A Behavioral Algorithm for European Integration: Insights from Youth Attitudes Across the EU

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To enhance clarity and improve usability of the text, it would be advisable for the diagrams to feature a more distinct presentation, enabling easier and more effective tracking of the results. 

Author Response

I would like to sincerely thank the reviewer 1 for the thoughtful and constructive comment regarding the clarity and usability of the diagrams.

“To enhance clarity and improve usability of the text, it would be advisable for the diagrams to feature a more distinct presentation, enabling easier and more effective tracking of the results.”

In response to this great suggestion, after checking the whole manuscript I agree with you and have proceeded to multiple enhancements, mainly in enrihing the captions of the diagrams and the tables. I have carefully revised each one of the visual materials throughout the manuscript. Specifically:

1. I expanded and refined the captions for all figures to provide more detailed, self-contained explanations, helping readers to better understand the relevance and interpretation of each diagram.
2. I made layout and formatting enhancements where appropriate to ensure that each figure is more visually distinct and easier to follow.
3. I also ensured terminological consistency across figures and text, so that the results can be tracked more effectively throughout the manuscript.

I believe these improvements have significantly enhanced the clarity and accessibility of the diagrams and hope they meet the reviewer’s expectations.

Thank you again for your helpful feedback and for contributing to the improvement of the manuscript.

 

Warm regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and relevant study.  There is a lot of data presented in the paper and a nice mix of quantitative and qualitative data.   

1.  There is no conclusion.  The end of the discussion reads like the start of a conclusion.  Do make this a separate section in the paper.
2. There are several spots where information is out of order.  For instance, on page 19 there is a discussion of information connected with Table 4 but I did not see a Table four in the paper.  The list of research questions in the introduction should go in the methodology section.  
3. I encourage a rewriting of the discussion.  There are several strong sections here, but there also is a lot of repetition of ideas that could be condensed. Do use paragraphs and start section with an explanation as to why the information is important and how it connects to the research question. 
4. Do add literature to support the conclusions you are drawing in the discussion and use of research methods for the study.
5. Additional comments were left on the attached document. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided. I greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in reviewing this work, and  have carefully addressed each comment in the revised version of the manuscript. Below, I provide a point-by-point response, detailing the changes made and explaining how the manuscript has been improved in line with the reviewer’s suggestions.

Comments 1: There is no conclusion. The end of the discussion reads like the start of a conclusion. Do make this a separate section in the paper.

Response1: As requested, the final part of the discussion has been removed and rewritten into a distinct Conclusion section at the end of the paper. The new section succinctly summarizes the study’s key findings, reflects on their broader significance, and emphasizes implications for future research and policy, as expected in this part of the manuscript.

 

Comments 2: There are several spots where information is out of order. For instance, on page 19 there is a discussion of information connected with Table 4 but I did not see a Table Four in the paper. The list of research questions in the introduction should go in the methodology section.

Response 2: The inconsistencies in page 19 were due to previous typesetting issues in the Word version. These have now been corrected. Specifically:

• The erroneous reference to Table 4 has been removed (the table does not exist).
• A mislabeled Figure 12 has been correctly relabeled.
• The list of research questions, previously placed in the Introduction, has now been transferred to the Methodology section under “Research Design,” alongside the explanation of research methods.

 

Comment 3: I encourage a rewriting of the discussion. There are several strong sections here, but there also is a lot of repetition of ideas that could be condensed. Do use paragraphs and start sections with an explanation as to why the information is important and how it connects to the research question.

Response 3: The Discussion section has been completely rewritten in a clearer, more structured, and focused way. It now uses distinct paragraphs that 1) begin with topic sentences explaining the relevance of each section, 2) directly connect observations to the research questions posed 3) integrate literature from the review to substantiate claims and 4) avoid unnecessary repetition and redundancy. The adapted version of the discussion has a better flow and coherence while emphasizing the contribution of the findings.

 

Comments 4: Do add literature to support the conclusions you are drawing in the discussion and use of research methods for the study.

Response 4: The Discussion now references key literature already cited in the review, linking findings to existing theoretical frameworks and empirical studies. Examples include: Bruter (2008), Fligstein et al. (2012), Sloam & Henn (2019), Hobolt & Tilley (2014). Fernández-Villaverde et al. (2023), TUI Stiftung (2025), Myllyniemi & Kiilakoski (2019), Gramlich (2019), Heidemann (2021), Czapnik & Mazurkiewicz (2024), Sotiriou et al. (2025), Guglielmi (2021).

Additionally, the Methodology section (Data Analysis subsection) has been expanded to include references supporting the application of Correspondence Analysis and other methodological choices: Benzécri (1973), Greenacre (2007), Galbraith et al. (2002), Chadjipadelis & Panagiotidou (2022).

 

Comments 5: Additional comments were left on the attached document.

Response 5: All in-text comments in the attached document have been carefully addressed. Below is a summary of the main edits and improvements:

• Line 37: Corrected the sentence to clarify that participants were only from EU member states.
• Lines 40-42: Added citation: Council of the European Union (2018).
• Lines 47-51: Rephrased paragraph for clarity and precision.
• Lines 66-85: Moved the text to the “Research Design” subsection of the Methodology (Lines 221-240).
• Lines 102-111: Updated the paragraph with contemporary sources and perspectives. New sources: Myllyniemi & Kiilakoski (2019), Sloam & Henn (2019), Bruter (2008), Henn & Foard (2014), Fernández Guzmán Grassi et al. (2024), TUI Stiftung (2025).
• Lines 150-157: Expanded paragraph with examples and updated references. New sources: Guglielmi (2021), Fligstein et al. (2012), Czapnik & Mazurkiewicz (2024), Zappettini (2021), Shaw et al. (2017), Pedi (2017), Boukala & Dimitrakopoulou (2017), Bogaards (2017).
• Lines 168-171: Added newer references to reinforce country-specific examples: Fernández-Villaverde et al. (2023), Sotiriou et al. (2025), Heidemann (2021), Gramlich (2019).
• Lines 183-186: Rewritten paragraph to summarize key conclusions and link them to the theoretical foundations.
• Line 195: Clarified use of the term "strategically" and added a sentence on sampling-related limitations.
• Line 220: Included new sources supporting peer-to-peer approaches: Powell et al. (2012), Chadjipadelis & Panagiotidou (2021).
• Lines 410-431: Changed narrative from present to past tense.
• Lines 643-647: Added relevant source:
• Dicuonzo et al. (2021).
• Lines 800-807: Rewritten paragraph to emphasize the urban–rural findings as a significant outcome of the study

I hope that the revisions made successfully address all concerns and contribute to enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic value of the manuscript. Once again, sincere thanks to the reviewer for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to strengthening this work.

Warm regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is clear and highly relevant to the field of European studies, youth engagement, and EU policy development. The structure, covering introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion, is coherent and logical. However, minor adjustments in how results are narrated and interpreted, especially in linking statistical findings with implications.
The references are mostly relevant and appropriate. While there is a mix of classical and recent literature, more recent sources from 2020–2024 could be incorporated to reflect ongoing developments in youth policy, European identity, and digital transformation post-COVID and post-Ukraine invasion. Also, the conclusion should demonstrate how paper findings contribute to existing literature and what novelty brings.

The manuscript is scientifically sound. The mixed-methods design, combining a broad quantitative survey with qualitative participatory youth-led research, is robust and appropriate for exploring the attitudes of youth across EU member states. The use of factor analysis, hierarchical clustering, and correspondence analysis demonstrates methodological rigor. However, clarifying some interpretations of statistical output and dimensions (e.g., figures 8–10) would enhance transparency and accessibility for readers. Maybe some figures can be put into Appendix, while described properly in the main text. 
The methods are well-described and reproducible. The sample size (n=3000), sampling procedure, and data collection period are clearly stated. The statistical techniques used (PCA, HCA, MCA, chi-square tests) are appropriate and described in sufficient detail. To improve reproducibility further, it would be helpful to include access to the full questionnaire (as a supplement) and potentially share anonymized datasets in a repository. 
The figures and tables are relevant and illustrate key findings, particularly the biplots and MCA maps. However:
•    Some figures could benefit from clearer labeling or simplified legends.
•    A few interpretations of dimensions in biplots may need more concise explanation for readers unfamiliar with multivariate techniques.
•    The descriptions of component loadings (Table 1) and cluster profiles are accurate but would benefit from summarizing the practical implications more clearly.

Statistical techniques are used appropriately, but the explanation of axes and inertia percentages could be presented more consistently. 

Check figures (line 284 ) - As figure 2 shows the predominant age group was 18-21 (42%), followed by those aged 22-25 (32%).  No figure showing age distribution.

The ethics and data availability statements are generally adequate but would benefit from more explicit detail. It is recommended that the authors:
•    Specify the ethical approval process (e.g., institutional review board, consent protocols).
•    Clarify the data sharing plan (e.g., whether the dataset will be available upon request or deposited in a public repository).
This addition will improve the transparency and credibility of the research.

Regarding the conclusion:

- Reword the conclusion section slightly to reinforce the novelty and policy relevance of the findings.
- Highlight more explicitly how findings could inform EU youth policy, possibly in a brief policy recommendation section.
- Use consistent terminology (e.g., "youth," "young people," "respondents") throughout the paper for clarity.

 

Author Response

I sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful, constructive, and encouraging feedback. Each of the 13 points has been carefully considered, and corresponding revisions have been implemented to improve the clarity, transparency, and policy relevance of the manuscript. Below is a detailed response addressing each comment.

Comments 1: Minor adjustments in how results are narrated and interpreted, especially in linking statistical findings with implications.

Response 1: Have revised the Results and Discussion sections to enhance the linkage between statistical outputs and their substantive implications. Each set of findings is now accompanied by a concise explanation of its relevance for understanding youth attitudes toward EU integration.

 

Comments 2: More recent sources from 2020-2024 could be incorporated to reflect ongoing developments in youth policy, European identity, and digital transformation post-COVID and post-Ukraine invasion.

Response 2: The literature review has been extensively updated to include additional sources from 2020–2024, such as Fernández Guzmán Grassi et al. (2024), Czapnik & Mazurkiewicz (2024), and Sotiriou et al. (2025), addressing recent developments in youth policy, identity formation, and the impact of geopolitical crises.

 

Comments 3: The conclusion should demonstrate how paper findings contribute to existing literature and what novelty it brings.

Response 3: The conclusion section has been reworded to more clearly articulate the contribution of our study to the literature on youth political behavior and EU integration. We explicitly emphasize the novelty of our empirical typology and the insights it offers for data-driven EU policy design.

 

Comments 4: Clarifying some interpretations of statistical output and dimensions (e.g., Figures 8–10) would enhance transparency and accessibility for readers.

Response 4: We have added a short introductory paragraph before the Correspondence Analysis figures to explain how the horizontal and vertical axes should be interpreted, and what proximity and positioning indicate. This serves as a general reading guide for Figures 8–10.

 

Comments 5: Maybe some figures can be put into Appendix, while described properly in the main text.

Response 5: While we appreciate this suggestion, we opted to keep all figures within the main body of the manuscript, as each one plays a critical role in illustrating key findings. However, their legends have been rewritten to ensure they are self-explanatory and more accessible to readers unfamiliar with advanced techniques.

 

Comments 6: To improve reproducibility further, it would be helpful to include access to the full questionnaire (as a supplement) and potentially share anonymized datasets in a repository.

Response 6: We have added a supplementary file containing the full questionnaire used in the survey. Regarding the dataset, we clarified in the Data Availability Statement that anonymized data are available upon request for academic purposes, subject to EYCA’s data governance policy.

 

Comments 7: Some figures could benefit from clearer labeling or simplified legends.

Response 7: All figure legends have been revised for clarity and consistency, providing more descriptive information about each figure’s content and purpose.

 

Comments 8: A few interpretations of dimensions in biplots may need more concise explanation for readers unfamiliar with multivariate techniques.

Response 8: We have revised the accompanying figure descriptions to ensure the interpretation of dimensions is succinct and comprehensible. The new introductory paragraph also helps orient readers less familiar with biplot interpretation.

 

Comments 9: The descriptions of component loadings (Table 1) and cluster profiles are accurate but would benefit from summarizing the practical implications more clearly.

Response 9: The text following Table 1 and the clustering paragraph has been revised to better highlight the practical implications of the identified factors and clusters. These now include clearer links to youth attitudes, issue salience, and potential policy priorities.

 

Comments 10: Statistical techniques are used appropriately, but the explanation of axes and inertia percentages could be presented more consistently.

Response 10: We ensured that inertia percentages and the interpretation of axes are described consistently across all analyses, particularly in the results related to PCA and MCA.

 

Comments 11: Check figures (line 284): As Figure 2 shows the predominant age group was 18–21 (42%), followed by those aged 22–25 (32%). No figure showing age distribution.

Response 11: This reference has been removed, as the original Figure 2 on age demographics was eliminated during a previous revision. The sentence has been revised accordingly.

 

Comments 12: It is recommended that the authors:

– Specify the ethical approval process (e.g., institutional review board, consent protocols).

– Clarify the data sharing plan (e.g., whether the dataset will be available upon request or deposited in a public repository).

Response 12: We have added a detailed ethics statement in the Methodology section, specifying that the study was commissioned and approved by the European Commission and EYCA. Participants provided informed consent through an online process in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additionally, a Data Availability Statement has been added, indicating that data are available upon request.

 

Comments 13: Regarding the conclusion:

– Reword the conclusion section slightly to reinforce the novelty and policy relevance of the findings.

– Highlight more explicitly how findings could inform EU youth policy, possibly in a brief policy recommendation section.

– Use consistent terminology (e.g., “youth,” “young people,” “respondents”) throughout the paper for clarity.

Response 13: We have revised the Conclusion to emphasize the originality of the findings and their implications for EU youth policy. A brief policy-oriented reflection was also added. Terminology has been reviewed for consistency, with “youth” or “young people/respondents” in the introduction, literature review and discussion and the word “respondents” in the methodology and the results/analysis sections, as more suitable for the statistical presentation.

Once again many thanks to the reviewer for the valuable insights and constructive comments, which have significantly improved the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the manuscript. We hope the revised version addresses all concerns satisfactorily and meets the high standards of the journal.

Warm regards