Potaxies and Fifes: The Formation of New Subcultures on TikTok

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting and relevant topic, which identifies a lesser known case study worthy of research (Potaxie subcultures). The context and literature review are useful and frame the state of the art in an informed manner. However, there are some questions that need to be clarified regarding the method, and, more importantly, the discussion part seems rather disconnected from the data analysis. The connection of theory, data, and discussion, therefore, is not clear, and this needs to be addressed in a revised version.

Regarding the methods, the paper states "After obtaining TikTok’s approval, we used Python PykTok to collect data from videos with the hashtags ..." More information is needed about the type of approval TikTok issued, which hashtags were stated in the approval message, and what the researchers promised TikTok in terms of the results (eg an open-access dataset, or anything similar). These considerations are important in the context of social media research and the potential of replicability. 

The Discussion section seems as if it was written together with the literature review, and in facts reads like a literature review. lines 303-318 in particular are a better fit for the introduction. 

I have already stated that the topic is original, relevant, and research-worthy. In fact, I stated that this is the strongest point of the paper (the research need, as there is scarcity of work in this topic). It identifies a niche community and trend that has been under-investigated. The problem lies with the connection between data and analysis. The analysis doesn't seem to be driven by data at all, and it reads like a literature review, which could have been driven irrespective of the research conducted. The analysis needs to follow on and be connected with the methods and data collected.

These need to be addressed so that the paper can be published and this important research disseminated. The topic is very important. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A study devoted to the Potaxie, Fifes and Tilinx subcultures on TikTok offers a unique perspective on the contemporary processes of identity formation and cultural transformation taking place in online communities. The authors demonstrate that these phenomena are not just superficial fads but deep-rooted movements of significant social and cultural importance, especially in the context of inclusivity, gender equality and resistance to normative social structures.

An interesting aspect of this study is the methodological approach, which uses both quantitative analysis using the TikTok API and qualitative content analysis using MAXQDA and Python. This composite analysis provides a holistic view of the subcultures in question, revealing not only the dynamics of interaction on TikTok but also the mechanisms by which algorithms promote or restrict certain content.

In addition to exploring intergroup dynamics, the study offers insights into how digital platforms support intersectionality of experiences and how young people use social media to redefine cultural norms. The work is a valuable resource for communication strategies, youth policy and research on the impact of the commercialization of these subcultures, showing how social media shapes modern social narratives.

The work would have gained more value if the research hypotheses had been formulated and developed. I also lacked a clear indication of research limitations and future research directions.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising your manuscript and engaging with the review. The paper is now appropriate for publication, subject to the journal editors' checks. 

Author Response

Comment: Thank you for revising your manuscript and engaging with the review. The paper is now appropriate for publication, subject to the journal editors' checks. 

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback and for confirming that the manuscript is now suitable for publication. I greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing my work. I look forward to the next steps with the journal’s editorial team.