Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. You’ve done a great job demonstrating how the frames and narratives used in press releases can shape subsequent newspaper coverage. This study makes a timely and valuable contribution to the existing literature, and your writing is both clear and well grounded in prior research. To help clarify your findings, I’ve provided a few section-by-section suggestions below. I hope you find them useful as you refine your manuscript.

Abstract and Introduction

The abstract clearly presents the main findings and their significance. The introduction clearly explains the different challenges that readers and journalists face when learning about ocean science.

1. In paragraph 1.1, split the challenges faced by the general public (e.g., need for prior knowledge, complex methods, physical distance) from those faced by journalists (e.g., limited scientist access, interpreting findings) into two separate paragraphs for greater clarity.

Theoretical Framework

You’ve defined the key concepts: framing, narrative use, overall tone, and actor roles, well.

1. In Section 2.1 you explain the concept of frame-building elements but don’t discuss the effects frames can have on readers. (You do cover these effects in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 when discussing narratives and story tone.) After defining frame-building elements in Section 2.1, include a brief overview of how frames influence readers’ perceptions and interpretations.

Methods

The coding process is described clearly.

1. Please specify the timeframe during which the press releases and articles were published.
2. You note that inter-coder reliability for the stylistic elements did not reach an acceptable threshold. It may be cleaner to drop those elements from the analysis.

Results

Figures 1–3 contain a lot of information. They’re informative but require time to interpret.

1. You coded 38 elements (frame variables, narrative elements, actors, actor roles) but analyzed only 10 press releases. In the Results or Limitations section, discuss whether this sample size provides a sufficient basis for assessing all 38 coded elements.
2. In line 315, you refer to “press.” I think you meant “press release.”
3. For framing and for actors, you report the number of articles that mirror, add to, or omit elements compared to the press release. Please include similar counts for the narrative elements.

Conclusions and Discussion

You link your results back to theory, suggest ways for journalists and scientists to improve communication, and identify the study’s limitations and avenues for future research.

1. The structure of the Discussion does not mirror the order of the theoretical framework and Results. Reordering the Discussion subsections to follow frame-building, narratives, then actors would improve logical flow.
2. You mention article length in several places but do not integrate it fully into your findings. Either expand the analysis of length to show how it affects your results or remove those mentions if they do not support your main argument.
3. You cannot be certain that press releases alone drive the framing of news articles, journalists may also draw on other sources. Please address this possibility in the Limitations section.

I think you have written a very interesting paper that fits nicely within the journal. I have had the great pleasure to review this and wish to stress that the comments are minor, meaning I hope to see this manuscript published soon. The paper is a unique and useful addition to the literature (as there is indeed limited knowledge on press releases (and their frames) and associated news articles). Below you’ll find comments related to literature, structure and more general reflections.

INTRODUCTION

I think you clearly sketch the relevance of the research and excite the reader to keep on reading.

Line 33-35: Maybe rephrase the sentence a bit. I struggled to understand the sentence due to it starting with ‘as’.

Line 45-50: Good relevance sketch. Could be combined with the last paragraph of the introduction (94-100).

Line 52-59: Repetition of the word ‘challenges’ and ‘challenging’

Line 61: I’m not fully convinced of the importance of journalists based on your text yet. Maybe better to combine it with the next paragraph and truly stress the importance of these journalists.

Line 68-70: A bit off topic. Could be removed for me.

Line 86: Maybe already explain the difference between narratives and frames a bit (not necessary however).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Again, a strong outline of what is known and what you could add to the literature. Well done!

Line 107: The emphasis on ‘how’ threw me off a little bit. Framing always feels like a ‘how’, meaning I didn’t truly understand the specific emphasis you wish to make or what the specific contrast is with the previous lines.

Line 124-135: Very nice explanation of narratives. Just ‘personalization’ feels a bit out of balance due to the extra paragraph below (136-144). Maybe emphasize why personalization is big or combine 136-150. Also: be consistent with ‘personalisation’ or ‘personalization’.

Line 155: ‘And’ between RQ’s not necessary

Line 160: “How audiences perceive and respond to information”. A question: Isn’t this also the case with frames and narratives and not just the tone?

Line 164: Definitely true that news has a ‘negativity bias’. Nevertheless, Harcup and O’Neill also identify positive news. Maybe good to look at Caple & Bednarek (2016), as they are a bit closer to framing and discourse? Or Badenschier and Wormer (2012) for news values x science news? Just a tip!

Line 169-171: This explicit background regarding press releases is not given with other RQ’s and is not necessary here, for me. You could leave it out.

RESULTS

I have close to no remarks on the result section, as I feel you have truly taken a unique approach (especially the figures) and have clearly explained what you found.

Line 337: COVID-19*-related plastic waste

Line 324-372: Just an idea! The result section reads a bit repetitive and maybe it would be good to combine the responsibility for causing and mitigating (as I was a bit confused on the first read), e.g. responsibility country cause x responsibility country mitigation. Just an idea, though.

Line 384: Explicitly mention dramatization

Line 401-405: These lines are quite similar to the previous paragraph. How do you argue the difference between e.g. a negative tone and emotional (negative) narrative elements?

Line 437: Any idea why newspapers have a broader array of actor roles?

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

You give a good conclusion and reflect on how your results fit within the literature in a proper manner. At certain parts I feel you could be a bit more normative (although you don’t have to be) and expand on certain points.

Line 501-515: Could be used as a lead up to the ‘ethical messaging’ part. I feel the ethical messaging is a very important aspect of what you found (with the influence of press releases and the limited ‘power’ of journalists). I would therefore expand 529-540 a bit more. Focus on the responsibility of research institutes & their communication and perhaps add some more sources (e.g. Fürst et al, 2022) and see also Sumner et al. 2014 “our principle findings were that most of the inflation detected in our study did not occur de novo in the media but was already present in the text of the press releases produced by academics and their establishments”.

APPENDIX

Line 595: Don’t you mean you compared the content of all news articles, not press releases?

Great work! Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this. And thank you for your valuable addition to the literature.