1: The article aims to examine the notion of “Thucydides Trap” as a political terminology, taking into account how it has been cross-culturally communicated and elevated. I applaud the authors for taking on this approach. However, I do not believe the manuscript sufficiently advances theory. The manuscript needs more development, a more compelling case for this topic, and a more purposive narrative. I would like the authors to think about how they are framing their article and whether the current framing makes the case as persuasively as they would like. For example, the idea of framing needs a more careful assessment considering recent scholarship. Given the international scope of the conference, the authors should add more details about the publications under study. Besides, the empirical results appear relatively thin. Interpretation and explanation of findings requires more in-depth discussion and attention to the nuances of the data (mainly since the intention is to compare different news organizations). 2: I very much enjoyed reading this paper. It makes an interesting contribution to framing studies in Chinese. I did not know about the Thucydides Trap frame, and have learned something new and valuable from the paper.

While I like the paper, I also have a number of recommendations for the authors to improve it:

• The authors should revisit the structure of the paper. Important information was present, but not always in the right order. I recommend to focus on a structure of Introduction/Theory - Method - Results - Discussion.

Information is now provided in an alternative order, which made the paper quite hard to read and follow. For instance, the method section on pp. 4-9 was followed by theoretical observations about framing (p. 9) and metaphor (p. 12).

• The authors could make more connections with framing studies conducted in Chinese and other Eastern contexts (see below for some suggestions). Would the authors argue that this example deviates in some way from other cases and/or results found in Western framing studies?
• Similarly, their discussion of the role of metaphor in framing is limited. They could for instance refer the paper by Burgers et al. (2016), who make the role of metaphor in framing studies more explicit. Does your paper support or challenges the observations made by Burgers and colleagues? Similarly, some scholars have focused on the role of metaphorical framing in Chinese contexts. Such studies could be included as well; how does your paper relate to these findings?
• Some aspects of methodology should receive more attention. For instance, how did the authors code for metaphors in their corpus? Did they use established methods (e.g., Wang et al.) or not? Did they calculate intercoder reliability (e.g., Krippendorff's alpha)?

References mentioned in review Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2016). Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410-430.

Dai, J., & Hyun, K. (2010). Global risk, domestic framing: Coverage of the North Korean nuclear test by US, Chinese, and South Korean news agencies. Asian Journal of Communication, 20(3), 299-317.

Lu, L. W. L., & Ahrens, K. (2008). Ideological influence on BUILDING metaphors in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 383-408.

Tong, J. (2014). Environmental risks in newspaper coverage: A framing analysis of investigative reports on environmental problems in 10 Chinese newspapers. Environmental Communication, 8(3), 345-367.

Wang, B. P. Y., Lu, X., Hsu, C. C., Lin, E. P. C., & Ai, H. (2019). Linguistic metaphor identification in Chinese. In S. Nacey, A.G. Dorst, T. Krennmayr and W.G. Reijnierse (eds). Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages: MIPVU around the world (pp. 248-265). https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22.12wan

Yu, N. (2003). Metaphor, body, and culture: The Chinese understanding of gallbladder and courage. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(1), 13-31.

Reviewer's scores:

• ***** - (Relevance to the Division or Interest Group) 5 = Very relevant; (Theoretical/Philosophical depth and sophistication) 4; (Clarity/coherence) 2; (Innovation) 3; (Methodology) 2; (Overall) 3 | ****** - (Relevance to the Division or Interest Group) 2; (Theoretical/Philosophical depth and sophistication) 3; (Clarity/coherence) 3; (Innovation) 2; (Methodology) 2; (Overall) 2