A Working Definition of Fake News
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The text furthers our understanding in the field of disinformation, providing a working definition of fake news. The article contributes to the clarification of a concept that is widely discussed by the literature. On this matter, many references are used to identify the features of fake news as well as to show the differences among concepts.
2. The introduction makes it possible to find many concepts that are connected with fake news. In fact, this is a polysemic concept according to the European Commission. Therefore, the study is well justified, mentioning why is relevant to offer findings on this topic. Bearing the plurality of phenomena related to fake news in mind, the method applied aims to limit a definition of fake news. Analyzing documents in WoS and Scopus since 2016 seems interesting, but the article would benefit from an explanation on how the documents (first 249, then 63) were filtered.
3. The social dimension of the fake news is present along the text. Based on prior scholarship, the authors carry out a three-dimensional approach that assesses fake news as an intentional activity with news format and that goes beyond false information. In this sense, the discussion as falsehood as a key element for fake news is relevant.
4. The article exposes the information in a really comprehensive way. For example, the table 1 allows than one can learn a lot about how the main proposals for the definition of fake news include the three features identified. Besides that, it is also quite useful to mark the differences between fake news and other concepts that are characterized as “family resemblances”. People are used to manage the words of propaganda and satires, but they are different of fake news in terms of objectives and methods.
5. In short, this article means an important contribution that addresses timely issues by expanding the evidence on fake news, limiting the scope of the concept. The literature about this topic is vast; hence, clearly identifying the working of this online phenomenon, as the authors said, is key to recognize the problem. I appreciate the work carried out, as followed a comprehensive structure that summarizes a complex concept.
The manuscript is rigorous, contributes to advance the knowledge in the field and does not present serious problems in its current version. In my opinion, this kind of revision and theoretical contribution offers insightful information that fosters an open discussion.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we really appreciate your comment on our work. We believe that this article can, in fact, be a contribution to the literature, helping to limit the concept of fake news and promoting its applicability to journalism and other areas of communication sciences. Furthermore, this working definition of fake news is the result of an extensive literature review and a three-dimensional approach [(1) intent, (2) format, (3) degree of falsity] that clearly limit contemporary fake news, allowing to distinguish this genre from other types of disinformation. As suggested by the reviewer, we added in the manuscript that, after qualitative evaluation, we selected all the articles that we considered relevant to our research, meaning those which directly or indirectly discussed the concept/phenomenon of fake news.
Reviewer 2 Report
The proposed review is interesting in so far it represents a new attempt to conceptualize what "fake news" are from an academic point of view. Nevertheless, the results do not really contribute in a significant way to the field of journalism or communication studies as claimed by the authors.
I would recommend them to specify in their entry to which extend this new definition of "fake news" is useful from an academic point of view when compared to others already existing (Wardle, Silverman, etc.). That is to say, in what kind of communication studies can their concept of "fake news" be more workable and why.
On the other hand, I find this new definition of "fake news" is excessively focused on online channels of communication, and particularly inspired on the production of well-know websites that usually publish "fake news". Misinformation also occurs in other online formats like video (i.e. “deepfakes”) or podcasts; in that sense, an extension of the definition of "fake news" that includes these or other combination of formats would be rather enriching, most of all if we take into account that the production of (fake) news is now more transmedia than ever. In relation to that point, I personally find that the concept proposed by the authors is too much limited by the classical presentation of news, “headline+ text+ pictures”, as described in the paper.
I would end recommending the authors to add in their entry some references to the type of public “fake news” are addressed to (general public, only social media users, online news consummers, audiences that seek to reinforce their political or ideological beliefs or not, etc.).
Author Response
Point 1. The proposed review is interesting in so far it represents a new attempt to conceptualize what "fake news" are from an academic point of view. Nevertheless, the results do not really contribute in a significant way to the field of journalism or communication studies as claimed by the authors.
I would recommend them to specify in their entry to which extend this new definition of "fake news" is useful from an academic point of view when compared to others already existing (Wardle, Silverman, etc.). That is to say, in what kind of communication studies can their concept of "fake news" be more workable and why.
Response 1. Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your reflection. Regarding your comment, I must say that our objective was to find a definition that was restricted and limited to the digital universe, namely to social media. Most of the literature points out that social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, are the main vehicles for disseminating fake news. Two main motives underlie this “infodemic”: social media serve to generate traffic to fake news sites (later converted it into advertising revenue), and serve to deceive/manipulate the audience (for political, partisan or ideological reasons). In addition, aspects related to recommendation algorithms that lead to the formation of echo chambers and filter bubbles make social media fertile ground for the spread of fake news. Studies that focus on analyzing the impact or dissemination of fake news in elections essentially focus on Twitter (Grinberg et al., 2019; Pierri et al., 2020) and Facebook (Baptista & Gradim, 2020, 2021).We believe that our working definition of fake news would be very helpful for this type of research. Fake news has become a propaganda element of political communication, used in electoral campaigns throughout the West. In this work we do not treat the term in a politicized way, or as a political label, but rather as a genre. Our definition eliminates concepts that may have a similar semantic field. We define the most common (and dangerous) contemporary fake news as a genre, outlining their opportunistic and attractive structure.
Point 2. On the other hand, I find this new definition of "fake news" is excessively focused on online channels of communication, and particularly inspired on the production of well-know websites that usually publish "fake news". Misinformation also occurs in other online formats like video (i.e. “deepfakes”) or podcasts; in that sense, an extension of the definition of "fake news" that includes these or other combination of formats would be rather enriching, most of all if we take into account that the production of (fake) news is now more transmedia than ever. In relation to that point, I personally find that the concept proposed by the authors is too much limited by the classical presentation of news, “headline+ text+ pictures”, as described in the paper.
Response 2. We greatly appreciate this comment, which is very important for this discussion. When we approach other formats, we may be on the verge of discussing not only fake news, but disinformation in general. We defend that fake news is a kind of disinformation, as podcasts or deepfakes can also be. But our definition explicitly excludes podcasts and deepfakes as fake news, except if they adopt the format of the genre we’re defining. One of the key aspects of fake news is to falsify the products of the journalistic industry, hence the news-like format, which eliminates “deepfakes” that do not properly imitate news stories or journalistic format, although it is a way to misinform/deceive/or manipulate. To sum up: for the purpose of this definition fake news is a subset of the disinformation universe which our work conceptually circumscribes. The format similar to journalistic news not only makes fake news more credible, but also helps to capture people's attention to be shared. However, more than predating journalistic credibility, which they do, the success of fake news essentially depends on structure. First, because most people do not access the news link. Second, content that provokes strong emotions, with outrageous, surreal, impressive titles and images, is much more likely to be shared and go viral. In this sense, we believe that these fake news, made credible by imitating journalistic genres, are dangerous for democracy. To include deepfakes or podcasts in our definition, we would also have to consider, for example, macro image memes. Both can carry a “news” value and both can deceive or manipulate, but as a different species of disinformation.
Point 3. I would end recommending the authors to add in their entry some references to the type of public “fake news” are addressed to (general public, only social media users, online news consummers, audiences that seek to reinforce their political or ideological beliefs or not, etc.).
Response 3. Thank you for your comment. This suggestion was inserted into the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The submitted article deals with a relevant and current topic, and does so with care and dedication.
Thus, the idea of ​​finding a definition of "fake news" is important, especially to be able to define what is not, even if someone says so. As an example, the use of "fake news" to deny opinions and ideology. Therefore, it seems very appropriate to carry out this attempt.
It is also evident that a lot has been published lately in relation to disinformation. To finish improving an article that I think is adequate and publishable with some points for improvement, I would like to specify the following aspects:
- A definition and context of "fake news" I think needs to deal with two aspects and concepts, the presidency of Donald Trump and COVID-19, since they have played a central role.
- To understand the role of fake news, I think it is also appropriate, as McNair himself quoted in the article does, to deal with the crisis of the media and liberal democracies, not only because of clickbait.
- The sections of point 3 are poorly numbered and are confusing.
- The definition itself cites "in order to obtain more clicks and shares and, therefore, greater advertising revenue and/or ideological gain". I think that the ideological gain should be more explained and contextualized with examples, from the logic of an electoral campaign, a referendum to the extreme right itself and the use of denial theories related to COVID-19 to explain the depth of the definition"
- I also think that the context of fake news as part of geopolitical disinformation would also be appropriate.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you a lot for the suggestions. We believe that they enrich the article, and included a deeper analysis in point 5, clarifying the importance of the two contexts, COVID-19 and Donald Trump. We also corrected the numbering in point 3.Reviewer 4 Report
The aim of the manuscript was a bit unrealistic -to propose a working definition of fake news, making the concept clear and univocal. The term Fake News is multidimensional and has many aspects to consider when speaking about every particular aspect.
However, the authors succeeded, the final definition can be useful together with the literature review to other scholars interested in the fake news topic..
There are some aspects to improve.
- The abstract is too short. There is no scientific problem, methodology and results indicated in the Abstract.
- Propaganda has a different meaning than for instance inaccurate reports. If the authors had the criteria "the intention of the producer" propaganda should have been included as one of the types of Fake news. However, only bullshits, advertising, jokes, inaccurate reports, bad journalism, satirical news are listed
- What kind of literature review is done? It would be helpful to identify it.
It was interesting to read, thank you very much and good luck!
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Point 1. The aim of the manuscript was a bit unrealistic -to propose a working definition of fake news, making the concept clear and univocal. The term Fake News is multidimensional and has many aspects to consider when speaking about every particular aspect. However, the authors succeeded, the final definition can be useful together with the literature review to other scholars interested in the fake news topic..
The abstract is too short. There is no scientific problem, methodology and results indicated in the Abstract.
Response 1. Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the suggestions. They are improving the article. We consider that finding a working definition of fake news was a challenge and we believe that it can be another contribution to the literature. As you suggested, the abstract has been significantly improved.
Point 2. Propaganda has a different meaning than for instance inaccurate reports. If the authors had the criteria "the intention of the producer" propaganda should have been included as one of the types of Fake news. However, only bullshits, advertising, jokes, inaccurate reports, bad journalism, satirical news are listed
Response 2. Dear reviewer, as suggested we have included "propaganda" in the list of terms with similar semantic fields. You can check the manuscript. In fact, propaganda is a concept that is very close to fake news, when, for example, fake news serves a political interest. But fake news does not necessarily have to follow a political-ideological agenda. And propaganda doesn't have to conform to a news format. Our analysis of the concept of fake news is based on three dimensions (1) intention, (2) news format and (3) degree of falsehood with the clear objective of limiting the concept of fake news and separating it from other concepts ( as propaganda) that share very close semantic fields.
Point 3. What kind of literature review is done? It would be helpful to identify it.
Response 3. Thank you for your comment. This suggestion was inserted into the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the issues brought up in the previous review.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we appreciate your comments. We believe that your suggestions contributed to improve the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
No additional comments or suggestions for authors are needed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments, they were important for our study.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for having taken into account my comments in this new improved version
Author Response
Thank you very much for your contribution to improve our study.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the Authors efforts to improve the manuscript. Good luck in your research!
