Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a well-structured one. It is clear that the author has a deep understanding in regards to the theoretical background of transmedia studies. The study combines many different perspectives toward a single purpose. Usually, that would be a crowded chaos. However, the author cleverly combined film studies, journalism education, the SDGs, and transmedia studies. The only suggestion I would offer at this time is that this manuscript include a more transparent methodology. Perhaps having an explicit articulation of the hypothesis and research questions would provide a more transparent methodology. Also, I would like to know the researcher's position during the application of the studies with the students.

I believe this research is a valuable contribution to transmedia journalism education studies. It would be interesting to see how this research applies in countries where citizens do not trust mainstream media outlets. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to begin by sincerely thanking you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for your constructive and insightful comments. Your observations have been extremely helpful in strengthening and clarifying the paper, and we are truly grateful for the time and attention you have devoted to its evaluation.

Below, we provide a detailed account of the revisions undertaken in response to your comments.

Comment 1: The only suggestion I would offer at this time is that this manuscript include a more transparent methodology. Perhaps having an explicit articulation of the hypothesis and research questions would provide a more transparent methodology.

Response 1: We agree on the need to clarify the methodology. Therefore, we have reformulated the original hypothesis into three distinct hypotheses that more precisely reflect the aspects to be validated or invalidated in the study.

The previous version of the paragraph was as follows:

The hypothesis is that the tool makes it possible to promote students’ media and transmedia literacy of the subject in which the project is framed, providing satisfactory results in terms of awareness regarding the objectives set by UNESCO in its 2030 Agenda.

Now, the new version explains that methodological question as follows (included in the page 3, lines 114-119):

These objectives give rise to three interrelated hypotheses: (H1) that the tool promotes students’ transmedia literacy through the creation of interconnected journalistic pieces; (H2) that the proposed activities enhance their autonomy and proactivity, enabling them to produce socially relevant news content; and (H3) that engagement with the underlying Sustainable Development Goals fosters awareness of contemporary issues and stimulates the development of potential solutions.

 

Comment 2: Also, I would like to know the researcher's position during the application of the studies with the students.

Response 2: We acknowledge that this is an important point that required clarification. Therefore, we have added the following paragraph to the revised manuscript (p. 6, lines 232-237).

Regarding the researcher’s position during the study, it should be clarified that the Principal Investigator also served as the course instructor in which the project was implemented. He was responsible for designing the intervention and for providing formal guidelines for the different activities. However, during the phases involving creative production and reflective work, he deliberately adopted a non-interventionist stance in order to minimise potential bias and reduce undue influence on students’ performance.

Please find attached the manuscript with the changes made highlighted.

We hope that these revisions adequately address the concerns raised and contribute to improving the clarity and rigour of the manuscript.

Once again, we would like to thank both reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and invaluable contribution to the development of this work.

 

Kind regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well written and researched paper making a valuable contribution to sustainability in media and in this case journalism. 

Critical reading and thinking skills are an important foundation to a democratic society and the proposed methodology fosters these skills by exploring SDGs. 

This paper has merit and in my view can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to begin by sincerely thanking you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for your kind considerations. We are truly grateful for the time and attention you have devoted to its evaluation.

Please find attached a new version of the manuscript with some changes highlighted for for ease of identification.

We hope that these changes contribute to improving the clarity and rigour of the manuscript.

Once again, we would like to thank you for your invaluable contribution to the development of this work.

Kind regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf