Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is about a relevant topic at all levels, but especially on a global and geopolitical level. It is precisely this interest that each investigation is used to extract the maximum knowledge and the best way to exchange knowledge that leads to reflection, but also action. That’s why I think this article presents in this version some deficiencies that can be corrected to give even more value to the work that has been done. They are presented below in order to generate an academic dialogue that allows us to go beyond what is currently written. 

Therefore, from my point of view, there are conceptual and structural issues that need to be addressed, especially in relation to the alignment between the theoretical framework on misinformation and the discussion/conclusions of the study.
- Literature research is extensive and well-crafted, but all this knowledge may not be used in the discussion and conclusions, where it may be better related to what is currently published.
- The title places a lot of emphasis on misinformation, but later the focus is more on narratives. I have doubts about how focus groups were facing and where RT participants were and the audiovisual pieces chosen.
- The article does not clearly distinguish between biased narratives, propaganda and misinformation as intentional and strategic phenomenon.
- Although the title and summary emphasize misinformation, debate and conclusions tend to revert to more general narrative descriptions and perceptions, without sufficiently theorizing how these results advance our understanding of misinformation specifically.
- The survey sample is definitely low and this gives you less value relative to the focus group.
- The choice of audiovisual materials may be better justified to consider potential biases.
- The link between empirical findings and the concept of misinformation could be more explicit. For example, what specific characteristics of the identified narratives rate them as misinformation and how they differ from journalism or general opinion propaganda?
- The discussion does not relate sufficiently to the theoretical definitions of misinformation provided above. As a result, the article runs the risk of being descriptive rather than analytical with respect to the misinformation phenomenon.

With respect to the conclusions, the following reflections could be incorporated
- How should Latin American legislators, journalists or educators respond to misinformation in practice?
- Consider comparative perspectives in future research (e.g. e.g. Ecuador versus other Latin American countries).

-What is the value of the experience of the article that can be transferred to a global reflection on media and misinformation?

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for their time and dedication. The comments and suggestions are of great value as they have allowed for reflection on the writing and improved the quality of the paper. The author hopes to have properly incorporated the suggestions. The modifications are included in the attached document. The changes are marked with red letters.

 

In detail, the modifications are:

 

Comment: The literature review is extensive and well developed, but all this knowledge might not be used in the discussion and conclusions, where it could be better related to what is currently published.

Response: The recommendation is welcomed. At the end of the discussion, paragraphs are added to relate the findings to what has been proposed by other authors in the reference framework presented in the introduction.

 

Comment: Although the title and abstract emphasize disinformation, the discussion, and conclusions tend to fall back on more general narrative descriptions and perceptions, without sufficiently theorizing how these results contribute to our specific understanding of disinformation.

Response: The observation is welcomed. The changes are marked with red letters, corresponding to new texts.

 

Comment: The article does not clearly distinguish between biased narratives, propaganda, and disinformation as an intentional and strategic phenomenon.

Response: The suggestion is welcomed. The requested elements are addressed in the discussion and conclusion sections.

 

Comment: The survey sample is definitely small, which gives it less value compared to the focus group.

Response: The author understands the biases and limitations of the study pointed out by the reviewer. In response to the comment, a paragraph has been added to the conclusions to highlight the limitations and possibilities, within the framework of the observation made.

Comment: The choice of audiovisual materials could be better justified to consider possible biases. Response: The strategy and limitations are better explained in the methodology section

 

Comment: The link between the empirical findings and the concept of disinformation could be more explicit. For example, what specific features of the identified narratives classify them as disinformation, and how do they differ from general opinion journalism or propaganda? 

Response: The comment is welcomed. The suggested elements are added to the discussion.

 

Comments: The analysis does not sufficiently relate to the theoretical definitions of disinformation presented earlier. Consequently, the article risks being descriptive rather than analytical regarding the phenomenon of disinformation. Response: The comment is welcomed. The suggested elements are added to the discussion.

 

Comments: Regarding the conclusions, the following reflections could be incorporated: How should Latin American legislators, journalists, or educators respond to disinformation in practice? What value does the article's experience bring to a global reflection on media and disinformation?

Response: The comments are welcome. The suggested reflections are added to the wording of the conclusions.

 

Comment: The title places a lot of emphasis on disinformation, but later it focuses more on narratives. I have doubts about how the focus groups were approached, where the RT participants were located, and the audiovisual pieces chosen.

Response: The discussion groups were conducted online. The protocol used was to show the audiovisual pieces and then generate participation according to a script. The three audiovisual news items, as stated in the methodology section, were published by RT in Spanish and were identified in a previous study that considered the publications from the Código Vidrio portal, which have a high impact on social media audiences (Suing & Lomas-Chacón, 2024).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We have included the suggestions in the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for their time and dedication. The comments and suggestions are of great value as they have allowed for reflection on the writing and improved the quality of the paper. The author hopes to have properly incorporated the suggestions. The modifications are included in the attached document. The changes are marked with red letters.

 

In detail, the modifications are:

 

Comment: SUMMARY: Correct, although we recommend a verbal correction in the last sentence.

Response. The verbal form was corrected.

 

Comment: KEYWORDS We recommend removing "media and communication," as it is redundant with "audiovisual communication" and "media narrative." Instead, we can introduce a geographical term: Ecuador.

Response: The keywords were accepted and modified.

 

Comment: Although it is well formulated, the problem statement could be improved by adding explicit research questions, and the relevant research questions should be formulated in relation to the objectives included in the Introduction.

Response: The research questions were formulated.

 

Comment: The idea that Ecuador's political instability and the country's sociopolitical peculiarities make it fertile ground for disinformation must be backed up with academic citations. In addition, more information should be included about Ecuador's sociopolitical context, with the corresponding citations, the characteristics of the population, and the main features of media consumption in this country.

Response: The information was included, with the respective citations, of the suggested Ecuador context. It is in the introduction.

 

Comment: Regarding the narrative analysis, despite the description of the analyzed pieces, it is unclear how many there are in total. The sample size should be included, as it is not clearly indicated in the text. It should also be mentioned in the summary.

Response: The suggestion is welcomed. Modifications were included in the summary and in the methodology.

 

Comment: It would be helpful to indicate the type of journalistic genre to which the audiovisual pieces analyzed belong, since the genre determines the possibility of including interpretations or opinions.

Response: It is noted that the journalistic genre is the news.

 

Comment: Both in the survey and in the focus groups, a questionnaire template and sample questions should be included to facilitate replicability.

Response: the questionnaire template and database were placed in an open public repository. The link to this information is in the methodology.

 

Comment: Specifically in the survey, it can be inferred that the sample selection is random. This choice must be indicated and justified.

Response: The comment is welcomed. In the methodology it is stated that the sample selection is random because the questionnaire was distributed through a "snowball" dynamic via social networks, for this reason responses would mostly be received from a young audience, although it should also be noted that Ecuador has a predominantly young population structure, more than 25% are between 15 and 29 years of age, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (2022)

 

Comment: It would be advisable to include in the analysis how professional occupation affects the responses.

Response: The analysis of the focus groups in relation to the age and occupation variables is included.

 

Comment: On line 235, there must be an error in the indicated collection period: between July 9 and 8, 2024. Please correct it. Just like in the survey, the focus groups do not include examples of trick questions. It would be necessary to add some.

Response: Thank you for the observation, but the instruments were applied in 2024, it is not an error. We kindly welcome the suggestion to add trick questions to contrast the robustness of the response for a future instrument; on this occasion, being a record from the previous year and with an audience not available for replication, these trick questions are not included.

 

Comment: The selection process of the focus group members should be explained, as it is stated that they correspond to four geographical zones of Ecuador, but the participant selection procedure is not justified.

Response: Through the snowball dynamic, it is included in the text, in red letters.

 

Comment: Although the limitations are noted from line 276, it would be advisable to explain and justify how representativeness is ensured.

Response: Representativeness is explained and justified in new text in the methodology.

 

Comment: It would be advisable to indicate whether artificial intelligence tools were used at any stage of the process.

Response: The requested statement is included.

 

Comment: Table 1 is not visually explanatory. It could be replaced with a graph.

Response: Thank you, but to keep the length of the text, we choose to keep the table.

 

Comment: It would be necessary to delve deeper into the conclusions, as the results and discussion suggest additional nuances that should be highlighted. Some solutions and strategies to prevent disinformation should be outlined, because this is not clear in lines 562-567. It could be mentioned how media literacy and digital culture influence protection against disinformation. They should also be linked to journalism and communication theories. An attempt should be made to respond to the various objectives raised. It would be necessary to highlight the study's limitations and analyze how they might affect the interpretation of the results.

Response. All these suggestions are included in a new draft of the conclusions.

 

Comments: Various regarding formatting errors.

Response: All comments were accepted, and the relevant modifications were made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Clearly formulated objectives.
Good knowledge of the specialized literature and researches on the topic, as well as are cited correctly. 
Skillful use of definitions and terms.
Original research dedicated to the instrumentalization of the media in propaganda, which provides new knowledge. The content of the tables is described and presented comprehensibly. 
The conclusions meet the stated research objectives.

 

After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2022, media regulators in EU imposed restrictions on the broadcasting of Russian media outlets Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, which are known as channels of Russian propaganda. In many places around the world, these media outlets broadcast without restrictions, as is the case in Ecuador. In this perspective the study is relevant and significant - the author sets himself the task of examining RT's news messages (a mix of infotainment and disinformation), through focus groups - to elicit citizens' perceptions of RT's messages, as well as to determine how these messages are assimilated by Ecuadorians. Disinformation narratives are also investigated through content analysis and social network analysis.  

The methodology used quantitative and qualitative tools. For example, the same events were compared through news narratives in RT reports with other international media – DW, France 24, Voice of America, RTVE, CNN, NTN24. With this approach similarities, differences and implications can be observed. However each international media outlet follows their own editorial policy and may work for the interests of their own government.  

