable user experiences.
Kerrigan, F., & Preece, C. (2022). Marketing the Arts. Taylor and Francis.
Arnab, S. (2020). Game science in hybrid learning spaces. Routledge.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002(December), 2.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikzentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 1990, p. 1). New York: Harper & Row.
Li, Z., Shi, D., Gao, Q., Chen, Y., Wang, N., & Ren, X. (2025, April). Effects of Information Widgets on Time Perception during Mentally Demanding Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-20).
Lamprou, E., Antonopoulos, N., Anomeritou, I., & Apostolou, C. (2021). Characteristics of fake news and misinformation in Greece: The rise of new crowdsourcing-based journalistic fact-checking models. Journalism and Media, 2(3), 417–439. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia2030025
Karyotakis, M., Lamprou, E., Kiourexidou, M., & Antonopoulos, N. (2019). SEO Practices: A Study about the Way News Websites Allow the Users to Comment on Their News Articles. Future Internet, 11(9), 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11090188
Lampropoulos, G., Keramopoulos, E., Diamantaras, K., & Evangelidis, G. (2023). Integrating augmented reality, gamification, and serious games in computer science education. Education Sciences, 13(6), 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060618
de Sousa Borges, S., Durelli, V. H., Reis, H. M., & Isotani, S. (2014, March). A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education. In Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 216-222).
Macey, J., Adam, M., Hamari, J., & Benlian, A. (2025). Examining the commonalities and differences between gamblification and gamification: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(7), 4067-4080.
Gegenfurtner, A., & Kollar, I. (Eds.). (2025). Designing Effective Digital Learning Environments. Routledge.
Santos, J. (2025). Emerging Paradigms in Non-Profit Governance: A Comprehensive Analysis of Disruptive Innovations. In New Trends for the Governance of Non-Profit Organizations (pp. 1-86). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
Antonopoulos, N., Veglis, A., Gardikiotis, A., Kotsakis, R., & Kalliris, G. (2015). Web Third-person effect in structural aspects of the information on media websites. Computers in human behavior, 44, 48-58.
Karyotakis, M. A., Antonopoulos, N. I. K. O. S., Veglis, A. N. D. R. E. A. S., & Kiourexidou, M. A. T. I. N. A. (2018). Tourist go home: Communication and Propaganda on YouTube. Journal of Media Critiques, 4(14), 323-337.
Bogost, I. (2015). Why gamification is bullshit. The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications, 65, 65-79.
Hickman, T. (2010). Reeves, B., & Read, JL (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses. Harvard Business School Press.
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2016). Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamify
Su, L. Y. F., Akin, H., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2015). Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(3), 597-616.
Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in human behavior, 29(2), 345-353.
Foxman, M. (2015). Play the news: Fun and games in digital journalism. Columbia Journalism School.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".
Hofacker, C. F., De Ruyter, K., Lurie, N. H., Manchanda, P., & Donaldson, J. (2016). Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 34(1), 25-36.
Carroll, J. M. (2003). Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. MIT press.
Gross, T. (2014, June). Human-computer interaction education and diversity. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interactio
Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 57(4), 504-525.
McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's mass communication theory. Sage publications.
Hassan, L. (2017). Governments should play games: Towards a framework for the gamification of civic engagement platforms. Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 249-267.
Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. Gamification in education and business, 1-20.
Yang, Y., Yu, A., Li, J., Shafi, M., & Fauzi, M. A. (2024). Exploring the impact of gamified elements on college students' learning in virtual learning communities. Kybernetes.
Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2017). Gamification: a systematic review of design frameworks. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29, 516-548.
Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. S., & Bright, L. (2008). Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content. Journal of interactive advertising, 8(2), 16-25.
Paavilainen, J., Hamari, J., Stenros, J., & Kinnunen, J. (2013). Social network games: Players’ perspectives. Simulation & Gaming, 44(6), 794-820.
Palla, Z., & Kostarella, I. (2025). Journalists’ Perspectives on the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Quality Journalism in Greek Local Media. Societies, 15(4), 89.
Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of general psychology, 14(2), 154-166.
Sonni, A. F., Putri, V. C. C., & Irwanto, I. (2024). Bibliometric and content analysis of the scientific work on artificial intelligence in journalism. Journalism and Media, 5(2), 787-798.
Li, F., & Wang, H. (2025). Unveiling the Mechanics of AI Adoption in Journalism: A Multi-Factorial Exploration of Expectation Confirmation, Knowledge Management, and Sustainable Use. Journalism and Media, 6(2), 65.
May, C., Finch, T., & Rapley, T. (2020). Normalization process theory. In Handbook on implementation science (pp. 144-167). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Vos, T. P., & Perreault, G. P. (2020). The discursive construction of the gamification of journalism. Convergence, 26(3), 470-485.
Ferrucci, P. (2022). Joining the team: Metajournalistic discourse, paradigm repair, the athletic and sports journalism practice. Journalism Practice, 16(10), 2064-2082.
Bogost, I., Ferrari, S., & Schweizer, B. (2010). Newsgames: Journalism at play. Mit Press.
Foxman, M. (2015). Play the news: Fun and games in digital journalism. Columbia Journalism School.
Dowling, D. O. (2020). The gamification of digital journalism: innovation in journalistic storytelling. Routledge.
Allan, S. (Ed.). (2010). The Routledge companion to news and journalism. London: Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101

Commment 2:

Response:

Materials and methods

This study employed a qualitative research design, using semi-structured interviews to explore in depth the perceptions and experiences of media owners and editors-in-chief regarding gamification in online journalism. A qualitative approach was selected to capture the richness and complexity of participants’ interpretations and to allow for the emergence of nuanced themes that structures surveys might overlook.

Sampling and Participants
Ten interviews were conducted with owners and editors-in-chief from regional media outlets in Greece, representing diverse formats including newspapers, radio stations, television channels, and online news platforms. Particopants were selected to reflect varied perspectives across different media types and geographical regions.

Data Collection
The interviews were semi-structured, consisting of 13 open-ended questions designed to encourage reflective and detailed responses. Topics included participants’ familiarity with gamification, their evaluations of specific gamified elements, perceptions of user engagement and experience and views on administrative features. Interviews were conducted in person or remotely between August and October 2024, lasting 20-45 minutes each. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymized to ensure confidentiality in accordance with ethical guidelines. Data Analysis Transcribed interviews were imported into NVivo 12.2 software for systematic coding and thematic analysis. Coding was conducted both inductively allowing themes to emerge from participants’ own words and deductively, guided by the constructs of Normalization Process Theory. Themes were examined in relation to how participants made sense of gamification (coherence), engaged others (cognitive participation), operationalized strategies (collective action) [51] and evaluated their effectiveness (reflexive monitoring). Thia analytic approach enabled a structured, yet flexible interpretation of the complex organizational work involved in adopting gamification.
To ensure trustworthiness, several strategies were employed. Member checking was conducted by inviting participants to review summarized interpretations of their responses. An audit trail was maintained documenting coding decisions. Reflexive notes were kept throughout to interrogate researcher assumptions. Ethical considerations included informed consent, confidentially, and voluntary participation.

Ethical Consideration

This research adhered to recognized ethical guidelines for qualitative studies involving human participants. All participants provided informed consent and were assured of their right to withdraw at any time. To protect confidentiality, personal identifiers and specific news outlet names have been removed from the reported findings. Instead, participants are referred to using anonymized codes (P1-P10), and outlets are described by general type (e.g., newspaper, online news platform, radio station) and region ( e.g., Crete, Athens) without naming them. These steps ensured that participants’ identities and organizational affiliations could not be directly linked to their responses, thereby upholding their privacy and minimizing any potential risk.

Comment 3:

I’m not the sure that the hypotheses offered can be answered by the study—can we know what participants believed? We can know what they said they believed

I hope this helps the authors as they revise the manuscript.

Response:

Discussion

The findings of this study reveal that media owners and editors-in-chief generally perceive gamification as a promising and strategic approach for enhancing user engagement and enriching the digital news experience. This perception reflects a growing recognition of the need to adapt traditional journalistic practices to the interactive and participatory dynamics of contemporary digital media landscapes. Specifically, key gamification features—such as point collection systems, leaderboards, popular hashtags, the “saved” function, and interactive mechanisms like “like/dislike” options and news sharing—emerged as particularly effective in capturing user interest and sustaining interaction. These elements were consistently highlighted by participants as contributing positively to audience retention and satisfaction. This finding aligns with prior empirical work by [7], who emphasized that point-based reward systems and leaderboard rankings serve as powerful extrinsic motivators in digital platforms, effectively driving sustained user behavior and fostering loyalty over time. Likewise, the conclusions drawn by [1] support the present study’s observations, noting that gamified news experiences—especially those incorporating interactive features like quizzes, badges, and feedback loops—not only enhance the perceived enjoyment of users but also significantly bolster community engagement and content consumption patterns within digital news ecosystems. Nevertheless, the qualitative analysis also uncovered a more critical stance toward certain gamification elements that were perceived as less impactful or even misaligned with the expectations and informational goals of users. Features such as crossword puzzles and educational tools focused on misinformation, or “fake news” were deemed of limited utility by several participants. These findings echo the work of [3], who pointed out that the effectiveness of gamified features is closely tied to their contextual relevance and perceived value from the user's standpoint. When content appears disconnected from users’ primary motivations—such as seeking timely, credible information—its ability to foster meaningful engagement diminishes considerably. Entertainment elements, while beneficial in light settings, may clash with the perceived seriousness or credibility expected in a news context. Another notable theme that emerged from the interviews was the generally low awareness of the term “gamification” among participants, despite their familiarity with and appreciation for individual game-like features. While respondents could clearly identify and evaluate specific elements—such as points or rankings—they often lacked a formal understanding of the overarching concept. This finding resonates with the conclusions of [9], who argue that many professionals working in traditional media structures may encounter or even deploy gamified systems without possessing the theoretical vocabulary or digital literacy to contextualize their usage. This gap suggests a potential area for future training or professional development initiatives aimed at media stakeholders, particularly as digital transformation accelerates within the news industry. An additional point of interest was the cautious stance adopted by participants regarding monetization strategies embedded within gamified environments. While many acknowledged the potential of features like “buying packages to collect points” as tools for both engagement and revenue generation, several expressed concerns about over-commercialization. These concerns primarily revolved around the risk of undermining journalistic values or compromising editorial integrity if gamification were perceived as overly profit-driven. This nuanced position reflects arguments made by [8], who warn that the integration of aggressive monetization strategies into gamified news products must be handled with care to avoid damaging user trust or eroding the perceived credibility of journalistic platforms. Moreover, participants responded positively to administrative and feedback-oriented tools such as data dashboards, activity summaries, and ranking notifications—features that help both users and editors track performance and engagement. This response supports broader findings within the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), particularly those of [4] and [10], which demonstrate that well-designed feedback mechanisms enhance perceived usability and empower users by reinforcing a sense of control, progress, and participation in digital environments. In this context, the implementation of transparent and responsive feedback loops may serve as a critical mediator between user satisfaction and long-term platform loyalty. Overall, the findings of this study are consistent with existing literature that explores both the advantages and limitations of gamification in journalism and digital communication. However, this research contributes novel value by focusing specifically on the perspectives of media owners and editors-in-chief—a stakeholder group that is often overlooked in gamification research, which tends to prioritize users or developers. Their insights offer a grounded understanding of how gamification is perceived, applied, and evaluated at the institutional level. In doing so, the study not only broadens the scope of gamification research but also provides practical direction for the development of more nuanced and context-sensitive engagement strategies in the evolving digital media landscape. While participants generally viewed gamification as a promising strategy for enhancing user engagement, they also expressed important objections. Concerns about journalistic credibility were frequently raised, with several participants warning that gamified features might undermine the perceived seriousness of news content. Others highlighted audience segmentation challenges, noting that older or less digitally literate readers might reject or ignore such features. Skepticism about monetization strategies was also evident, with participants cautioning that paid point systems could alienate user or appear overly commercial. These critical perspectives align with broader scholarly concerns [50] about balancing innovation with professional values, suggesting that successful implementation of gamification in journalism requires careful, context sensitive design.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper that tackles an endemic topic that, as the authors suggest, remains important when considering online and digital media. While I think there is significant potential for the work, as of now it is lacking clear connections to the robust set of journalism studies surrounding gamification of the news, and has some questions in terms of methods and analysis that I think need to be addressed before I can recommend publication. In my review I will first lay out a few of those issues and then go into a more granular assessment of a few points.

Before addressing my concerns with the work, I would like to commend the authors on compiling key articles from the gamification field. Citing researchers like Hamari and Seaborn is important and situates their work well within both studies of gamification and HCI. Kudos on completing this work. Additionally, as someone not entirely familiar with the Greek media ecosystem, this is a significant contribution to the English-speaking academic literature.

That being said, the work does not meaningfully engage with a significant body of literature that exists specifically around the gamification of news. Several authors have elicited both complimentary and contradictory responses to their work. This includes, but is not limited to, work on newsgames (e.g., Bogost et al.’s book) to Foxman’s (Play the News) which similarly interviewed news producers on gamification, Ferrer-Conill et al.’s special issue in Convergence about playful engagements in the news, and of course, Dowling’s “The Gamification of Digital Journalism” book, which provides a significant overview. I think that the authors need to engage with this literature and distinguish their study and its findings from this type of literature (and there is much more). Simply, many more nuances to this literature, what works and what doesn't, which is important. Most of these authors argue against the use of purely “basic” or “classic” gamification elements like badges, leaderboards, and similar techniques. They also address some of the gaps in literacy, etc., that I think will quite enrich their paper.

Additionally, I am a bit (overall) troubled by their actual analysis. There are some contradictions in its presentation (see comments below) of the methods that I think need to be addressed. Still, there is less effort to display how there are trustworthy findings, as is the goal of such research, nor is there a presentation of text to illustrate points outside of one table. Although this may not be a thematic analysis, I find Braun and Clarke’s overall method useful for this type of qualitative work.

Finally, the authors discuss potential benefits more than downsides. Again, the literature on gamification of the news has many examples of impediments and problems when it comes to opportunities of points, badges, etc. and I think addressing how this appeared in the work would be useful.

Beyond this, a few more granular comments:

Around line 84, there is an abrupt shift to AI and a theory I don’t see in the rest of the work. Was this a mistake?
The use of “To begin with” threw me a little bit on line 166. What was this referring to?
Around line 179, there’s some contradictory language on data collection. The author states they transcribed interviews and then mention a survey later on?
The detailed explanation of NVivo (line 254) could be removed if the authors need space for writing.
Again in the Discussion and analysis sections, I would like more direct quotes from interviewees.

Best of luck with the next steps of this research.

Author Response

Comment 1:

Response:

Literature review

The integration of gamification into online journalism is a complex and changing development in digital media strategy [22]. Gamification, broadly defined as applying game design elements in non-game contexts, has gained popularity for boosting user engagement, promoting loyalty, and improving user experience in areas like education, marketing, and civic participation [2], [23], [34]. In journalism, gamification aims to turn passive news consumption into an active and interactive experience. This change can improve information retention and user behaviour [24], [25]. Techniques like point-collection systems, leaderboards, quizzes, and badges have been shown to increase time spent on the site and encourage repeat visits [22], [23]. Combining storytelling with gamified elements can deepen emotional involvement and help users understand complex social issues [25]. These features also fit with broader trends toward personalization in digital media, where users expect customized, interactive experiences [26]. Motivational theories explain these effects. For instance, self-determination theory highlights the importance of feedback, progress indicators, and social competition for keeping users engaged [41]. These mechanisms meet psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, promoting ongoing interaction with news platforms. Despite these benefits, scholars warn that gamification can trivialize serious news content and damage journalistic credibility if not carefully implemented [27], [49]. Ethical concerns include the risk of manipulating users through reward systems, intrusive data collection, and prioritizing engagement metrics over quality reporting [28], [42]. Also, not all audiences respond positively to gamification. Factors like age, comfort with technology, and media literacy greatly influence how users react [29]. Research in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) provides guidance for creating gamified systems that balance engagement with usability. Good gamification should keep things simple, set clear goals, and offer appropriate feedback to avoid overwhelming users [30], [31]. These design principles help ensure that gamified journalism platforms focus on the user while fulfilling their informational role. Communication theories give further insight into the appeal of gamification. The Uses and Gratifications theory suggests that audiences actively seek media that meets their needs for entertainment, information, and social connection [32]. Mass communication theory also highlights the shift toward more interactive and participatory audience roles [33]. These frameworks imply that gamification both responds to and drives changes in how people consume media. Research on gamified civic engagement platforms shows that well-designed game elements can increase user participation in democratic processes and public discussions [34]. This finding indicates that gamification in journalism could not only boost engagement with news content but also enhance involvement in public life. Several empirical studies note that poorly designed gamification can cause negative outcomes like user fatigue, disengagement, or feelings of manipulation [35]. Consequently, scholars recommend mixed approaches that blend serious games, augmented reality, and adaptive interfaces to improve user experience [36], [15]. Personalized gamification, in which features adjust to individual user profiles and preferences, is also a growing area of interest [37]. Moreover, gamification is increasingly viewed as a potential revenue source in journalism, through models based on micropayments, unlocking exclusive content, or reward-based subscriptions [38]. However, these strategies must balance commercial goals with maintaining audience trust and perceived value [39]. While much existing research has focused on user experience design and audience perspectives, there has been less focus on the organizational factors that influence adoption of gamification in journalism [20], [21]. This study addresses that gap by applying Normalization Process Theory (NPT) [44]. NPT offers a structured way to examine how new practices become meaningful, adopted, and sustained in professional settings. It highlights the work that individuals do to integrate innovations into routine practice through four concepts: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring [44]. In journalism, NPT has been used to analyse how newsroom leaders discuss innovations like gamification, affecting whether they are adopted or resisted [45]. Using NPT in this study allows for an analysis of what owners and editors think about gamification, how they understand it, how they engage colleagues, how they implement its features, and how they evaluate its impact in their organizations. Recent research has pointed out the complexities, risks, and debated value of gamification. For example, Bogost et al. [47] introduced news games, exploring designs that go beyond simple points and badges to encourage critical engagement and complex storytelling. Foxman’s work [48] warns against oversimplifying content and losing editorial control. Dowling [49] provides a detailed account of how gamification is implemented in newsrooms, highlighting the tension between audience metrics and journalistic ethics. Other studies show both the opportunities and the professional resistance to adopting standard gamification elements [50], [51]. While these studies have broadened the understanding of the potential and challenges of gamification, they largely overlook the perspectives of media owners and editors-in-chief, who have primary responsibility for making strategic decisions in news organizations. This study aims to fill that gap by emphasizing the views of regional Greek media leaders and examining how organizational context influences both the adoption and scepticism of gamification strategies.

Comment 2:

Response:

Materials and methods

Ethical Consideration

Comment 3:

Beyond this, a few more granular comments:

Around line 84, there is an abrupt shift to AI and a theory I don’t see in the rest of the work. Was this a mistake?
The use of “To begin with” threw me a little bit on line 166. What was this referring to?
Around line 179, there’s some contradictory language on data collection. The author states they transcribed interviews and then mention a survey later on?

Response:

We would like to inform you that the AI part was removed. Furthermore, the interviews were semi-structured, consisting of 13 open-ended questions designed to encourage reflective and detailed responses. Topics included participants’ familiarity with gamification, their evaluations of specific gamified elements, perceptions of user engagement and experience and views on administrative features. Interviews were conducted in person or remotely between August and October 2024, lasting 20-45 minutes each. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymized to ensure confidentiality in accordance with ethical guidelines. Data Analysis Transcribed interviews were imported into NVivo 12.2 software for systematic coding and thematic analysis. Coding was conducted both inductively allowing themes to emerge from participants’ own words and deductively, guided by the constructs of Normalization Process Theory. Themes were examined in relation to how participants made sense of gamification (coherence), engaged others (cognitive participation), operationalized strategies (collective action) [51] and evaluated their effectiveness (reflexive monitoring). Thia analytic approach enabled a structured, yet flexible interpretation of the complex organizational work involved in adopting gamification.
To ensure trustworthiness, several strategies were employed. Member checking was conducted by inviting participants to review summarized interpretations of their responses. An audit trail was maintained documenting coding decisions. Reflexive notes were kept throughout to interrogate researcher assumptions. Ethical considerations included informed consent, confidentially, and voluntary participation.

Comment 4:

The detailed explanation of NVivo (line 254) could be removed if the authors need space for writing
Again in the Discussion and analysis sections, I would like more direct quotes from interviewees.

Response:

Discussion

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have to start with a big question mark for some of the references. Some are mixed up, which is not that serious, but some seem to be non-existent in reality, which, of course, is a big problem?!

Additionally, the text has several other issues. The method section poses an interesting question, but the hypotheses are not used or referenced in the analysis, and hypotheses are not typically used in qualitative research like this anyway. Are they leftovers from an earlier method choice?

The analysis in itself is interesting and it mostly shows that owners and editors are not experts on gamification, as they suggest the simpler points, leaderboard types of gamification. This suggests that it is challenging to persuade leadership to adopt other and more suitable methods of gamification, which require additional resources to attract users and readers of diverse types. The cocnlusion of the article is that those simpler forms of gamification are good to use, which I think are a bit strange, as the conclusion rather should be that the owners and editors think that those forms of gamification are good to use, and to answer the research question, they believe that gamification or certain kinds could increase engagement.

I also question the anonymity of the owners and editors, as we get the names of the news outlets?! We don´t know exactly what they answered, if they are P1 or P8, and so on, but still, is it necessary to name the outlets? The size of the outlet in terms of the number of subscribers and the type of outlet would have been enough for the discussion. This poses a research ethics question that is handled sweepingly and not taken seriously.

Some of the references are mixed up, and the numbers do not correspond with the correct reference in the reference section.

The results from the interviews could have been more clearly presented; they are not organized by number or respondents in different categories, nor are similar results grouped in paragraphs. Splitting the content into several paragraphs and illustrating it with graphs or figures would also increase readability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1:

I have to start with a big question mark for some of the references. Some are mixed up, which is not that serious, but some seem to be non-existent in reality, which, of course, is a big problem?!

Response:

Update for references

Regalado, F., Vale Costa, L., Martins, F., & Veloso, A. I. (2021). Gamifying online news in a senior online community: insights from designing and assessing the readers’ experience. Social Sciences, 10(12), 463.

Khosrawi-Rad, B., Borchers, A., Grogorick, L., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2023, October). Design Principles for Gamified Pedagogical Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (pp. 67-82).

AL-Kaabi, R. (2024). Factors affecting citizen engagement in the kingdom of bahrain through gamification. International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems, 16(1), 827-849.

Donald, N. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition.

McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT press.

Mushtaq, N., Nazeer, N., Fayaz, I., & Gulzar, F. (2025). Next-Gen Learning: Gamifications impact on higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 1-27.

Bitrián Arcas, P., Buil Carrasco, M. I., & Catalán Gil, S. Analysing the effectiveness of gamification: a strategy to create engaging, motivating and enjoyable user experiences.

Kerrigan, F., & Preece, C. (2022). Marketing the Arts. Taylor and Francis.

Arnab, S. (2020). Game science in hybrid learning spaces. Routledge.

Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002(December), 2.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikzentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 1990, p. 1). New York: Harper & Row.

Li, Z., Shi, D., Gao, Q., Chen, Y., Wang, N., & Ren, X. (2025, April). Effects of Information Widgets on Time Perception during Mentally Demanding Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-20).

Lamprou, E., Antonopoulos, N., Anomeritou, I., & Apostolou, C. (2021). Characteristics of fake news and misinformation in Greece: The rise of new crowdsourcing-based journalistic fact-checking models. Journalism and Media, 2(3), 417–439. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia2030025

Karyotakis, M., Lamprou, E., Kiourexidou, M., & Antonopoulos, N. (2019). SEO Practices: A Study about the Way News Websites Allow the Users to Comment on Their News Articles. Future Internet, 11(9), 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11090188

Lampropoulos, G., Keramopoulos, E., Diamantaras, K., & Evangelidis, G. (2023). Integrating augmented reality, gamification, and serious games in computer science education. Education Sciences, 13(6), 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060618

de Sousa Borges, S., Durelli, V. H., Reis, H. M., & Isotani, S. (2014, March). A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education. In Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 216-222).

Macey, J., Adam, M., Hamari, J., & Benlian, A. (2025). Examining the commonalities and differences between gamblification and gamification: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(7), 4067-4080.

Gegenfurtner, A., & Kollar, I. (Eds.). (2025). Designing Effective Digital Learning Environments. Routledge.

Santos, J. (2025). Emerging Paradigms in Non-Profit Governance: A Comprehensive Analysis of Disruptive Innovations. In New Trends for the Governance of Non-Profit Organizations (pp. 1-86). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

Antonopoulos, N., Veglis, A., Gardikiotis, A., Kotsakis, R., & Kalliris, G. (2015). Web Third-person effect in structural aspects of the information on media websites. Computers in human behavior, 44, 48-58.

Karyotakis, M. A., Antonopoulos, N. I. K. O. S., Veglis, A. N. D. R. E. A. S., & Kiourexidou, M. A. T. I. N. A. (2018). Tourist go home: Communication and Propaganda on YouTube. Journal of Media Critiques, 4(14), 323-337.

Bogost, I. (2015). Why gamification is bullshit. The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications, 65, 65-79.

Hickman, T. (2010). Reeves, B., & Read, JL (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to change the way people work and businesses. Harvard Business School Press.

Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2016). Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamify

Su, L. Y. F., Akin, H., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2015). Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(3), 597-616.

Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in human behavior, 29(2), 345-353.

Foxman, M. (2015). Play the news: Fun and games in digital journalism. Columbia Journalism School.

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".

Hofacker, C. F., De Ruyter, K., Lurie, N. H., Manchanda, P., & Donaldson, J. (2016). Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 34(1), 25-36.

Carroll, J. M. (2003). Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. MIT press.

Gross, T. (2014, June). Human-computer interaction education and diversity. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interactio

Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, 57(4), 504-525.

McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's mass communication theory. Sage publications.

Hassan, L. (2017). Governments should play games: Towards a framework for the gamification of civic engagement platforms. Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 249-267.

Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. Gamification in education and business, 1-20.

Yang, Y., Yu, A., Li, J., Shafi, M., & Fauzi, M. A. (2024). Exploring the impact of gamified elements on college students' learning in virtual learning communities. Kybernetes.

Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2017). Gamification: a systematic review of design frameworks. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29, 516-548.

Daugherty, T., Eastin, M. S., & Bright, L. (2008). Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content. Journal of interactive advertising, 8(2), 16-25.

Paavilainen, J., Hamari, J., Stenros, J., & Kinnunen, J. (2013). Social network games: Players’ perspectives. Simulation & Gaming, 44(6), 794-820.

Palla, Z., & Kostarella, I. (2025). Journalists’ Perspectives on the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Quality Journalism in Greek Local Media. Societies, 15(4), 89.

Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of general psychology, 14(2), 154-166.

Sonni, A. F., Putri, V. C. C., & Irwanto, I. (2024). Bibliometric and content analysis of the scientific work on artificial intelligence in journalism. Journalism and Media, 5(2), 787-798.

Li, F., & Wang, H. (2025). Unveiling the Mechanics of AI Adoption in Journalism: A Multi-Factorial Exploration of Expectation Confirmation, Knowledge Management, and Sustainable Use. Journalism and Media, 6(2), 65.

May, C., Finch, T., & Rapley, T. (2020). Normalization process theory. In Handbook on implementation science (pp. 144-167). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Vos, T. P., & Perreault, G. P. (2020). The discursive construction of the gamification of journalism. Convergence, 26(3), 470-485.

Ferrucci, P. (2022). Joining the team: Metajournalistic discourse, paradigm repair, the athletic and sports journalism practice. Journalism Practice, 16(10), 2064-2082.

Bogost, I., Ferrari, S., & Schweizer, B. (2010). Newsgames: Journalism at play. Mit Press.

Foxman, M. (2015). Play the news: Fun and games in digital journalism. Columbia Journalism School.

Dowling, D. O. (2020). The gamification of digital journalism: innovation in journalistic storytelling. Routledge.

Allan, S. (Ed.). (2010). The Routledge companion to news and journalism. London: Routledge.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Comment 2:

Response:

Materials and methods

Ethical Consideration

Comment 3:

Response:

Conclusions

The findings of this study highlight that participants perceived certain gamification elements as particularly impactful in the context of digital news platforms. The most frequently referenced topics -appearing in all ten interviews and corresponding reports- included point-collection systems, popular hashtags ranking tables, and interactive website features such as the ‘’saved’’ and ‘’like/dislike’’ buttons, and the ability to share news. These elements were described by media owners and editors-in-chief as familiar, intuitive, and likely to encourage longer user visits and greater participation. Participants also valued administrative features, offering positive assessments of management tools, user satisfaction tracking, and opportunities for website improvements. Additionally, monetization strategies such as offering packages in exchange for points, emerged as a notable topic of discussion. Interviewees viewed these as potentially viable ways to blend engagement with commercial goals. However, it’s important to emphasize that these findings represent the views and preferences of participants, shaped by their specific organizational contexts and perceived audience needs, rather than universal best practices. Their emphasis on relatively simple, familiar gamification techniques may reflect practical constraints such as limited resources, time pressures and gaps in digital literacy or design expertise. Conversely, features like crossword puzzles and educational components aimed at raising awareness about fake news were mentioned far less frequently and received limited emphasis. This suggests that participants viewed such features as less aligned with their editorial goals or audience expectations. Notably, the theme of ‘’knowledge about gamification’’ also ranked low in frequency, underscoring a broader lack of formal familiarity with the concept. While many participants could identify and evaluate specific gamified features, they often lacked the conceptual vocabulary or training to think about gamification as a structured, strategic design approach. This gap in digital literacy and conceptual understanding is an important finding. It indicates the need for professional development opportunities to help media leaders critically evaluate, design, and implement gamification strategies that go beyond basic engagement metrics. Addressing this could enable the adoption of more innovative, ethically grounded, and context0sensitive approaches that maintain journalistic integrity while meeting evolving audience expectations. Overall, this study does not claim that these simpler forms of gamification are universally ‘’good’’ to use. Rather, it reports that media owners and editors-in-chief interviewed here perceive them as effective and feasible in their specific settings. Their views highlight both the opportunities and the challenges of adopting gamification in journalism, underscoring the need for careful, audience-aware design and an ongoing dialogue about aligning technological innovation with core journalistic values. The insights gained from this research can thus serve a foundation for future work aimed at developing user-centered, participatory news platforms that balance engagement, ethical considerations, and the mission of credible, impactful journalism,

Comment 4:

Response:

Results

Analysis of the ten semi-structured interviews revealed several key themes concerning media owners’ and editors-in-chief’s perceptions of gamification in online journalism. These themes highlight both perceived opportunities for enhancing user engagement and significant concerns regarding credibility, audience segmentation, and monetization strategies.

Perceived Benefits of Gamification

Many participants viewed gamification as a promising strategy to increase user engagement and encourage longer visits to news websites. Features such as point-collection systems, leaderboards, and interactive buttons (e.g. ‘’like/dislike’’, ‘’saved button’’ etc) were seen as tools to create a more engaging and participatory user experience: ‘’I think it can make people stay on the site longer, but it has to be done professionally’’ (P3), while others emphasized the potential for gamification to support editorial planning through improved data analytics and administrative features: ‘’It’s pretty good to have clear data about user actions, it help us plan better’’ (P1). These perspectives suggest that while gamification is often discussed in terms of user-facing design, its value for media owners also lies in providing actionable insights about audience behavior and engagement patterns.

Concerns about credibility and professionalism

Participants highlighted the need to balance interactive features with the perceived authority and trustworthiness of news content (P7). Interviewees also drew attention to differences among audience segments in their likely receptiveness to gamified features. Several participants noted generational divides in expectations and digital literacy: ‘’Older readers don’t care about these things. It’s suitable for the young’’ (P2). These reflections underscore the importance of considering audience diversity in the design and implementation of gamification strategies, avoiding a one-size (fits all) approach.

Skepticism toward monetization strategies

Another issue involved cautious attitudes toward revenue models based on gamification, such as selling packages points. While recognizing the commercial potential of such strategies, some participants are worried: ‘’ Although selling points might benefit the website by increasing income, some people may be wary of this and view it as a commercialization of media’’ (P5). Overall, these findings reveal that media owners and editors-in-chief simultaneously recognize the potential benefits of gamification for audience engagement and business strategy, while remaining acutely aware of the risks to journalistic credibility and professional ethics.

Comment 5:

Some of the references are mixed up, and the numbers do not correspond with the correct reference in the reference section.

Response: The complete list of the updated references is provided above.

Results

Perceived Benefits of Gamification

Concerns about credibility and professionalism

Skepticism toward monetization strategies

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the enclosed review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please, see the review report attached above.

Author Response

Comment 1:

Gamification in online journalism has the potential to transform how news is consumed and engaged with. By meticulously integrating game mechanics and design principles, news outlets can create more immersive, interactive, and engaging experiences for their audiences, potentially reaching new demographics and forging deeper connection with the news. However, it is essential to address the challenges and to ensure that gamification is implemented responsibly and ethically. This manuscript makes a contribution in bridging the gap between gamification as an, emerging practice in news distribution and yet a vastly uncharted area of research. Despite this contribution, the manuscript has some major weaknesses:

Introduction

The opening section of your paper should identify your topic. It should offer a preliminary description of the topic and state clearly why it is relevant or important to study or research it. Your statement of topic and relevance should be as “concise, coherent and clear” as possible. You should also explain why you want to study or research this topic, present clear objective(s) and research questions of the study. However, your introduction lacks focus, coherence and conciseness. It discusses so many different things. In the last part (page 3) of the introduction, you present some results and recommendations of your study. This is problematic because the introduction should not be the place for these sorts of information.

Response:

Introduction

Gamification has emerged as a significant strategy for enhancing user engagement across diverse domains, including education, marketing and online communication [2], [18]. Broadly defined as the application of game design elements in non-game contexts, gamification seeks to motivate behavior, sustain attention, and create more enjoyable user experiences [2]. In journalism, where capturing and maintaining reader interest is a persistent challenge, gamification offers potential to transform the consumption of news into a more immersive and participatory activity [20], [21]. News organizations are increasingly exploring interactive features such as point-collection systems, leaderboards, quizzes and personalized rewards to deepen audience engagement and loyalty [18], [20]. Research suggests these elements can encourage users to spend more time on news platforms and interact more frequently with content [41]. The underlying rationale draws on motivational theories that emphasize the role of feedback, progress indicators, and social competition in sustaining user involvement [41]. However, while gamification promises to revitalize digital journalism, it also raises critical questions about its ethical implementation, impact on editorial integrity, and potential for audience segmentation or exclusion [20], [21]. Despite growing interest in this area, existing research has tended to prioritize user experience design and audience-focused evaluations over the perspectives of newsroom leaders who make strategic decisions about adopting these innovations [20]. Not much is known about how media owners and editors-in-chief interpret the value of gamification, assess its compatibility with professional norms, or plan for its integration within organizational workflows. Understanding their views is essential for evaluating not only the opportunities of gamified strategies but also the structural and cultural challenges that may influence their adoption. Moreover, as digital journalism increasingly intersects with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence [42], questions about technological innovation, professional ethics, and audience trust have become central to scholarly debates. Investigating gamification through the lens of newsroom leadership can help illuminate how such innovations are negotiated within real-world constraints, balancing commercial goals with commitments to credible, meaningful journalism. Against this background, the primary objective of this study is to explore how media owners and editors-in-chief perceive gamification as a tool for enhancing user experience and engagement in online journalism. The remainder of this paper is structured as followed, theoretical framework, discussing Normalization Process Theory as an analytical lens for understanding the integration of innovation like gamification in journalism. Follow the reviews of the existing literature, identifying key debates, findings, and gaps that motivate this study. Furthermore, there is a description of the methodology, including data collection and thematic analysis procedures. The results, organized thematically and supported with participant quotes. Besides that, the discussion section of the implications of these findings considering existing literature. Finally, the paper’s conclusions, outline the limitations of the study and suggests directions for future work.

Comment 2:

Theoretical Framework

There is no clear theoretical framework to inform and underpin the subject under investigation. You need to consider the different theoretical perspectives that have been, or can be, used to study your topic. What are the dominant theoretical perspectives on the topic revealed by your literature review? Are they adequate to the task at hand? What problems have been identified with different theories in your selected area of study? Are there intellectual debates among researchers about theory in your topic area?

In your paper, you should identify which theoretical framework(s) seem most appropriate to your study and explain why they are so? You should also consider whether or not there are certain theorists that you expect to draw on. In doing so, you should offer reasons for your choice and identify some of the key theoretical concepts, propositions and/or hypotheses that you plan to employ.

Response:

Theoretical Framework

Comment 3:

Literature Review

This section moves you beyond a simple statement of the topic into a review of the literature that already exists about your topic. Here, there are a plethora of things that you need to take into consideration or be aware of which have not been fully addressed.

A broad survey of the relevant literature

A summary of how the literature has treated the topic and most importantly, what are the significant findings that can drawn from the literature? What seems to be missing from the literature? The latter question is very significant, since it may provide the rational, motivation for your study, since you are ideally, trying to contribute new inputs, knowledge rather than ‘reinventing the wheel’.

Structure

The structure of your manuscript can be improved. Currently, it lacks focus, coherence and conciseness. As I have indicated elsewhere, there are so many information in the introduction (results, recommendations etc) which should be taken out and put where they appropriately belong.

Furthermore, let the readers know how your entire manuscript unfolds; how the constituent parts connect and link with one another.

For example:

After the introduction, this paper will examine……., …… and …...before going further to discuss the theoretical and methodological approaches that it uses to inform and underpin its discussion. Then after, it will……, ….. and then……..In this way, the readers have a clear picture regarding the structure of the manuscript, and how its constituent parts will unfold.

Response:

Literature review

Furthermore, as you noted, an expert reviewed and corrected the English language.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the manuscript to be much improved. Great work on this manuscript, which makes a valuable contribution.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your help and your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I think the authors have addressed many of the issues brought up in my previous review. I think the work is well on its way to publication. I do, however, want to push the authors to address further ongoing research from journalism studies in their literature review. In particular, Raul Ferrer-Conill has a significant body of work on the subject, as does Jose Alberto Garcia-Aviles. Also, work on the adoption of newsgames (e.g., Plewe & Fursiche, 2020) explores topics similar to their work. Thus, I think it needs to be addressed in meaningful ways in both the literature review and discussion before full acceptance. That said, these additions should be relatively minor. Great revisions, and I look forward to the next steps.

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment:

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Response:

Literature review

The integration of gamification into online journalism is a complex and evolving development in digital media strategy [22]. Gamification, broadly defined as applying game design elements in non-game contexts, has gained popularity for boosting user engagement, promoting loyalty, and improving user experience in areas like education, marketing, and civic participation [2], [23], [34]. In journalism, gamification aims to turn passive news consumption into an active and interactive experience. This change can improve information retention and user behaviour [24], [25]. Techniques like point-collection systems, leaderboards, quizzes, and badges have been shown to increase time spent on the site and encourage repeat visits [22], [23]. Combining storytelling with gamified elements can deepen emotional involvement and help users understand complex social issues [25]. These features also fit with broader trends toward personalization in digital media, where users expect customized, interactive experiences [26]. Motivational theories explain these effects. For instance, self-determination theory highlights the importance of feedback, progress indicators, and social competition for keeping users engaged [41]. These mechanisms meet psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, promoting ongoing interaction with news platforms. Despite these benefits, scholars warn that gamification can trivialize serious news content and damage journalistic credibility if not carefully implemented [27], [49]. Ethical concerns include the risk of manipulating users through reward systems, intrusive data collection, and prioritizing engagement metrics over quality reporting [28], [42]. Also, not all audiences respond positively to gamification. Factors like age, comfort with technology, and media literacy greatly influence how users react [29]. Research in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) provides guidance for creating gamified systems that balance engagement with usability. Good gamification should keep things simple, set clear goals, and offer appropriate feedback to avoid overwhelming users [30], [31]. These design principles help ensure that gamified journalism platforms focus on the user while fulfilling their informational role. Communication theories give further insight into the appeal of gamification. The Uses and Gratifications theory suggests that audiences actively seek media that meets their needs for entertainment, information, and social connection [32]. Mass communication theory also highlights the shift toward more interactive and participatory audience roles [33]. These frameworks imply that gamification both responds to and drives changes in how people consume media. Research on gamified civic engagement platforms shows that well-designed game elements can increase user participation in democratic processes and public discussions [34]. This finding indicates that gamification in journalism could not only boost engagement with news content but also enhance involvement in public life. Several empirical studies note that poorly designed gamification can cause negative outcomes like user fatigue, disengagement, or feelings of manipulation [35]. Consequently, scholars recommend mixed approaches that blend serious games, augmented reality, and adaptive interfaces to improve user experience [36], [15]. Personalized gamification, in which features adjust to individual user profiles and preferences, is also a growing area of interest [37]. Moreover, gamification is increasingly viewed as a potential revenue source in journalism, through models based on micropayments, unlocking exclusive content, or reward-based subscriptions [38]. However, these strategies must balance commercial goals with maintaining audience trust and perceived value [39]. While much existing research has focused on user experience design and audience perspectives, there has been less focus on the organizational factors that influence the adoption of gamification in journalism [20], [21]. This study addresses that gap by applying Normalization Process Theory (NPT) [44]. NPT offers a structured way to examine how new practices become meaningful, adopted, and sustained in professional settings. It highlights the work that individuals do to integrate innovations into routine practice through four concepts: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring [44]. In journalism, NPT has been used to analyse how newsroom leaders discuss innovations like gamification, affecting whether they are adopted or resisted [45]. Using NPT in this study allows for an analysis of what owners and editors think about gamification, how they understand it, how they engage colleagues, how they implement its features, and how they evaluate its impact in their organizations. Recent research has pointed out the complexities, risks, and debated value of gamification. For example, Bogost et al. [47] introduced news games, exploring designs that go beyond simple points and badges to encourage critical engagement and complex storytelling. Foxman’s work [48] warns against oversimplifying content and losing editorial control. Dowling [49] provides a detailed account of how gamification is implemented in newsrooms, highlighting the tension between audience metrics and journalistic ethics. Other studies show both the opportunities and the professional resistance to adopting standard gamification elements [50], [51]. Additionally, preliminary results from the EU project CALYPSO, intends to build a crowdsourcing environment where individuals may volunteer to counteract disinformation efforts by engaging in a game for good. These communities bring together professional journalists, specialists and regular residents to combine their different talents and collaborate to discover and fast-check suspected examples of misinformation in real time [55]. [53] gives the context and theoretical foundation for the Level Up project, which aims to engage teenagers in local news by creating game-based interactions to pique their interest. Gamification and models for engagement and play as well, are investigated and critiqued in relation to the historical and cultural context of conventional and digital news production. It is important to mention that [54], states that employee resistance and low participation are common causes of digital transformation failures. Gamification, the incorporation of game aspects into non-game situations, addresses these concerns. A five-month trial of gamification strategy involving 164 journalists was implemented. The results revealed a considerable rise in digital transformation measures, suggesting effective behaviour change. Points, ranks and badges were the most successful features. [52] examines two games, Pirate fishing: An interactive investigation and #Hacked Syria’s Electronic Armies, for the most common general news frames used in interactive gamified situations. The researchers mentioned that news gamification is one of the creative technology-driven techniques lately employed by a variety of media companies. Distinguished by the combination of numerous audiovisual Gamified news seeks to customize news content and assets for individual gamers, to increase user engagement and immersion.

While these studies have broadened the understanding of the potential and challenges of gamification, they largely overlook the perspectives of media owners and editors-in-chief, who have primary responsibility for making strategic decisions in news organizations. This study aims to fill that gap by emphasizing the views of regional Greek media leaders and examining how organizational context influences both the adoption and scepticism of gamification strategies. Besides [58] presents findings from semi-structured expert interviews with pioneers in German newsgame creation. Established models of border work often highlight the adversarial connections between journalists and newcomers. According to their findings, these models fail to account for the interactional component of current news generation in border tests. Communication, teamwork, and product management challenges are common among diverse teams, both within and beyond the media industry. As online content creation has converged, newsrooms are collaborating more closely across professional positions. It is also important to mention, that [56], explores how digital journalism practices are becoming more quantifiable, with focus on reader interactions and the usage of game mechanics. Data and metrics are mostly used to evaluate journalists’ abilities, although automated quantification and competitive leaderboards are seen as motivators. [57] examines how novel narratives, aided by a combination of fun techniques and technical convergence, might reconfigure digital news storytelling. Newsgames combine two competing logics: journalism’s culture of veracity and trustworthiness, and gaming culture, which is defined by the development of imagined words, persuasion, and mechanics. The investigation of two newsgames, The Amazon race and The ocean game, reveals distinct procedural strategies while sharing the same aim and decision-making method. The Amazon race uses standard rhetorical formulas with visual and textual components to create its arguments. While procedural formulae are also used, they are often portrayed honestly. To the contrary, The Ocean game develops its major arguments in a generative way, with visual and textual features confined to establishing the many answer possibilities and their repercussions.

Reviewer’s comment:

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Response:

Results

Perceived benefits of Gamification
Many participants viewed gamification as a promising strategy to increase user engagement and encourage longer visits to news websites. Features such as point-collection systems, leaderboards, and interactive buttons (e.g. ‘’like/dislike’’, ‘’saved button’’ etc) were seen as tools to create a more engaging and participatory user experience: ‘’I think it can make people stay on the site longer, but it has to be done professionally’’ (P3), while others emphasized the potential for gamification to support editorial planning through improved data analytics and administrative features: ‘’It’s pretty good to have clear data about user actions, it help us plan better’’ (P1). These perspectives suggest that while gamification is often discussed in terms of user-facing design, its value for media owners also lies in providing actionable insights about audience behavior and engagement patterns.

Concerns about credibility and professionalism
Participants highlighted the need to balance interactive features with the perceived authority and trustworthiness of news content (P7). Interviewees also drew attention to differences among audience segments in their likely receptiveness to gamified features. Several participants noted generational divides in expectations and digital literacy: ‘’Older readers don’t care about these things. It’s suitable for the young’’ (P2). These reflections underscore the importance of considering audience diversity in the design and implementation of gamification strategies, avoiding a one-size (fits all) approach.

Skepticism toward monetization strategies
Another issue involved cautious attitudes toward revenue models based on gamification, such as selling points packages. While recognizing the commercial potential of such strategies, some participants expressed concern: ‘’Although selling points might benefit the website by increasing income, some people may be wary of this and view it as a commercialization of media’’ (P5). Overall, these findings reveal that media owners and editors-in-chief simultaneously recognize the potential benefits of gamification for audience engagement and business strategy, while remaining acutely aware of the risks to journalistic credibility and professional ethics.

Table 2: Core thematic categories and distribution

Table 2 offers a structured overview of the core thematic categories (nodes), their subcategories (child nodes), and the distribution of responses across interview participants (cases). This framework supports a clearer understanding of how different aspects of gamification were perceived, discussed, and prioritized by the respondents. The frequency of references associated with each theme provides insight into what participants considered important, relevant, or engaging.

Table 3: Consistently referenced features

From the data in Table 3, it becomes evident that certain gamification elements consistently emerged as high-priority topics. For instance, the collection of points, the ranking table, popular hashtags, the "like/dislike" feature, the "saved" option, and news sharing were not only discussed by all participants but also referenced a total of 10 times across 10 different files. This repeated and widespread presence indicates strong consensus regarding their perceived value.

Monetization and engagement features

Similarly, buying packages to collect points also showed a high presence, appearing in 9 files with 10 mentions, suggesting that monetization elements are acceptable to stakeholders when integrated meaningfully into the user experience. Positive impressions of the website overall were also a dominant theme, receiving 10 mentions. This reflects not only the participants’ openness to a gamified environment but also an appreciation for user-centered digital design. The discussion around administrative tools—including satisfaction with site management and the ability to interact with admin functions—was likewise significant.

General impressions and usability

It was referenced in all 10 interviews, reinforcing the view that gamification should not be limited to front-end user interaction but should also empower platform governance and transparency.

Low-priority elements

In contrast, certain topics exhibited low frequency, suggesting limited interest or relevance. The crossword puzzle, for instance, appeared in only two files and had just two mentions, indicating that participants did not view it as a valuable or engaging gamification element. Similarly, knowledge about gamification received only three mentions, reinforcing an earlier theme in the data: that while interviewees often recognized specific game elements when presented with them, they lacked formal understanding or familiarity with the terminology. This finding is especially important as it suggests a gap in digital literacy and reveals an opportunity for targeted training or awareness-raising among media professionals. Another low-frequency theme was the question of whether participants observed game elements on social media, which received only four mentions.

Moderately received elements

This may suggest either a disconnect between the application of gamification in journalism and its manifestation on social platforms, or simply a lack of attention from the participants to this cross-platform dimension. Interestingly, themes like the avatar feature received moderate attention (5 files, 5 references), and opinions were mixed—some viewed it positively for personalizing the user experience, while others did not see it as necessary in a journalistic context. Meanwhile, tools like the chatbot stood out as promising, with 7 mentions across 7 files. This reflects an increasing acceptance of automated assistance in digital platforms and the potential of conversational interfaces to drive user engagement.

User participation and content creation

Additional topics of interest included user-generated content, such as news sharing by users (10 mentions) and discussion of articles (8 mentions), which were valued for their ability to foster community and participatory engagement. However, while users were vocal in their feedback (as indicated by 10 mentions of website criticism), their interest in suggesting specific improvements was relatively low, with only 3 mentions, perhaps indicating satisfaction or a lack of technical expertise to suggest detailed enhancements.

Table 4: Individual engagement levels

Table 4 presents a breakdown of the coding distribution per participant (p1 to p10), offering a quantitative lens through which to assess individual engagement levels. Participants such as p1, p3, and p5 stood out with the highest numbers of codes and references (10 codes, 10 references), indicating high engagement and thematic diversity in their interviews. p2 and p7 also demonstrated strong contributions (9 codes/references), while p8 contributed the least (5 codes, 5 references), possibly due to limited familiarity with the topic or less elaborative responses. Participant p6 presented an interesting case: with 7 codes but 8 references, this respondent appears to have revisited certain themes more frequently than others, suggesting deeper reflection or repeated emphasis on specific issues. This contrast between the number of themes and the depth of commentary provides insight into the varying cognitive or experiential engagement of the respondents.

Table 5: Media types and institutional influence

Lastly, Table 5 outlines the types of media represented in the sample. Although the content of this table was not elaborated in the original description, it serves a crucial contextual role. It allows for potential cross-comparative analysis between participants from different media formats (e.g., online-only platforms, local print media with digital extensions, hybrid models), which could further illuminate how institutional characteristics influence perceptions of gamification.

Summary of key findings

The analysis demonstrates that gamification, while still a developing concept for many in the media industry, is being embraced in practice—even if not in name. Elements that align with users’ need for interaction, recognition, and personalization were consistently valued. On the other hand, features perceived as overly playful or unrelated to core news consumption behavior were often dismissed. Moreover, the variable levels of conceptual understanding among participants highlight the need for ongoing professional development in digital innovation practices. In future applications, designers and editors should consider integrating high-value gamification features—such as point-based systems, interactive voting, social sharing, and user feedback tools—while avoiding features that may feel superfluous or distract from the editorial integrity of the platform. The relatively balanced participation of most interviewees also strengthens the reliability of these findings, confirming the presence of shared views across diverse media contexts.

Reviewer’s comment:

Is the article adequately referenced?

Response:

We have added seven more sources relating to our research (your suggestions were also included).

Arafat, R. K. (2020). Rethinking framing and news values in gamified journalistic contexts: A comparative case study of Al Jazeera’s interactive games. Convergence, 26(3), 550-571.
Svensson, T. (2018). Exploring Engagement: From Games to News: Developing Models of Interaction and Play for Youth with Local News.
Badreldin, O. M., Adris, A. E. M., & Labib, H. (2025). Playing to Win: A Case Study of Gamified Digital Transformation in the News Industry. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Digital Transformation and Innovation: Business, Education, and Medical Approaches (pp. 31-66). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
Sotirakou, C., Paraskevas, T., & Mourlas, C. (2022, June). Toward the design of a gamification framework for enhancing motivation among journalists, experts, and the public to combat disinformation: The case of CALYPSO platform. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 542-554). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ferrer-Conill, R. (2017). Quantifying journalism? A study on the use of data and gamification to motivate journalists. Television & New Media, 18(8), 706-720.
García-Avilés, J. A., Ferrer-Conill, R., & García-Ortega, A. (2022). Gamification and newsgames as narrative innovations in journalism. In Total journalism: Models, techniques and challenges (pp. 53-67). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Plewe, C., & Fürsich, E. (2020). Producing newsgames beyond boundaries: Journalists, game developers, and the news business. Convergence, 26(3), 486-502.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A thorough and well-executed editing of the article since version 1. Most of the problems are addressed and fixed comprehensively. Notably, the method section has been vastly improved and now makes more sense, but this raises the question of whether the method was “attached” after the study was completed. Why would there be another method chapter that was improper in the first version? Get the idea for a study, find a method that works well with what you want to do, make the study, write the article – seems like the way that research is intended to work, not adding a suitable method after the study is made.

There are still some structural issues in Chapter 5, Results. The sections after the tables are very compact and could be made more transparent and more readable by grouping the analysis into categories and adding subheadings.

The two “fake” references that were present in the first version are taken away, and several good references are added, not least Foxman and Schweizer, Ferrari, Bogost. The Foxman reference is duplicated, appearing in both 27 and 48, which should be corrected.

The significant shift in method and the two former “fake” references in the previous version of the text still raise the question of how much of the original text was generated by AI. References to non-existent papers and journals are more problematic than forgetting to update the method chapter. I do not believe that authors accidentally “invent” a nonexistent reference, but I am certain, from personal experience, that AI will.

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment: Is the article adequately referenced?

Response:

We have added seven more sources relating to our research.

Arafat, R. K. (2020). Rethinking framing and news values in gamified journalistic contexts: A comparative case study of Al Jazeera’s interactive games. Convergence, 26(3), 550-571.
Svensson, T. (2018). Exploring Engagement: From Games to News: Developing Models of Interaction and Play for Youth with Local News.
Badreldin, O. M., Adris, A. E. M., & Labib, H. (2025). Playing to Win: A Case Study of Gamified Digital Transformation in the News Industry. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Digital Transformation and Innovation: Business, Education, and Medical Approaches (pp. 31-66). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
Sotirakou, C., Paraskevas, T., & Mourlas, C. (2022, June). Toward the design of a gamification framework for enhancing motivation among journalists, experts, and the public to combat disinformation: The case of CALYPSO platform. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 542-554). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ferrer-Conill, R. (2017). Quantifying journalism? A study on the use of data and gamification to motivate journalists. Television & New Media, 18(8), 706-720.
García-Avilés, J. A., Ferrer-Conill, R., & García-Ortega, A. (2022). Gamification and newsgames as narrative innovations in journalism. In Total journalism: Models, techniques and challenges (pp. 53-67). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Plewe, C., & Fürsich, E. (2020). Producing newsgames beyond boundaries: Journalists, game developers, and the news business. Convergence, 26(3), 486-502.
Literature review

Reviewer’s Comment:

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Response:

Results

Table 2: Core thematic categories and distribution

Table 3: Consistently referenced features

Monetization and engagement features

General impressions and usability

It was referenced in all 10 interviews, reinforcing the view that gamification should not be limited to front-end user interaction but should also empower platform governance and transparency.

Low-priority elements

Moderately received elements

User participation and content creation

Table 4: Individual engagement levels

Table 5: Media types and institutional influence

Summary of key findings

Reviewer’s Comment:

Response:

Table 2: Core thematic categories and distribution

Table 3: Consistently referenced features

Monetization and engagement features

General Impressions and Usability

It was referenced in all 10 interviews, reinforcing the view that gamification should not be limited to front-end user interaction but should also empower platform governance and transparency.

Low-priority elements

Moderately received elements

User participation and content creation

Table 4: Individual engagement levels

Table 5: Media types and institutional influence

Summary of key findings

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

Exploring Gamification in Online Journalism: Perspectives from Media Owners Through Interviews

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI