Media Literacy Education and Misinformation in Social Media Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic: the role of educational institutions in strengthening adolescents’ media literacy to counter misinformation on social media. The combination of a systematic review and a meta-analysis provides empirical weight to a field often dominated by conceptual or advocacy-oriented discussions. The use of PRISMA guidelines is a strong point that demonstrates a commitment to methodological rigor. In addition, the typology of interventions (curricular literacy, lateral reading, cognitive inoculation, hybrid programs) offers a useful framework that can guide both educational practice and future research. The article has the potential to make a significant contribution, provided that certain methodological and structural aspects are clarified and reinforced.

The main methodological concern relates to transparency and reproducibility in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards. Although the manuscript states that searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, the complete search equations are not included. For a systematic review to be replicable, it is essential to include the exact Boolean strings used in each database, the specific fields consulted, and the limits applied in terms of years, document types, and languages. Moreover, there is an inconsistency in the reported time frame that needs to be resolved. The date of the last search should also be explicitly indicated. Without this information, the reproducibility and auditability of the review are weakened.

From a conceptual standpoint, the manuscript would benefit from the explicit formulation of research questions. At present, the objective is described in general terms, but there are no clear questions or hypotheses structuring the review. A systematic review with meta-analytic procedures should clearly articulate the questions guiding the inclusion criteria, data extraction, and synthesis. The explicit formulation of research questions would improve internal coherence and allow the discussion and conclusions to align more closely with the stated aims.

Regarding minor aspects, the introduction could be streamlined to reduce some conceptual repetition, particularly in the sections describing adolescents’ exposure to social media and algorithmic influence. The title could also be shortened to increase precision and impact. Furthermore, the tables could provide more detailed information, such as the instruments used, follow-up duration, and risk-of-bias assessment for each study, which would enhance transparency and analytical depth.

The language and style are generally clear, but minor editorial revisions would improve concision and consistency. Addressing these aspects would substantially strengthen the rigor of the manuscript and its overall contribution to the field.

Author Response

Greetings, dear reviewer, we thank you in advance for your comments, which will help us improve our manuscript. Please review the attached PDF file. 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This systematic review aims to explore the role of educational institutions in strengthening adolescents’ media literacy amid the growing influence of misinformation on social media. The paper demonstrates clear merit, but some changes are needed prior to publication in terms of academic soundness. 

2. A major strength of the manuscript lies in the analysis and details of data collection procedures. The review is well organized through PRISMA guidelines, focusing on relevant databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed. Previous literature is effectively categorized, showing the impact of educational interventions in adolescents’ ability to identify misinformation.  

3. Nevertheless, the paper would benefit from proper research objectives. These objectives might be tackled one by one in the conclusions section. In addition, this section lacks engagement with prior scholarship, as the findings are not adequately situated in relation to existing theoretical frameworks in the literature. 

4. Finally, the manuscript does not address limitations of the review, even though future lines of research are acknowledged. A discussion of methodological constraints or potential biases would strengthen the academic rigor of the article.  

5. In short, this article requires some rework, specifically expanding the conclusion through a proper discussion. Beyond that, I would like to highlight the value of the recommendations offered for teacher training and educational policies. 

Author Response

Greetings, dear reviewer, we thank you in advance for your comments, which will help us improve our manuscript. Please review the attached PDF file. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The second version of the article has improved compared to the first. We thank the authors for taking into consideration the comments made during the review. From my side, the article can be published.