Adapting to Electoral Changes: Insights from a Systematic Review on Electoral Abstention Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is highly relevant, particularly given declining participation rates globally, and I appreciate your adherence to PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration.

My main concern is the absence of quality assessment for your included studies. This is a required component of systematic reviews that helps readers evaluate the reliability of your findings. I recommend using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or GRADE tool to assess each of the 20 studies.

The sample size also needs attention. You included 20 studies from an initial 51, which seems limited for a global phenomenon. The geographic concentration (4 from USA, 4 from France) and language bias (15 in English) should be acknowledged as limitations that affect generalizability.

For the data synthesis, consider organizing findings into clearer categories: individual factors (health, trust), institutional factors (electoral systems), and contextual factors (inequality, urbanization). This would help readers better understand the relationships between different abstention drivers.

Table 2 needs restructuring - perhaps a summary table in the main text with key information, moving details to supplements. Figure 4 requires methodological explanation about how the network was constructed and interpreted.

The manuscript would benefit from updating the search to include recent publications and reducing redundancy between introduction sections 1.1-1.2 and the discussion. Your conclusions could be more specific - what concrete interventions or policy changes do your findings suggest?

Despite these issues, your work addresses an important topic and the Portuguese case study adds valuable context. With these revisions, particularly adding quality assessment, this could make a solid contribution to understanding electoral abstention patterns.

Author Response

Dear Editor, dear Reviewers

Please find attached an amended version of the manuscript with changes as suggested by Reviewers #1, #2, #3 and #4.

We have considered all the suggestions.

All changes appear in blue in the amended version.

We give detailed point-by-point answers with respect to reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the Editor and all the Reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments, for their encouragement and for their time and input. We feel that the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

We look forward to seeing our manuscript in your journal.

Yours sincerely,

The authors.

**************************************

R1: The topic is highly relevant, particularly given declining participation rates globally, and I appreciate your adherence to PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration.

Authors’ response: Thank you.

******

R1: My main concern is the absence of quality assessment for your included studies. This is a required component of systematic reviews that helps readers evaluate the reliability of your findings. I recommend using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or GRADE tool to assess each of the 20 studies.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for the suggestion. We studied the subject and used the MIXED METHODS APPRAISAL TOOL – MMAT (Hong et al., 2018). In addition to indicating the quality of each article included in “Table S1. Supplementary Table S1. Detailed Characteristics of Included Studies,” we also incorporated a section in the article dedicated to this topic – “Quality of Measurements.”

Hong, Q. N., Gonzalez-Reyes, A., & Pluye, P. (2018). Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(3), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12884

******

R1: the sample size also needs attention. You included 20 studies from an initial 51, which seems limited for a global phenomenon. The geographic concentration (4 from USA, 4 from France) and language bias (15 in English) should be acknowledged as limitations that affect generalizability.

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment, which highlights important aspects of the review's scope and generalizability. Regarding the sample size of 20 included studies from an initial 51, we acknowledge that this may appear limited for a global phenomenon like electoral abstention.We carried out an update until September 2025, which added three more studies to the final result, for a total of 60 identified. However, systematic reviews in political science and social psychology often achieve saturation and meaningful synthesis with similar or smaller sample sizes, particularly when focusing on quantitative empirical studies within a defined timeframe (2000–2025) and using rigorous PRISMA guidelines (e.g. Dacombe, 2018; Hennink et al., 2022) and as larger samples can introduce redundancy without adding value (Randles, 2023). Our inclusion criteria prioritized high-quality, peer-reviewed quantitative studies on abstention behavior, resulting in a focused corpus that captures core themes across diverse contexts, including health, institutional trust, and reforms. That said, we fully agree that geographic concentration (e.g., 4 studies from the USA and 4 from France) and language bias (15 studies in English) are potential limitations affecting generalizability. These biases may underrepresent perspectives from non-Western or non-English-speaking regions, such as Asia or Africa, where abstention dynamics could differ due to unique cultural or institutional factors. To address this, we have added a dedicated Limitations subsection in the Discussion, explicitly acknowledging these issues and suggesting avenues for future research to enhance global representation.

Dacombe, R. (2018). Systematic reviews in political science: What can the approach contribute to political research? Political Studies Review, 16(1), 148–159.

Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Weber, M. B. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523.

Randles, R. (2023). Guidelines for writing a systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 116, 105441.

******

R1: For the data synthesis, consider organizing findings into clearer categories: individual factors (health, trust), institutional factors (electoral systems), and contextual factors (inequality, urbanization). This would help readers better understand the relationships between different abstention drivers.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer's constructive suggestion to enhance the clarity of the data synthesis by organizing findings into thematic categories. We have revised the Discussion section to categorize the findings into three main groups: (1) individual factors (e.g., health and trust), (2) institutional factors (e.g., electoral systems and reforms), and (3) contextual factors (e.g., inequality and urbanization). A new table (Table 4) summarizes these categories, highlighting key studies, relationships, and implications for adaptation to social changes.

******

R1: Table 2 needs restructuring - perhaps a summary table in the main text with key information, moving details to supplements. Figure 4 requires methodological explanation about how the network was constructed and interpreted.

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, which enhances the manuscript’s clarity and accessibility. For Table 2, we agree that the original detailed version may overwhelm readers in the main text. We have restructured it by creating a concise summary table (new Table 2) in the Results section, focusing on key information such as authors, year, objective, key Findings and country. The full detailed table, including additional variables, has been moved to the Supplementary Materials - Table S1. Supplementary-Detailed Characteristics of Included Studies. This allows for a streamlined presentation while retaining comprehensive data for interested readers. Regarding Figure 4 we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Results section explaining the construction and interpretation of the neural network.

******

R1: The manuscript would benefit from updating the search to include recent publications and reducing redundancy between introduction sections 1.1-1.2 and the discussion. Your conclusions could be more specific - what concrete interventions or policy changes do your findings suggest?

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful recommendations, which strengthen the manuscript’s currency, clarity, and applicability. To address the need for updating the search, we conducted an additional literature review covering publications from 2024 to September 2025 (using same databases and criteria). This yielded three recent studies new refs: Adams et al., 2024; Aalis et al., 2024; Kostelka, 2025, which were incorporated into the Results and Discussion, increasing the total to 23 studies and enhancing the review’s relevance to contemporary adaptations (e.g., post-pandemic and economic crisis effects). Finally, we have refined the Conclusions to include specific, evidence-based recommendations for interventions and policy changes.

Adams, J., et al. (2024). Mental health trajectories and voting behavior. Journal of Health Psychology, 29(2), 112-130.

Aalis, M., et al. (2024). Geographic impacts of economic crises on abstention. Electoral Studies, 85, 102-115.

Kostelka, F. (2025). Election frequency and abstention approval. British Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 45-60.

******

R1: Despite these issues, your work addresses an important topic and the Portuguese case study adds valuable context. With these revisions, particularly adding quality assessment, this could make a solid contribution to understanding electoral abstention patterns.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much. We will consider the suggested improvements, in particular the addition of quality assessment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't find a significant contribution in this paper. The paper reviews different databases of different studies about abstaintion in Portugal election. If so, what is the novelty? Is it just a literature review? But even as a literature revies itit is not appropriate. A survey paper should be written more as a 'story', in a more friendly way.

Author Response

Dear Editor, dear Reviewers

Please find attached an amended version of the manuscript with changes as suggested by Reviewers #1, #2, #3 and #4.

We have considered all the suggestions.

All changes appear in blue in the amended version.

We give detailed point-by-point answers with respect to reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the Editor and all the Reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments, for their encouragement and for their time and input. We feel that the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

We look forward to seeing our manuscript in your journal.

Yours sincerely,

The authors.

**************************************

R2: I don't find a significant contribution in this paper. The paper reviews different databases of different studies about abstaintion in Portugal election. If so, what is the novelty? Is it just a literature review? But even as a literature revies itit is not appropriate. A survey paper should be written more as a 'story', in a more friendly way.

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for their feedback, which provides valuable insights into enhancing the manuscript’s clarity and impact. We appreciate the concern regarding the paper’s contribution and novelty. To clarify, this is a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, synthesizing 23 quantitative studies (updated to include recent 2024-2025 publications) on electoral abstention dynamics globally, not limited to Portugal. The review encompasses diverse contexts across the USA, France, Brazil, and others, identifying multidimensional drivers (individual, institutional, contextual) and their interconnections via neural network analysis (Figure 4). The novelty lies in this integrative synthesis, which reveals emerging patterns (e.g., health crises and inequality as abstention amplifiers) and proposes actionable policy adaptations. This contributes to theme on social and organizational adaptations by bridging political science, psychology, and public policy.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript societies-3847751 is devoted to the actual scientific problem, namely study of political abstention and participation. The reviewed article is interesting for scholars and theme of the article meets the scope of the journal. Work is performed at sufficient scientific level and has good quality. The manuscript may be considered for publication after major revision in Societies. Prior publication of this manuscript following points needs to be addressed:

• The abstract is written in a declarative style and does not reflect the main provisions of the work. It must be rewritten.
• It would be good to broaden the Discussion in the context of a more detailed presentation of ways to practical implementation of obtained results.
• The topic discussed by the authors is quite debatable and can have many directions for development. Therefore, the approach proposed by the authors may have some limitations. To avoid this problem, I propose to add separate section "Limitations and prospects for further study".
• Many quantitative data are provided in the introduction. This raises the scientific level of the work, so for a better understanding of the material, it is worth presenting such data in the form of diagrams.
• References list should be carefully checked and journal style policy should be strictly followed.
• Minor editing of English language required

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Editor, dear Reviewers

Please find attached an amended version of the manuscript with changes as suggested by Reviewers #1, #2, #3 and #4.

We have considered all the suggestions.

All changes appear in blue in the amended version.

We give detailed point-by-point answers with respect to reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the Editor and all the Reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments, for their encouragement and for their time and input. We feel that the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

We look forward to seeing our manuscript in your journal.

Yours sincerely,

The authors.

************************

R3: The manuscript societies-3847751 is devoted to the actual scientific problem, namely study of political abstention and participation.

Authors’ response: Thank you.

******

R3: The reviewed article is interesting for scholars and theme of the article meets the scope of the journal. Work is performed at sufficient scientific level and has good quality.

Authors’ response: Thank you.

******

R3:The manuscript may be considered for publication after major revision in Societies. Prior publication of this manuscript following points needs to be addressed:

Authors’ response: All suggestions were addressed.

******

R3: The abstract is written in a declarative style and does not reflect the main provisions of the work. It must be rewritten.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the comment, which has been taken into account. A new abstract has been created.

******

R3: It would be good to broaden the Discussion in the context of a more detailed presentation of ways to practical implementation of obtained results.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestion. We are working on this. Please see points 4.1 and 4.2.

******

R3: The topic discussed by the authors is quite debatable and can have many directions for development. Therefore, the approach proposed by the authors may have some limitations. To avoid this problem, I propose to add separate section "Limitations and prospects for further study".

Authors’ response: Thank you for the suggestions. A section "Limitations and prospects for further study" was included in the new version.

******

R3: Many quantitative data are provided in the introduction. This raises the scientific level of the work, so for a better understanding of the material, it is worth presenting such data in the form of diagrams.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the suggestion. We worked hard on this suggestion but realized that we were duplicating the information.

******

R3: References list should be carefully checked and journal style policy should be strictly followed.

Authors’ response: Done.

******

R3: Minor editing of English language required

Authors’response: Done.

******

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is written clearly and concisely. It provides an overview of research and literature, opening up space for further study. I have no special comments, except that it is unclear to me why, in some places, the names of the authors in the references are not mentioned at all, and instead, the author and the text are referred to with a numerical designation.

Author Response

Dear Editor, dear Reviewers

Please find attached an amended version of the manuscript with changes as suggested by Reviewers #1, #2, #3 and #4.

We have considered all the suggestions.

All changes appear in blue in the amended version.

We give detailed point-by-point answers with respect to reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the Editor and all the Reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments, for their encouragement and for their time and input. We feel that the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

We look forward to seeing our manuscript in your journal.

Yours sincerely,

The authors.

**************************************

R4: I have no special comments, except that it is unclear to me why, in some places, the names of the authors in the references are not mentioned at all, and instead, the author and the text are referred to with a numerical designation.

Authors’ response: It was to respect blind peer-reviewing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the main methodological concerns in a substantial manner. The revised version incorporates explicit quality assessment using MMAT with transparent criteria (lines 178-198), updates to PRISMA 2020, expands the corpus from 20 to 23 studies, and adds crucial sections on practical implications (4.1) and limitations (4.2). The abstract now includes specific quantitative data (Portugal: 91.5% → 51.4% participation), and Figure 4 has a complete methodological explanation of topic modeling techniques. These changes transform the manuscript into a methodologically rigorous contribution.

However, three areas for improvement remain. First, there is a lack of explicit justification for why MMAT was selected over other quality assessment tools (Newcastle-Ottawa, ROBINS-I), especially considering that most studies are quantitative observational. Second, section 4.1 proposes very specific interventions for Portugal/Chile (transport vouchers, Social Integration Income) without a clear connection to findings from the other 11 countries in the corpus, limiting the international applicability of the analysis. Third, the three new studies (Girard & Okolikj 2024 on child mental health; Artelaris et al. 2024 on the Greek economic crisis; Kostelka 2025 on electoral fatigue) appear in tables but are not consistently integrated into the thematic synthesis of individual, institutional, and contextual factors.

Author Response

Dear Editor, dear Reviewers

Please find attached an amended version of the manuscript with changes as suggested by Reviewers #1, #2 and #3.

We have considered all the suggestions.

All changes appear in green in the amended version.

We give detailed point-by-point answers with respect to reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the Editor and all the Reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments, for their encouragement and for their time and input. We feel that the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

We look forward to seeing our manuscript in your journal.

Yours sincerely,

The authors.

**************************************

R1: The authors have addressed the main methodological concerns in a substantial manner. The revised version incorporates explicit quality assessment using MMAT with transparent criteria (lines 178-198), updates to PRISMA 2020, expands the corpus from 20 to 23 studies, and adds crucial sections on practical implications (4.1) and limitations (4.2). The abstract now includes specific quantitative data (Portugal: 91.5% → 51.4% participation), and Figure 4 has a complete methodological explanation of topic modeling techniques. These changes transform the manuscript into a methodologically rigorous contribution.

Authors’ response: Thank you.

******

R1: However, three areas for improvement remain. First, there is a lack of explicit justification for why MMAT was selected over other quality assessment tools (Newcastle-Ottawa, ROBINS-I), especially considering that most studies are quantitative observational.

Authors’ response: The MMAT was selected because it is a tool designed specifically for quality assessments in systematic reviews, allowing for consistent and comparable application to the entire corpus of included studies, without the need for separate software or tools. The MMAT offers flexibility without compromising the rigor of assessment, proving to be transparent in its quality assessment. We added in point 2.3: “The MMAT (Hong et al., 2018) was selected as the primary quality assessment tool due to its suitability for systematic reviews, allowing for consistent and comparable application to the entire corpus of included studies”.

******

R1: Second, section 4.1 proposes very specific interventions for Portugal/Chile (transport vouchers, Social Integration Income) without a clear connection to findings from the other 11 countries in the corpus, limiting the international applicability of the analysis.

Authors’ response: We understand the issue. We have reworded the text in section 4.1. Practical Implications and Implementation to make it clearer. “The results of this systematic review provide a concrete basis for implementing practical strategies aimed at mitigating voter abstention, addressing the three main clusters identified: individual, institutional, and contextual factors. These recommendations integrate empirical evidence from the studies analyzed, covering 13 countries, promoting multidisciplinary approaches that aim to strengthen democratic participation, particularly in contexts such as Portugal, where abstention reached 48.6% in the 2022 legislative elections. The proposed interventions are based on cross-cutting patterns emerging from the studies analyzed, which highlight common barriers to electoral abstention, such as socioeconomic inequalities and mobility limitations observed in diverse contexts, including social support programs and urban inclusion initiatives in Brazil and Spain. The following recommendations are not exclusive to the countries taken as examples (e.g., Portugal or Chile) as case studies, but are adaptable internationally, with contextual adjustments to maximize applicability in developing and/or consolidated democracies.”

******

R1: Third, the three new studies (Girard & Okolikj 2024 on child mental health; Artelaris et al. 2024 on the Greek economic crisis; Kostelka 2025 on electoral fatigue) appear in tables but are not consistently integrated into the thematic synthesis of individual, institutional, and contextual factors.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much. We have inserted new text with references in sections 3.3. Individual Factors; 3.4 Institutional Factors, and 3.5 Contextual Factors.

“Recent studies reinforce this perspective, with (Girard & Okolikj, 2024) demonstrating how the impact of children's mental health contributes to intergenerational patterns of abstention, and (Kostelka, 2025) identifying electoral fatigue as a mediating mecha-nism of individual disengagement in contexts of political instability”

“Additionally, (Artelaris, Katsinis, & Tsirbas, 2024) analyze how post-economic crisis institutional reforms in Greece exacerbate inequalities in voting accessibility.”

“For example, (Artelaris, Katsinis, & Tsirbas, 2024) link the Greek economic crisis to in-creases in abstention among vulnerable populations.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comments

Author Response

Dear Editor, dear Reviewers

Please find attached an amended version of the manuscript with changes as suggested by Reviewers #1, #2 and #3.

We have considered all the suggestions.

All changes appear in green in the amended version.

We give detailed point-by-point answers with respect to reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the Editor and all the Reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments, for their encouragement and for their time and input. We feel that the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

We look forward to seeing our manuscript in your journal.

Yours sincerely,

The authors.

R2: I have no comments

Authors’ response: Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revised manuscript is suitable for publication. My decision is accept.

Author Response

Dear Editor, dear Reviewers

Please find attached an amended version of the manuscript with changes as suggested by Reviewers #1, #2 and #3.

We have considered all the suggestions.

All changes appear in green in the amended version.

We give detailed point-by-point answers with respect to reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

We would like to thank the Editor and all the Reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments, for their encouragement and for their time and input. We feel that the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

We look forward to seeing our manuscript in your journal.

Yours sincerely,

The authors.

******

R3: Revised manuscript is suitable for publication. My decision is accept.

Authors’ response: Thank you.