When forming the focus groups (a total of 81 participants), restrictions and requirements for gender balance (men and women), age, geographical indicators, and media message consumption habits were applied. The questions asked and case studies discussed were described in detail. Various manifestations of group dynamics are presented, including assessments given by some of the participants on the discussed cases.  

The conclusions from the focus group meetings are presented relatively accurate and objective. The research standards are being met. We must make the reservation that the number of participants cannot ensure a nationally representative study. However, the author very accurately specifies: "the findings should be interpreted with caution in their generalisability to the population."  

The conclusions presented in the publication are based on the research conducted, which provides new information and new knowledge about the way in which disinformation and media insinuations work - "information mixes truth with falsehood, with a tendency towards disinformation and unverifiable sources", in different regions of the world. It shows how important it is to know the local characteristics of the population, their expectations and social fears to set the propaganda machine up with the most accurate and effective messages.  

The author very accurately calls out that one of the most effective tools for reducing the effects of disinformation is the development of media literacy. Thus, the results of the study provide freedom for reflection in another research field – how the public can build protective mechanisms against propaganda influence.

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for their time and dedication. The comments are valuable and have provided perspective on the paper. To document the modifications suggested by other evaluators, the text with changes is attached, marked with red letters.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this new version and having taking into account my comments.

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for accepting the modifications and approving them. As a record of the process, new minor changes proposed by another reviewer are attached. These changes improve the quality of the paper and are in the attached document, written in red letters. The author trusts that all the reviewers' suggestions will be welcomed to contribute to the debate on the phenomenon of disinformation in society's communication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text has been substantially improved and most of the recommendations have been implemented. Only a few minor details remain to be corrected. The research questions are now clearly stated (lines 199–201), the hypothesis is also more clear and supported by academic references. Furthermore, the socio-political context of Ecuador has been expanded with citations and the structure is more coherent and logically sequenced. Tables and figures are included in this new version, the conclusions are more developed, respond to the research questions, limitations are acknowledged and this part offers suggestions for future research.  However, some errors that remain after the revision still need to be corrected in “Material and Methods” and regarding to the style and language:

MATERIALS AND METHODS

- Occupation is mentioned but not analyzed in depth—this could be improved. (Revision1: In the analysis of the data, location is subsequently taken into account, but not occupation, when it is one of the factors, along with age, that most influences decision making. For example, in some professions, greater media literacy is assumed and, therefore, less susceptibility to disinformation strategies. Therefore, it would be advisable to include in the analysis how professional occupation affects the responses)

- Date error remains: “between 9 and 8 July 2024” is still incorrect (Revision 1: In line 235, there must be an error in the collection period indicated: between 9 and 8 July 2024). Please correct. Although the authors have explained that it is corrected, we advert an aspect that must be corrected. We think it would be clearer: “during the period of 8–9 July 2024”. However, we have doubts about whether this is the correct time frame, as it implies a very short duration (less than 24 hour)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

-We accept the justification to maintain Table 1, but we think that the contributions of the discussion groups should not only address geographical location but fundamentally the educational and occupational characteristics of the members. 

 

LANGUAGE AND WRITING STYLE OF THE ARTICLE

- “lenguage” in Figure 1 caption (p. 11): should be corrected to “language”.

-“testomonies” in line 338: should be corrected to “testimonies”.

REFERENCES

Review all URLs in the reference list to ensure they are complete, clickable, and properly formatted.

Author Response

The author greatly appreciates the reviewer’s support and values the kind repetition of suggestions to improve the publication. Every effort was made to incorporate the new recommendations. Below are the responses to the new comments.

 

Comment: Occupation is mentioned but not analyzed in depth; this could be improved.

Response: The author acknowledges that in constructing the questionnaire, demographic variables such as professional occupation and educational level were not included. This is a shortcoming expressed in the research limitations. The link to the applied questionnaire is this one, and the aforementioned variables were not considered: https://forms.gle/bZuYfk4qZbRusFuA8 As the reviewer points out, based on this data, behavioral relationships could be identified to pinpoint disinformation strategies. The author trusts the reviewer's judgment to receive approval and, despite the weaknesses, share this contribution that will help the debate in academic and professional communities about the possible impacts of political disinformation. However, in the focus group analysis, the implications of distinct patterns based on participants' educational and occupational profiles are briefly and precisely noted. The changes introduced in the text are marked with red letters in the attached document.

 

Comment: An error persists in the date: "between 9 and 8 July 2024" is still incorrect.

Response: The author acknowledges the reviewer's kindness for pointing out the repeated error. Indeed, the survey application period corresponds to "9 and 28 July 2024".

 

Comment: In the footnote of figure 1 (p. 11), "lenguage" should be corrected to "language".

Response: This change was verified and has already been made.

 

Comment: On line 338, "tesomonies" should be corrected to "testimonies".

Response: This change was verified and has already been made.

 

Comment: Review all URLs in the reference list to ensure they are complete, clickable, and properly formatted.

Response: It was verified that the URLs in the reference list are complete, clickable, and properly formatted.

 

The author will remain attentive to any new comments from the reviewer.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf