Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, I wish the scales above were 5 or 7 point instead of 4 point. I would give several areas higher scores than "average" such as "Agree" or "somewhat agree." I believe this paper has potential but request several areas amounting to a minor revision. The first overarching one could be more nuance or acknowledgement in your analysis being qualitative. I like and do qualitative research but feel that the argument, particularly at the beginning where Granovetter is being critiqued, are making quantitative causal arguments which qualitative research does not set out to make and does not do. For instance the paper even talks about a "central predictive component of online participatory behavior" but qualitative research, and your findings, would not offer predictive claims. Your method does a good job of properly contextualizing qualitative constructivist approaches but I feel that the abstract, introduction, and discussion should offer more nuance about the qualitative nature of the study and what can be surmise from qualitative interviews. A study with semi-structured interviews is not going to disprove or contradict quantitative experiments and surveys but that shouldn't be the goal of a qualitative study anyways. A second area to revise would be to present the results, focusing on the interviews, then present literature contributions in the discussion. I personally believe those should be separate - you have several areas of discussing the implications and contributions to literature within the results. I would personally save those for the discussion, which is a minor revision or organization. I also really believe there is much more literature that could be engaged. Older sources like Mutz 2002 are relied upon a lot but that study has been cited 1600 times - surely there is research that has used it that can be looked at? The discussion's contributions would be more compelling if newer literature was engaged with. I have included several sources of suggestion but they are not required to cite. But there is a lot of research out there on political expression on social media from this decade. In the discussion you also engage with political communication and SIT as separate areas and fields but there's a ton of SIT political comm work. On Google Scholar just search for social identity theory political communication and you will see a lot. Those are my suggestions for a minor revision. 

 

Barnidge, M., Peacock, C., Kim, B., Kim, Y., & Xenos, M. A. (2023). Networks and Selective Avoidance: How Social Media Networks Influence Unfriending and Other Avoidance Behaviors. Social Science Computer Review, 41(3), 1017-1038. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211069628

Beam, M. A., Hutchens, M. J., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2018). Facebook news and (de) polarization: Reinforcing spirals in the 2016 US election. Information, Communication & Society, 21(7), 940-958. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444783

Chen, H. T. (2018). Spiral of silence on social media and the moderating role of disagreement and publicness in the network: Analyzing expressive and withdrawal behaviors. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3917-3936.

Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604

Jennings, F. J. (2019). An uninformed electorate: Identity-motivated elaboration, partisan cues, and learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(5), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1679385

Lane, D. S., Do, K., & Molina-Rogers, N. (2022). What is political expression on social media anyway? A systematic review. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 19(3), 331-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1985031

Lane, D. S., Lee, S. S., Liang, F., Kim, D. H., Shen, L., Weeks, B. E., & Kwak, N. (2019). Social media expression and the political self. Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy064

Literat, I., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2019). Youth collective political expression on social media: The role of affordances and memetic dimensions for voicing political views. New Media & Society, 21(9), 1988-2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819837571

Ohme, J. (2019). When digital natives enter the electorate: Political social media use among first-time voters and its effects on campaign participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16(2), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1613279

Peacock, C. (2019). (Not) talking politics: Motivations and strategies for avoiding the expression of political opinions. Western Journal of Communication, 83(5), 581-599.

Peacock, C. (2020). Diversity, Disagreement, and Expression across Liberal, Conservative, and Mixed Groups. Communication Studies, 72(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1819843

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: First, I wish the scales above were 5 or 7 point instead of 4 point. I would give several areas higher scores than "average" such as "Agree" or "somewhat agree."
Response:
Response: Thank you for the encouraging comment. We appreciate your positive evaluation.

Comment 2: I believe this paper has potential but request several areas amounting to a minor revision. The first overarching one could be more nuance or acknowledgement in your analysis being qualitative. I like and do qualitative research but feel that the argument, particularly at the beginning where Granovetter is being critiqued, are making quantitative causal arguments which qualitative research does not set out to make and does not do.
Response:
Response: We fully agree with this observation. In the revised manuscript, we have added clarification in the abstract, introduction, and discussion to stress the qualitative nature of the study (Please see pages 1-2 &13-15). We replaced language suggesting causality or prediction with terminology that reflects interpretive, thematic, and constructivist claims. Additionally, we rephrased the critique of Granovetter to avoid the impression of a direct empirical contradiction and instead emphasize a complementary theoretical insight derived from qualitative inquiry.

