Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper fits perfectly within the scope of the journal. The research question is clear and truly original. A major strength is that the paper looks at two different social networks (Instagram and X) instead of treating them as the same. This fills a real gap in current research, which the authors clearly point out. The case study is also new because, as the authors mention, Latin America has never experienced this kind of social media event before. The authors rightly note that older examples, like the capture of Noriega in 1989, happened before digital media existed.

The finding that SCCT does not work as the theory predicts is really interesting. The authors honestly present this as a challenge to the theory, rather than a confirmation. The hypotheses (H1–H5) are clearly identified and carefully written as non-directional, which makes sense given the exploratory nature of the study. Tables are easy to read, and the regression results are correctly presented. The coding manual with examples in the Appendix is excellent because it increases transparency.

The study design is technically solid. Negative binomial regression is the right choice for count data with overdispersion (which is typical for engagement metrics). This is methodologically correct and better than using standard Poisson or OLS. The intercoder reliability was also done properly, and Krippendorff's alpha values are above the recommended thresholds.

One point the authors should address is the explanatory power of the models. The reported pseudo R values are quite low (from 0.0236 to 0.0463), meaning the models explain only a small part of the variance in engagement. The conclusions about individual predictors are still valid, but I encourage the authors to discuss these low values. They should also be more cautious when making broad claims about what "drives" engagement.

The topic is timely, and comparing the platforms is useful for communication professionals. Also, the challenge to SCCT will be interesting to theorists in media studies. The English is excellent, fluent, and precise. In the acknowledgements, the authors transparently disclose that they used an AI tool for grammar and formatting corrections. Finally, I really appreciate the up to date literature used in the paper, as many references were published in the last five years.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions. All of your observations have been addressed and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. Additionally, a detailed point-by-point response to each of your comments is provided in the attached response document.

Thank you for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work.

Kind regards,

Authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor 

 

Kindly find attached review reports. 

 

 

Regards 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions. All of your observations have been addressed and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. Additionally, a detailed point-by-point response to each of your comments is provided in the attached response document.

Thank you for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work.

Kind regards, 

Authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research proposes an empirically grounded analysis of how message attributes shape digital engagement during geopolitical crises, with the very recent capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro as a case study. The platform-comparative approach and the methods used create very interesting and nuanced findings. The paper builds on a robust theoretical foundation, effectively integrating crisis communication theory with platform-specific frameworks. The authors demonstrate a clear expertise of the relevant literature and position their contribution precisely within existing debates. The research has a rigorous methodological design and the operationalization of message attributes is transparent and well justified. The sample also captures meaningful data across platforms and the analytical strategy is appropriate for the research questions. These strengths make the study a solid reference point for future research in this area.

However, the study presents some limitations as the limited observation time, 7 days. At any rate, it is a good model from where to start for future research, incorporating also research on the role of recommendation algorithms.

Finally, I would also like to underline something on the framing of the implications, particularly those directed at media organizations. The study ultimately recommends that media outlets to adopt "formats and tones that engage with the consumption logics specific to each platform". I think this advice sits uneasily with the core functions of journalistic media that are accuracy, contextualization and public accountability. The paper appears to treat engagement maximization as an inherently desirable outcome without interrogating whether this framework is equally appropriate for all actors analyzed. For instance, the claim that explicit responsibility attribution is counterproductive on Instagram should be explained. That is, does the evidence show negative effects or just reduced effectiveness compared to other strategies? Lastly, authors should take into account that when they talk about the recommendation to employ humor during geopolitical crises should also create discussion of potential risks as trivialization or ethical concerns.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions. All of your observations have been addressed and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. Additionally, a detailed point-by-point response to each of your comments is provided in the attached response document.

Thank you for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work.

Kind regards, Authors 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx