From Digital Immigrants to Digital Floaters: Rethinking Generational Media Literacy in the Platform Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The strength of the study lies in its examination of a highly topical and relevant issue. A particular strength is that, based on its own research findings, it expands the dichotomy of "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" with the categories of "Analog Anchors" and "Digital Floaters." However, the paper is not yet suitable for publication in its current form because it has serious shortcomings:

The theoretical introduction and the methodological section lack the results of previous similar research. Where did the questions in the questionnaire come from? Where did the statements about skepticism, for example, come from?

It is unclear on what basis these new categories (Analog Anchors and Digital Floaters) were created. Was cluster analysis performed to verify their existence from the research results? Or do the authors simply believe that they exist? Furthermore, there is no presentation of the individuals falling into the two new categories based on age group and other background variables. Comparison of the new categories with the previous ones. How do they surpass them? What are the similarities and differences compared to the previous categories already discussed in the literature?

When presenting the results and in the discussion, the authors examine digital literacy, but they do not define this concept anywhere. Neither in the theoretical introduction nor here. This is a very serious shortcoming.

In the conclusion, the authors mention digital and information literacy and media and information literacy (MIL), but these concepts are also not defined. What elements does it consist of? What knowledge, skills, and attitudes does it encompass? How does it relate to digital literacy (which is also not defined)? Why is it necessary to discuss this concept?

I would also like to point out a formal error: Table 4 is way too long. It would be better to present the data in shorter units for easier overview. I suggest dividing it either logically/by topic or by age group, but as it stands, it is too long.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations. I have made all the necessary corrections accordingly.

Please find my response attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a valuable contribution to generational media literacy research. But I would like to highlight some needed improvements and amendments on the following points:

- The introduction of “Analog Anchors” and “Digital Floaters” appears late and is not connected to the data analysis. The typology seems more conceptual than empirically derived. Strengthening the link between empirical observations and the proposed categories is important.

- Sampling via personal networks and LinkedIn may create demographic skews toward educated and digitally competent participants. Potential biases (education, socio-economic level, digital familiarity) should be addressed in more depth.

- In the Methods, consider removing lengthy descriptions of Google Forms functions and GDPR compliance, as this dilutes methodological focus.

- In the discussion part, some sections repeat results rather than analyzing their implications. The author needs to edit that by a deeper critical engagement with unexpected or contradictory results.

- Since the article discusses digital literacy, platform-era media behaviors, generational differences in news consumption, social media as a primary information environment, skepticism toward mediated communication, and the ways users navigate digital ecosystems, incorporating research that offers theoretical grounding in Uses and Gratifications Theory, Media Dependency Theory, and digital communication practices across populations would significantly strengthen the manuscript. In this regard, the study “Understanding Social Media Dependency, and Uses and Gratifications as a Communication System in the Migration Era: Syrian Refugees in Host Countries as a Case Study” provides valuable insights into dependency patterns, motivations for digital engagement, and cross-cultural media practices. Integrating such work could enrich the paper’s comparative perspective and enhance the depth of its theoretical framework.

- It is highly relevant to the conceptual shift you propose (analog anchors vs. digital floaters), because your typology is about how and why users interact with digital media differently.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- A professional language edit would significantly increase readability.

- The manuscript contains long sentences, grammatical inconsistencies, and occasional uncooperative phrasing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations. I have made all the necessary corrections accordingly.

Please find my response attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study revisiting the classic “digital natives vs. digital immigrants” distinction and proposes a new dichotomy, Analog Anchors and Digital Floaters, to better capture heterogeneity in contemporary media literacy and news practices. I enjoyed reading the paper. The topic is timely and important. The sample size is substantial. I agree that it may contribute well to the literature. I have several comments to improve the manuscript further:

1. The manuscript makes a strong conceptual argument for moving beyond age-based labels, but the analyses remain primarily age-centered (e.g., one-way ANOVAs comparing younger vs. older groups). This creates a gap between the ambition of the paper and what is empirically shown. It may help to think through what specific empirical patterns would meaningfully support the Analog Anchor/Digital Floater distinction and adjust the analyses accordingly.

2. There is some inconsistency between the abstract (“Greek and international participants”) and the Method section (participants are all Greek).

3. The authors should incorporate recent scholarship showing that even when empirical generational differences are weak, generational identities can remain psychologically meaningful, shaping perceptions, stereotypes, and cross-cohort interactions. The paper also proposes polycultural or cross-generational frameworks that help explain why generational labels persist. Engaging with this line of research would help anchor your critique of the native/immigrant divide within a broader theoretical context and clarify how your proposed typology relates to identity-based accounts. See Lee et al. (2025). A cultural identity approach to the generational divide. New Ideas in Psychology, 79, 101183.

4. In the method section, more detail on item sources, adaptation, and scoring of the questionnaire would be helpful

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations. I have made all the necessary corrections accordingly.

Please find my response attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version shows many improvements over the original.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all of my comments. The manuscript is now well developed