Accepting the Digital Challenge: Public Perceptions and Attitudes toward Interactivity in Data Journalism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of this paper is interesting, highly relevant and fits in well with the Special Issue of this Journal.
The problem of the study is presented clearly, with a good framework and well-defined objectives. The paper is well structured, with a robust literature review and the necessary data to understand the study.
However, it is recommended that the authors improve the following points:
- The keywords should consist of at least two words. Keywords should also not be too vague or superficial, such as "Enjoyment" or "Attitude".
- Figures with illustrative examples should be added at the beginning of the paper to help the reader better understand what Data Journalism is.
- The literature review is extensive and includes reference scientific publications. However, there are few recent references, i.e. from the last five years. For this reason, the literature review should be supplemented with these more recent references in order to demonstrate that the support presented is up to date. I would also add that most of the bibliographical references are missing the DOI link. The authors should add this link to all the publications that have it.
- In section 4 they mention that they recruited 75 participants at a university, but they don't identify the university. The information should be as transparent as possible, identifying the university and the programmes to which these students belong.
Similarly, the study should make it clear in the Abstract and in the Introduction section in which geographical context the study is centred. Is it global (from all over the world) or does it focus on a region (continent, country or city)?
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule. All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us, and have discussed and revised each of these issues. The following is my list of revisions. In addition, we have resubmitted a new manuscript in the revised state, with the revisions highlighted in yellow.
Comments 1: The keywords should consist of at least two words. Keywords should also not be too vague or superficial, such as "Enjoyment" or "Attitude".
Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore, We revised the keywords of the paper to make it more specific and precise, the revised keywords include “Perceived Interactivity; Enjoyment and Fun; User Engagement; Attitude toward the journalism; Data Journalism; Interactive Data Visualization ”.
Comments 2: Figures with illustrative examples should be added at the beginning of the paper to help the reader better understand what Data Journalism is.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We added a data journalism project created by the New York Times <How the Virus Won> as an example. Specific descriptions and sample images can be found in lines 38 to 40 of the revised manuscript, as well as in Figure 1.
Comments 3:The literature review is extensive and includes reference scientific publications. However, there are few recent references, i.e. from the last five years. For this reason, the literature review should be supplemented with these more recent references in order to demonstrate that the support presented is up to date. I would also add that most of the bibliographical references are missing the DOI link. The authors should add this link to all the publications that have it.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. We added more recent references to support our study, especially in the literature review section, i.e. reference [16]、[18]、[30]、[31]、[34]、[35]、[36]、[37]. In addition, we modified the formatting of the references, and for publications with the doi, we added their doi links.
Comments 4： In section 4 they mention that they recruited 75 participants at a university, but they don't identify the university. The information should be as transparent as possible, identifying the university and the programmes to which these students belong.
Similarly, the study should make it clear in the Abstract and in the Introduction section in which geographical context the study is centred. Is it global (from all over the world) or does it focus on a region (continent, country or city)?
Response 4: Agree.In response to your suggestion, we have provided a more detailed description of the experimenter's situation in the revised manuscript（line 246-247）. The 75 experimental participants in this paper were recruited through voluntary recruitment at the Guilin University of Aerospace Technology in Guangxi Province, China.
Similarly, We also describe this section in more detail in the abstract (line13) and Introduction (line 95-97).Our experiments were conducted in China, as the data journalism industry in China has a large user community and demand. However, we consider that the findings in this paper can be extended to relevant research and practice on a global scale.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author's study on the relationship between users' perceived interactivity and their attitudes towards data journalism, with a focus on the mediating variables of enjoyment and engagement, is an important contribution to the field. Overall, the study appears well-conducted and provides valuable insights. However, here are some recommendations and considerations for improvement:
While it's mentioned that the participants were undergraduate students with backgrounds in design and journalism, it would be beneficial to include more information about their diversity, such as majors, year of study, and any other relevant demographic details that might influence their responses. This additional information can help assess the generalizability of the findings.
Discuss the rationale behind choosing three levels of interactivity (low, medium, and high) and how these levels were determined. Explain any potential limitations associated with this design choice.
Ensure that the random assignment process to the three interaction levels is explicitly described. Detail how the randomization was conducted to ensure that each group is comparable and that there is no bias in group assignment.
Consider including a control group that does not receive any data journalism with interactive features. This would help establish a baseline against which the effects of different interaction levels can be compared.
While it's mentioned that a pre-test was conducted with 15 participants, provide a summary of the findings from the pre-test, particularly if any modifications were made to the measurement items or materials based on the feedback received.
A lack of current literature. By incorporating a well-researched and up-to-date literature review, the author can provide context for their study, demonstrate their awareness of existing research, and justify the significance of their contribution to the field of data journalism and user interaction.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule. All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us, and have discussed and revised each of these issues. The following is my list of revisions. In addition, we have resubmitted a new manuscript in the revised state, with the revisions highlighted in yellow.
Comments 1: While it's mentioned that the participants were undergraduate students with backgrounds in design and journalism, it would be beneficial to include more information about their diversity, such as majors, year of study, and any other relevant demographic details that might influence their responses. This additional information can help assess the generalizability of the findings.
Response 1: Thanks for the suggestion. Therefore, We provided more detailed information about the participants, such as major and grade level in the revised manuscript. Specific descriptions of it can be found in lines 246 to 250 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 2: Discuss the rationale behind choosing three levels of interactivity (low, medium, and high) and how these levels were determined. Explain any potential limitations associated with this design choice.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The different levels of interactivity described here are categorized according to Christoph and Satran , who classified the degree of interactivity into seven levels based on the type of control available to the user from low to high, including pace, sequence, media, variables, transactions, objects, and stimulation. In our experiments, three different interaction levels of data visualization were designed to correspond to user control of speed, speed and order, speed, order, and variables. The descriptions of this part can be found in lines 257 to 262 of the revised manuscript .
There are indeed limitations with the design choice. First ，we used a fairly simple interactive data visualization that user could hover the mouse for more specific information or to filter the database to display specific categories of data, as they represent typical interactions with graphical content used in online news. Second，in order to ensuring the experiment was as least intrusive as possible, we extracted only a portion of the article and included only one map visualization，but in a strict sense, there is limited space for interaction with this experimental material. In future research, experiments can be conducted with materials with higher interaction potential, such as considering the dimensions of user-user interactivity or Person interactivity. The descriptions of this part can be found in lines 262-264 and 492 to 495 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 3: Ensure that the random assignment process to the three interaction levels is explicitly described. Detail how the randomization was conducted to ensure that each group is comparable and that there is no bias in group assignment.
Response 3: The experiment was conducted in a computer classroom on campus, where the three versions of the experimental materials were distributed in equal quantities to different desktops through the randomized distribution function of the school's instructional management system, and recruited participants were seated randomly. Each subject will be randomly assigned to one of three interaction levels of experimental material and will be exposed to only one level or condition. The descriptions of this part can be found in lines 265-269 of the revised manuscript .
Comments 4：Consider including a control group that does not receive any data journalism with interactive features. This would help establish a baseline against which the effects of different interaction levels can be compared.
Response 4: Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, the low-interactivity experimental group served as our control group in this paper, which users could only read the news page through their eyes and control their reading speed, and could not interact more with the web page, established the baseline for the comparison.
Comments 5：While it's mentioned that a pre-test was conducted with 15 participants, provide a summary of the findings from the pre-test, particularly if any modifications were made to the measurement items or materials based on the feedback received.
Response 5: Agree.In response to your suggestion, we have provided a more detailed description of the pre-test. For example, some participants indicated that they did not know whether they needed to memorize certain data in the journalism during the reading process. Hence, at the beginning of the formal experiment, we made it clear that participants could read the journalism as they normally would, without memorizing it intentional, to avoid affecting their reading experience and the experiment's results. In addition, based on participant feedback and the literature review, "visualization charts" in the scale were replaced with "data journalism", e.g., "I found my visit to this visualization chart enjoyable" was replaced with "I found my visit to this data journalism enjoyable" to reflect participants' perceptions of the overall journalism more accurately. The descriptions of this part can be found in lines 305-313 of the revised manuscript.
Comments 6：A lack of current literature. By incorporating a well-researched and up-to-date literature review, the author can provide context for their study, demonstrate their awareness of existing research, and justify the significance of their contribution to the field of data journalism and user interaction.
Response 6: Thanks for the suggestion. We added more recent references to support our study, especially in the literature review section, i.e. reference [16]、[18]、[30]、[31]、[34]、[35]、[36]、[37].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