Comment 3: For instance the paper even talks about a "central predictive component of online participatory behavior" but qualitative research, and your findings, would not offer predictive claims.
Response: We revised this sentence accordingly, leaving out the predictive nature we beforehand implied it.

Comment 3: Your method does a good job of properly contextualizing qualitative constructivist approaches but I feel that the abstract, introduction, and discussion should offer more nuance about the qualitative nature of the study and what can be surmise from qualitative interviews.
Response:
We thank you for this acknowledgment and have added explicit statements in the abstract, introduction, and discussion to better convey the constructivist, qualitative framework and to clarify the scope and epistemological boundaries of semi-structured interviews (please see pages 1-2 & 13-15).

 

 

Comment 4: A second area to revise would be to present the results, focusing on the interviews, then present literature contributions in the discussion. I personally believe those should be separate - you have several areas of discussing the implications and contributions to literature within the results. I would personally save those for the discussion, which is a minor revision or organization.
Response: We have reorganized the Results and Discussion sections as recommended. All theoretical implications, interpretations, and literature contributions previously located within the Results have been moved to the Discussion to preserve the descriptive integrity of the findings.

Comment 5: I also really believe there is much more literature that could be engaged. Older sources like Mutz 2002 are relied upon a lot but that study has been cited 1600 times - surely there is research that has used it that can be looked at? The discussion's contributions would be more compelling if newer literature was engaged with. I have included several sources of suggestion but they are not required to cite. But there is a lot of research out there on political expression on social media from this decade.
Response:
We have significantly updated the literature review and discussion sections to include more recent research, including sources you suggested such as Lane et al. (2019, 2022), Barnidge et al. (2023), Peacock (2020) and several others. All additions to our references were highlighted in the bibliography accordingly.

Comment 6: In the discussion you also engage with political communication and SIT as separate areas and fields but there's a ton of SIT political comm work. On Google Scholar just search for social identity theory political communication and you will see a lot.
Response:
We appreciate this important suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have better integrated Social Identity Theory into the political communication framework and cited recent work that bridges these domains in our literature review (specifically, on page 3).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Evaluation

This paper addresses an important and timely subject - the role of weak ties in shaping political participation in online environments. The study is well-organised, with a clear research question and structured argumentation. The paper’s main contribution, highlighting how weak ties might inhibit political expression in polarised contexts, is compelling and offers an important challenge to established theories.

However, there are several issues that, if addressed, could significantly strengthen the manuscript. These include unsupported claims, outdated references, inconsistent formatting, underdeveloped methodology sections, and insufficient integration of the announced analytical frameworks (Grounded Theory and Field-Based Theory). Greater engagement with current research debates would also enhance the theoretical depth of the paper.

Below, I offer specific, constructive comments aimed at assisting the authors in revising and improving their manuscript.

Specific Comments

• Lines 28–31: The claim regarding "previous research" is presented without citation. Please provide appropriate references to substantiate the statement.
• Lines 32–35: Same concern as above - claims need proper attribution to prior research.
• Lines 36–38: The use of Habermas here is not precise. While the argument loosely aligns with Habermas’s broader contributions, citing The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989) is not ideal. That work focuses on historical developments, not normative theories of deliberative democracy. A better reference would be Between Facts and Norms (1996).
• Lines 36–38: Moreover, the claim relating to Habermas risks being overly simplistic. Given its foundational role in the paper, a more critical and nuanced engagement is recommended, possibly by incorporating alternative perspectives of democratic theory or further theoretical support.
• Line 39: The reliance on Beam’s paper (which is closed access) is problematic, as it is difficult to verify its contribution to the claim. The abstract does not substantiate the assertion made. Consider either removing this reference or supplementing it with more accessible and directly relevant literature (e.g. the next ones mentioned in the paper).
• Lines 36–45: This discussion essentially introduces the concept of echo chambers. It would strengthen the paper to mention the term explicitly, as it plays a crucial role throughout the rest of the paper.
• Lines 45–66: The text effectively identifies the central research problem and outlines a relevant gap. However, it would benefit from incorporating the contrasting insights from what is described in the “Heterogeneous Social Networks” section.
• Lines 64–67: Greater clarity is needed regarding which social networks are the focus of the study. Facebook is briefly mentioned but not clearly established as the primary site of investigation.
• Line 93: The phrase "many researchers" is unsubstantiated. Avoid generalisations unless backed by clear citations.
• Lines 93–xx: The discussion of echo chambers would benefit from tying in the related issue of disinformation, a crucial and current topic closely connected to echo chamber effects.
• Line 190: Please check the journal’s guidelines on footnotes; typically, footnotes are discouraged in favour of integrating the information into the main text.
• Line 195: There is a formatting issue with brackets within brackets. Please correct.
• Line 195: Footnote 2 is unnecessary and explains a basic function of Facebook. Consider integrating the essential information into the main text.
• Lines 168–238: As with previous footnotes, please review for compliance with journal style.
• Lines 168–238: This section offers an excellent explanation of the effects of weak and strong ties. However, it leans heavily on older literature, with only one cited work (Lu & Lee, 2020) published in the last five years. It is crucial to incorporate more recent studies, engaging substantively with their findings, to maintain academic relevance and rigour.
• Lines 252–258: The description of the research approach is severely underdeveloped. More detail is needed.
• Lines 259–268: Clarify how participants are referred to in the paper (e.g., P01, P02) and the rationale behind this coding.
• Lines 273–XX: Grounded Theory and Field-Based Theory appear suddenly without prior introduction. These methods should be briefly introduced earlier in the paper (e.g. in the introduction), with a short description of their relevance and advantages for this research in the methodology section.
• Line 297: Confirm the wording and placement of the ethical statement against the journal’s author guidelines.
• Line 347: Remove evaluative language such as "Interestingly" from the Results section, which should remain strictly descriptive.
• Lines 360–379: Content that offers interpretation should be moved from the Results section to the Discussion section.
• Line 392: There is a formatting inconsistency between inline quotations and block quotations. Please ensure consistency according to the journal's style guide.
• Lines 394–397: Same issue as Line 347 and Lines 360–379: move interpretive commentary to the Discussion.
• Line 454: The focus on Israeli participants is not made clear early enough. If this is a significant contextual factor, it should be introduced explicitly in the Introduction and acknowledged as a limitation regarding generalisability. Alternatively, if Israel is not intended as a focal point, references to it in the Discussion should be reframed accordingly.
• Lines 490–509: The Discussion section inappropriately turns into a literature review by introducing Social Identity Theory (SIT) without prior reference. If SIT is central to the interpretation, it should be introduced earlier in the manuscript.
• Discussion/Conclusion: The application of Grounded Theory and Field-Based Theory is insufficiently visible. As these methods were identified for data analysis, the Discussion should explicitly show how they shaped the interpretation of the findings.
• Line 534: Confirm that "homophile" is the intended term; "homophilic" may be more appropriate.
• Lines 535–553: The conclusion effectively highlights the study’s main contribution, challenging Granovetter’s assumptions about weak ties. However, it partially restates earlier results and remains somewhat general. The authors could enhance theoretical depth by engaging more explicitly with recent debates on online polarisation and self-censorship. Incorporating work by Dubois and Blank (The echo chamber is overstated, 2018) and drawing on Spiral of Silence theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974; Hampton et al., 2014) would further strengthen the analysis.

 

I recommend major revisions. The paper has significant potential but requires careful attention to references, methodological transparency, theoretical integration, and updated engagement with the field to meet the highest scholarly standards.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: This paper addresses an important and timely subject - the role of weak ties in shaping political participation in online environments. The study is well-organised, with a clear research question and structured argumentation. The paper’s main contribution, highlighting how weak ties might inhibit political expression in polarised contexts, is compelling and offers an important challenge to established theories.
Response:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging assessment. We are pleased that the significance and structure of the paper were appreciated.

Comment 2: However, there are several issues that, if addressed, could significantly strengthen the manuscript. These include unsupported claims, outdated references, inconsistent formatting, underdeveloped methodology sections, and insufficient integration of the announced analytical frameworks (Grounded Theory and Field-Based Theory). Greater engagement with current research debates would also enhance the theoretical depth of the paper.
Response:
We have addressed all these concerns in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we have added supporting references, updated citations, fixed formatting issues, expanded the methodological section, and integrated Grounded Theory and Field-Based Theory more thoroughly throughout our manuscript. Please find below our point-by-point response.

Comment 3: Lines 28–31: The claim regarding "previous research" is presented without citation. Please provide appropriate references to substantiate the statement.
Response:
We have added citations to relevant and recent literature that support this statement.

Comment 4: Lines 32–35: Same concern as above - claims need proper attribution to prior research.
Response:
These claims are now properly substantiated with prior research accordingly.

Comment 5: Lines 36–38: The use of Habermas here is not precise. While the argument loosely aligns with Habermas’s broader contributions, citing The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989) is not ideal. That work focuses on historical developments, not normative theories of deliberative democracy. A better reference would be Between Facts and Norms (1996).
Response:
We have replaced the citation with Between Facts and Norms and rephrased the argument to better reflect Habermas’s contributions to deliberative democracy.

Comment 6: Lines 36–38: Moreover, the claim relating to Habermas risks being overly simplistic. Given its foundational role in the paper, a more critical and nuanced engagement is recommended, possibly by incorporating alternative perspectives of democratic theory or further theoretical support.
Response:
We have revised the discussion to provide a more nuanced and critical engagement with Habermas, and have incorporated additional theoretical perspectives to balance the argument.

Comment 7: Line 39: The reliance on Beam’s paper (which is closed access) is problematic, as it is difficult to verify its contribution to the claim. The abstract does not substantiate the assertion made. Consider either removing this reference or supplementing it with more accessible and directly relevant literature (e.g. the next ones mentioned in the paper).
Response:
We have revised this section and supplemented this reference with additional, directly relevant, and accessible literature.

Comment 8: Lines 36–45: This discussion essentially introduces the concept of echo chambers. It would strengthen the paper to mention the term explicitly, as it plays a crucial role throughout the rest of the paper.
Response:
We have now explicitly introduced and defined "echo chambers" in this section and ensured consistent usage throughout the manuscript.

Comment 9: Lines 45–66: The text effectively identifies the central research problem and outlines a relevant gap. However, it would benefit from incorporating the contrasting insights from what is described in the “Heterogeneous Social Networks” section.
Response:
We revised this section to integrate the contrasting insights from the “Heterogeneous Social Networks” section and ensure a coherent build-up to our research question.

Comment 10: Lines 64–67: Greater clarity is needed regarding which social networks are the focus of the study. Facebook is briefly mentioned but not clearly established as the primary site of investigation.
Response:
We have now clearly stated that Facebook is the primary site of investigation and provide justification for this focus.

Comment 11: Line 93: The phrase "many researchers" is unsubstantiated. Avoid generalisations unless backed by clear citations.
Response:
We agree with this comment, and now have removed this phrase from our manuscript, in addition to a rephrase we carried regarding the following notion emerged.  

Comment 12: Lines 93–xx: The discussion of echo chambers would benefit from tying in the related issue of disinformation, a crucial and current topic closely connected to echo chamber effects.
Response:
Thank you for this observation. We added discussion on the interplay between echo chambers and disinformation, citing recent literature to enrich the theoretical framing.

Comment 13: Line 190: Please check the journal’s guidelines on footnotes; typically, footnotes are discouraged in favour of integrating the information into the main text.
Response:
We removed all footnotes per journal guidelines.

Comment 14: Line 195: There is a formatting issue with brackets within brackets. Please correct.
Response:
Corrected.

Comment 15: Line 195: Footnote 2 is unnecessary and explains a basic function of Facebook. Consider integrating the essential information into the main text.
Response:
Footnote 2 was removed and the essential information was integrated into the text.

 

Comment 16: Lines 168–238: As with previous footnotes, please review for compliance with journal style.
Response:
All footnotes were removed entirely.

Comment 17: Lines 168–238: This section offers an excellent explanation of the effects of weak and strong ties. However, it leans heavily on older literature, with only one cited work (Lu & Lee, 2020) published in the last five years. It is crucial to incorporate more recent studies, engaging substantively with their findings, to maintain academic relevance and rigour.
Response:
We have now incorporated several recent studies from in this section to ensure relevance and rigour.

Comment 18: Lines 252–258: The description of the research approach is severely underdeveloped. More detail is needed.
Response:
We substantially expanded this section to describe our interview protocol, sampling strategy, and the rationale for using semi-structured interviews.

Comment 19: Lines 259–268: Clarify how participants are referred to in the paper (e.g., P01, P02) and the rationale behind this coding.
Response:
This has been clarified in the methodology section, including rationale for pseudonym formatting and participant anonymity.

Comment 20: Lines 273–XX: Grounded Theory and Field-Based Theory appear suddenly without prior introduction. These methods should be briefly introduced earlier in the paper (e.g. in the introduction), with a short description of their relevance and advantages for this research in the methodology section.
Response:
We now introduce both frameworks in the Introduction and further elaborate on their use in the Methods section.

Comment 21: Line 297: Confirm the wording and placement of the ethical statement against the journal’s author guidelines.
Response:
We revised the placement and wording of the ethical statement to comply with journal policy.

Comment 22: Line 347: Remove evaluative language such as "Interestingly" from the Results section, which should remain strictly descriptive.
Response:
We removed evaluative language and ensured the Results section to be descriptive only.

Comment 23: Lines 360–379: Content that offers interpretation should be moved from the Results section to the Discussion section.
Response:
Done. All interpretive content was moved to the Discussion.

Comment 24: Line 392: There is a formatting inconsistency between inline quotations and block quotations. Please ensure consistency according to the journal's style guide.
Response:
Done. Formatting inconsistencies have been corrected.

Comment 25: Lines 394–397: Same issue as Line 347 and Lines 360–379: move interpretive commentary to the Discussion.
Response:
As mentioned above, all interpretive commentary was moved to the Discussion.

Comment 26: Line 454: The focus on Israeli participants is not made clear early enough. If this is a significant contextual factor, it should be introduced explicitly in the Introduction and acknowledged as a limitation regarding generalisability. Alternatively, if Israel is not intended as a focal point, references to it in the Discussion should be reframed accordingly.
Response:
We have now state clearly in the Introduction that the study focuses on young Israeli participants and address generalizability limitations in the Conclusion, regarding the turbulent nature of the Israeli politics and state of polarization.

Comment 27: Lines 490–509: The Discussion section inappropriately turns into a literature review by introducing Social Identity Theory (SIT) without prior reference. If SIT is central to the interpretation, it should be introduced earlier in the manuscript.
Response:
We agree with this comment. As a result, we have introduced SIT earlier in the manuscript and reframed its role in the discussion accordingly.

Comment 28: Discussion/Conclusion: The application of Grounded Theory and Field-Based Theory is insufficiently visible. As these methods were identified for data analysis, the Discussion should explicitly show how they shaped the interpretation of the findings.
Response:
We revised the Discussion to explicitly reflect how Grounded Theory and Field-Based Theory informed our interpretation.

Comment 29: Line 534: Confirm that "homophile" is the intended term; "homophilic" may be more appropriate.
Response:
We revised to "homophilic" as appropriate.

Comment 30: Lines 535–553: The conclusion effectively highlights the study’s main contribution, challenging Granovetter’s assumptions about weak ties. However, it partially restates earlier results and remains somewhat general. The authors could enhance theoretical depth by engaging more explicitly with recent debates on online polarisation and self-censorship. Incorporating work by Dubois and Blank (The echo chamber is overstated, 2018) and drawing on Spiral of Silence theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974; Hampton et al., 2014) would further strengthen the analysis.
Response:
We have revised the Conclusion to engage with these debates and integrated a specific discussion regarding the work of Dubois and Blank. Nonetheless, we found that the theory of Spiral of Silence could lead us to several other directions, as we believe it will be fruitful to engage with this framework more thoroughly in future work.
We hope that the revisions meet the expectations of the reviewers and the journal. Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the comments by the authors in response to reviewer comments, and am satisfied with how the paper better grounds itself as a qualitative, constructivist paper. I do think that there is additional copy editing that is needed as several of the areas highlighted in yellow have small typos and spacing issues. I appreciate the updated literature cited and I appreciate the further explanations on qualitative research in the manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 122: "centeral" to "central"

Line 264: clunky language "to, to" in a row. Consider a slight reword.

Line 322: Please consider the following rewording to reduce repetition and add clarity (a minor suggestion): “The study was approved by the [Formal name of the Ethics Committee or relevant body] at Tel Aviv University, chaired by [Name of the Committee President], on [Date], under approval number [####].”

Some journals require explicit documentation of ethics approval when human subjects are involved. Even if Social Sciences does not mandate this, including such information is generally considered good academic practice.

Line 366: double comma. This also replaced previous interpretative qualifiers like "interestingly". "Notably" is just a synonym. please remove.

Line 457: "thatmost"

Line 494: psychologicalSIT

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a few minor errors, such as missing spaces and editing artifacts. I recommend a thorough revision of the text and/or the use of proofreading software to catch small typos.