Emotional Narratives in the TikTok Era: A Comprehensive Analysis of Comments on Self-Help Videos
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is interesting and empirical research is needed on interaction in social media environments, because for young people in particular, it is part of everyday life. Nevertheless, the manuscript should be improved in some respects.
Introduction: In the introduction section, there are quite a lot of text without references, even though it is evident that authors have cited earlier literature. For example, in the first paragraph, there is only one text reference.
Literature review/Previous research: This is missing although the authors mention in the methodology section that a thorough literature review was conducted. I suggest that authors write about previous studies: how the topic has been studied before, from what perspectives, using what methods, what has been observed in these studies, and what has been left out. In this way, it is possible to highlight a potential research gap that this study fills.
Theoretical background: The authors write in the abstract that 'Grounded in theories of digital affordances' but these theories are not explained, and there is no justification for why they are suitable as the theoretical starting points for this study.
Material and methods: The description of the method is superficial and too vague. As a reader, I would like to know who the TikTokers selected for the study are and why they were chosen. How was the data from the comments section gathered? Was some data science methods perhaps used? If so, which ones. The same applies to the survey: what was done, how and where the survey was distributed, possibly some demographic data. What analysis method was used to analyze the survey, was any analysis software used to assist in the process?
Results: The results are nicely illustrated with images but what are the differences between Emotional reaction when reading comments on TikTok, Emotional responses to reading comments on TikTok, and Impact of comments on TikTok? For me, distinctions between these three are not clear and I recommend clarifying them.
Discussion and conclusions: These sections seem unfinished and resemble notes. The authors should synthesize the results here and avoid just repeating them. The discussion section answers the research questions (were there any?) and engages in dialogue with regard to theory and previous research. Also, strengths and limitations of the research need to be considered.
Author Response
Please find authors' responses to the reviewers attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are several issues to be addressed in this manuscript.
- On Page 4, while the content analysis is applied to TikTok messages, there are inconsistent elaborations for the paragraph starting with “The bibliographic review process was conducted thoroughly, with a comprehensive 141 search for information in high-impact databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and 142 Google Scholar”. I don’t think the paper is conducting a systematic or meta-review on TikTok research. Please clarify.
- On Page 4, “To complement the content analysis, a structured survey based on the Likert scale was designed and administered to a sample of 336 participants, randomly selected from a population of more than 8,000 individuals. This survey measured attitudes, perceptions, and emotions associated with the content of the four videos, providing a quantitative per perspective on the emotional impact of the messages on users” There is no elaboration on what variables were measured in the survey and how they’re related to the TikTok content analysis. I understand it’s a descriptive study, but it is necessary to demonstrate why the survey is introduced. In addition, please write your research questions or hypotheses in the literature review part.
- There is no illustration of what analytical tools were used to generate the result. Particularly, what types of content analysis, human or machine coding, were deployed to create the three levels of content categories from the TikTok comments? Please add the demonstration back in the revision.
- I’m confused about why the authors focused on the three self-help influencers rather than others. What criteria do the authors use to select their message samples?
- No need to include the citations in the abstract. Also, all the figures are not clear to view.
Author Response
Please find authors' responses to the reviewers attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments :
Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and well-developed manuscript. The study offers a valuable contribution to the growing body of research on digital emotions, algorithmic dynamics, and user interaction on TikTok. The integration of semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic analyses with survey data is particularly commendable and provides a comprehensive perspective on how users engage emotionally with self-help content. The introduction is theoretically rich, the methodology is clearly articulated, and the findings are well supported by the empirical evidence presented.
That said, several areas would benefit from further refinement to enhance clarity, coherence, and scholarly rigor:
- Strengthen the coherence and conciseness of the Introduction
While the literature review is extensive and well-documented, the introduction could be more concise. Some paragraphs include overlapping theoretical discussions. Streamlining these sections would help foreground the research gap more clearly and enhance readability.
- Clarify sampling and selection criteria
Although the methodology is generally well described, the process for selecting the specific TikTok videos and handling the 4,206 comments could be detailed more precisely. Clarifying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the time frame of data collection, and potential biases in video selection would strengthen methodological transparency.
- Expand on limitations
The study would benefit from a short, explicit limitations subsection. For example, the restriction to three influencers, the geographic and demographic profile of survey participants, and the challenges inherent in interpreting short-form comments could all affect generalizability.
- Improve transitions in the Discussion section
The discussion presents insightful interpretations, and the SAC model is a notable conceptual contribution. However, some transitions between ideas are abrupt. Smoother transitions would help readers follow the logical development of the argument more easily.
- Minor linguistic and stylistic improvements
The manuscript is generally well written, but several long sentences could be tightened to improve clarity. A light language edit is recommended to enhance academic tone and fluency.
- Improve clarity and consistency of the figures
Several figures (e.g., Figures 1–10) would benefit from higher resolution, clearer labeling, and more consistent formatting. Enhancing the visual quality of the charts, particularly the text size, color contrast, legend clarity, and overall readability, will make the results easier for readers to interpret. Consider standardizing the style across all figures to improve visual coherence.
- Enhance the conclusion with practical implications
The conclusion is strong, but could further emphasize how the SAC framework might be applied in future empirical studies or in platform policy design. Adding a brief recommendation for practitioners or platform designers would increase the manuscript’s applied relevance.
this is a well-executed and meaningful study that offers original insights into emotional expression and algorithmic engagement on TikTok. With minor revisions aimed at improving clarity and precision, the manuscript has strong potential for publication.
Author Response
Please find authors' responses to the reviewers attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript, methodology section in particular. However, I still have a few suggestions for improving the manuscript. First, sections 3 and 4 are very brief, and the references in the section 3, specifically, could be more up to date. Research into social media, affectivity, and well-being has been vibrant for some time, so these recent studies could be utilized here. Second, the discussion section still lacks interplay with previous research. I recommend that authors compare the results of this research with previous studies and explain what new insights this research has brought to light in relation to what was previously known.
Author Response
Please find authors' responses to the reviewers attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe four research questions should be in the section of "study objective" or other literature parts, not in the methodology section.
Author Response
Please find authors' responses to the reviewers attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
