Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic and demonstrates familiarity with key theoretical traditions in framing, representation, and mediated geopolitics. The empirical material is rich, and the authors clearly invested substantial effort in assembling comparative cases across multiple national media systems.

However, the paper currently suffers from several substantive weaknesses that limit its analytical rigor and contribution.

1. Absence of clearly articulated research questions
The manuscript does not explicitly state research questions or analytic objectives in a formal manner. While the general aim can be inferred, this omission weakens methodological transparency and makes it difficult to assess whether the findings directly answer the study’s intended inquiry.

2. Methodological under-specification
The selection of four events and 18 articles is insufficiently justified. The manuscript does not explain why these cases are analytically decisive, how they relate to broader media coverage, or how alternative framings were excluded. The small and selective corpus raises concerns about cherry-picking and limits interpretive credibility.

Additionally, the coding process remains vague. There is no discussion of coder positionality, analytic reflexivity, or reliability procedures. For an interpretive framing study, some acknowledgement of subjectivity and analytic discipline is necessary.

3. Blurring of findings and interpretation
Throughout Sections 5 and 6, descriptive findings are frequently conflated with theoretical interpretation. Assertions about geopolitical intent and media-system logic often exceed what can be directly supported by the cited texts. The analysis would benefit from clearer separation between what the articles say and what the authors infer.

4. Over-extension of theoretical claims
While the theoretical framework is ambitious, not all concepts are equally operationalized. Platform governance, in particular, is invoked more as a contextual backdrop than as an analytically demonstrated mechanism. As a result, the paper risks appearing theory-heavy but method-light.

5. Conclusions exceed empirical warrant
The conclusion advances strong claims about ASEAN’s “discursive sovereignty” and media as extensions of statecraft. These arguments are plausible but currently under-supported by the limited dataset. Either the claims should be moderated or the empirical base expanded.

Overall, the manuscript shows promise but requires substantial revision to meet standards for methodological clarity, analytic rigor, and evidentiary support.

Author Response

(Please see the attached file.)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an interesting analysis of how ASEAN is framed in the platforms age, focusing on media infrastructures and geopolitical narratives in East Asia. I believe that the topic is relevant and interesting, but some improvements should be considered.

The abstract should describe the research method more clearly.

Abbreviated expressions should be written out in full the first time they are used, with the abbreviation in brackets. ASEAN is written out in full at the beginning of the manuscript, but after it has already been used in the article title and abstract.

The authors state in the methodology section that this study used qualitative comparative analysis to examine how ASEAN is framed in the English-language mainstream media of China, Japan, and South Korea, but they do not specify how the media outlets were selected or what selection criteria they used.

Below (lines 175-176), the authors state that "A total of 18 news articles were systematically selected according to the following criteria," but in the section presenting the results, it is clear that the number of articles is higher (four events, covered in three countries with at least two articles mentioned for each country). In the References section, it can also be observed that there are more than 18 news articles. Authors must clearly specify the sample of news articles analyzed.

Table 3 presents, in a comparative perspective, information that is subsequently repeated almost identically in Tables 4-15. I consider this presentation of the results to be redundant, and placing the comparative analysis at the beginning rather than after the interpretation of the results may lead to a loss of interest from readers.

Also, the discussion section could be strengthened. I would have liked the authors to explore the connection between their results and previous research in greater depth.

Author Response

(Please see the attached file.)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved substantially following revision, and the overall structure and analytical focus are now clearer. The comparative analysis is coherent, and the discussion is better aligned with the stated aims of the study.

One remaining issue concerns the scope of the literature review. Given the manuscript’s focus on how ASEAN is framed by non-ASEAN media systems, the review would benefit from engaging more fully with prior empirical research that has examined how ASEAN has been portrayed or framed in media coverage. There is existing work in this area that predates the current platform-focused literature and addresses related questions of media framing and representation.

Engaging with this body of research would help situate the manuscript more firmly within the existing scholarship on ASEAN representation and would strengthen the grounding of the study’s contribution.

Author Response

(file attached)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to revise this manuscript again.

This revised version represents a clear improvement over the previous submission, and I noticed that the authors provided rigorous responses to all comments made during the first stage of the review process. The revisions and additions to the manuscript improve the content and provide greater clarity.

After carefully reading the revised version of the manuscript, I noticed that there are some editing oversights and the text requires a thorough proofreading. E.g., in lines 521-522 the word “legitimizing” is incorrectly split across lines due to formatting issues, also in lines 542-543 the word “framing” or in lines 565-566 the word “register” is incorrectly split.

In line 612 there is a comma missing between the author name and publication year in the in-text citations (Entman 1993).

Otherwise, I have no other comments or suggestions regarding the content of this manuscript.

Author Response

(file attached)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf