Digital Activism Masked―The Fridays for Future Movement and the “Global Day of Climate Action”: Testing Social Function and Framing Typologies of Claims on Twitter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This topic is not so innovative in the scientific panorama, there is a very large literature which is not mentioned although a lot of scholars deepened the field. (E.g.: Albanese V. (2021). Environmental Crisis and Climate Change: Social Mobilisation and Digital Activism Arisen from Territorial Identities. n Ilovan O.R. (ed.), Territorial Identities In Action, Presa Universitarã Clujeanã, Napoca (Romania), pp.123-147, 2021. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up Digital: How the Net Generation Is Changing Your World. New York: McGrawHill. Meek, D. (2012). YouTube and Social Movements: A Phenomenological Analysis of Participation, Events and Cyberplace. Antipode, 44(4), 1429-1448. etc.)

The literature should be enriched, given that it is a widely debated topic.

The focus is above all on the analysis tool, but there are many works on the topic and they should be taken into greater consideration.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed.

Author Response

Thank you very for your comments we have tried to address the questions raised. Your review has helped us to improve our paper. We have enriched the literature section following your suggestions as indicated in the text in blue.

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides valuable insights into the Fridays for Future movement and its online mobilization during the Global Day of Climate Action in 2020.

The paper effectively blends concepts from social media activism and framing literature, offering a comprehensive analysis.

The abstract is well-structured and succinct. It effectively conveys the purpose of the research, the methodology employed, and the key findings.

The introduction effectively contextualizes the research, highlighting the significance of social media, particularly Twitter, in studying climate activism. It provides a clear overview of the background and rationale for the study with logical progression, outlining the unique aspects of the Fridays for Future movement and the choice of the Global Day of Climate Action as a focal point. It adequately sets the stage for the paper, offering a solid foundation for the subsequent sections.

The literature review section provides a good overview of the relevant literature, but it would benefit from clearer organization. Consider dividing it into subsections to better distinguish between the different aspects of social media activism and framing. Other minor improvements should however be considered, such as:

a)       how do the insights from these studies connect to the research on the Fridays for Future (FFF) movement? The authors should make these connections more explicit.

b)      how does the emotional and motivational framing identified in Instagram comments connect with the framing theory? The authors should elaborate on these connections.

c)       The term "Twitter is importantly used" is somewhat unclear. The authors should specify what they mean by "importantly." Is it widely used, or is it important for a specific aspect of the movements?

d)      The section discusses various studies that have applied framing theory to the FFF movement but lacks context or synthesis of these findings. The authors should consider providing a summary or synthesis of the key insights from these studies and how they contribute to the understanding of the FFF movement.

e)      The section briefly touches on the use of social media data for analyzing the FFF movement's framing tasks but could emphasize the significance of this data source. Consider discussing how social media data can provide valuable insights into framing strategies and public discourse.

f)        The section introduces research questions (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4), but the authors could provide a brief explanation or rationale for each question to help readers understand their significance in the context of the study.

g)       Correct minor grammar issues, such as "Despite of being" (change to "Despite being"), "across the glove" (change to "across the globe"),  "mobilization patters" (change to "mobilization patterns"), "Due this method" (change to "Due to this method") and "that use databases" (change to "that use databases have been manually coded").

The Materials and Methods section:

In general, this section is clear, but there are some aspects requiring improvement, such as:

a)       Provide more details about the data collection process. Explain how the keywords " #ClimateStrike" and "#FridaysForFuture" were chosen and justify their selection. Additionally, clarify if any data filtering was applied during the collection process.

b)      The section introduces subcategories for both social function and framing typology but lacks detailed explanations for each subcategory. Providing clear definitions and examples for each subcategory would help readers understand how tweets were classified.

c)       Clarify what is meant by "undefined tweets" and why they were included in the dataset.

d)      Provide a clear rationale for why English-language tweets were chosen for the final sample. Explain how the choice of English tweets might impact the findings or generalizability.

e)      Elaborate on the automated classification process. What machine learning methods were used, and why was Support Vector Machines (SVM) chosen? What were the results of the automated classification, and how were they validated?

f)        When discussing preprocessing of tweets, mention the specific techniques used. For example, explain the process of tokenization and the removal of stop words more explicitly.

g)       It's important to address ethical considerations in data collection, particularly when dealing with social media data. The authors should briefly mention any ethical considerations, such as privacy and informed consent, and how they were addressed.

h)      Ensure consistency in terminology. For instance, the section heading is "3.1 Data Collection and Sample," but later in the text, it's referred to as "3.2 Data Collection and Sample." Correct any numbering discrepancies.

Regarding the results section:

a)       While the section provides data on the distribution of tweets, there is limited interpretation of the results. The authors should discuss the implications of these findings for their research questions. What do these percentages and distributions suggest about digital activism during this event?

b)      The section mentions non-statistically significant differences between categories. Instead of simply stating this, provide some insight into why these differences might not be significant and what this means for the study's findings.

c)       In the section discussing discriminant tweets, it would be helpful to provide examples or quotes from tweets in each category. This would make the findings more concrete and relatable to readers.

The conclusion:

It demonstrates a good grasp of the key issues and successfully summarizes the contributions of the paper. It highlights the main findings and the significance of the research, especially in the context of the FFF climate movement during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also acknowledges the limitations of the study, which is essential for transparency and research integrity.

However, there is room for further improvement, namely by:

a)       Restating the research question or objectives to remind the reader what the study aimed to address. This can help in emphasizing the relevance of the findings.

b)      Discussing the implications: Interpret the findings and discuss their implications. Why are the results important or significant? What can researchers, activists, or policymakers learn from these findings? What do the findings reveal about social media activism and framing in the context of global climate protests? Link the results to the broader context of climate activism, online discourse, and social media's role in mobilization.

c)       The authors could briefly compare their findings to previous studies on the FFF movement and mention the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. They could expand on these comparisons, discussing why their findings differ from or align with previous research, especially because a forma discussion section is not included in the paper (which would be preferable).

d)      The authors introduce two relevant typologies - the social function typology and framing tasks typology - in their conclusion. They should discuss why these typologies are significant for understanding online climate activism. How do these typologies contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the FFF movement and its online communication?

e)      Providing a more robust set of suggestions for further studies. For instance, they might recommend exploring the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on climate activism, examining how various media ecologies influence online discourse, or diving deeper into the nuances of framing strategies employed by climate activists.

Incorporated in the main recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have tried to address all the questions raised. Your review has really helped us to improve our paper. We have included additional sections to the literature review and improved the paper following your suggestions as indicated in the document in blue.

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf